Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC) December 7, 2015 … · 2016-07-07 · IEC Meeting...
Transcript of Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC) December 7, 2015 … · 2016-07-07 · IEC Meeting...
IEC Meeting Minutes Monday, December 7, 2015 1
Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC) December 7, 2015 Minutes
Committee Chair(s): Faculty:
Lan Hao, Co-chair P Stephanie Yee P
Roberta Eisel, Co-chair P Dennis Korn A
Management: Academic Senate/Faculty:
Arvid Spor A Alfie Swan P
Claudette Dain P Supervisor/Confidential:
Rosalinda Buchwald A Marilyn Grinsdale P
Lucinda Over P Classified:
Jim McClain P Cathy Napoli P
Linda Welz A Cathy Day P
Robert Sammis A ASCC:
Martha McDonald P Ruben Romero A
Kathryn Jameson-Meledy A P = Present; A = Absent
I. Approval of Minutes
Minutes from the October 26, 2015 meeting were approved by consensus.
II. IEPI Report (Attachment One) Cathy Day attended the Community College League of California (CCLC) annual conference in November and provided an oral report to IEC:
Cathy shared a few interesting statistics from the YouTube video shown at the beginning of one of the conference sessions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJjfDUzD7M
A current IEPI structure was provided. The structure includes an Executive Committee and an Advisory Committee. Every college in California (113) adopted a goals indicator framework and agreed to set goals by June 30, 2015.
They reported that funding is still available but it was not uppermost in the presentation as in last year’s; this year was more about the completion of year 1 and the movement into the indicators/reporting for year 2 as well as what is coming for year 3.
The team seemed quite focused on the Technical Assistance portion of the IEPI: 31 institutions are currently scheduled for technical assistance spanning spring 2015 - (8 institutions); fall 2015 - (15 colleges, 1 center, and 1 district); spring 2016 – (6 institutions) and an additional (7) of the (10) colleges currently with accreditation sanctions are being served by PRT – Partnership Resource Teams in addition to numerous IEPI sponsored workshops.
IEC Meeting Minutes Monday, December 7, 2015 2
II. IEPI Report (continued)
As funding grows and is funneled into this program, it will continue to expand with continued growth in the area of policies, procedures, practices, a Professional Learning Network including a revitalization of professional development, and a strategic communications program to ensure all colleges and their districts are connected, understand the value of the program and can reap the benefits of the Initiative.
Claudette added the following comments:
The Chancellor’s office recently sent a letter to all districts – They have hired an external group called Interact Communications (IC) (a
community college-focused marketing firm): http://www.interactcom.com/ The Chancellor’s office would like IC to conduct research on how they can scale-up
their communications about IEPI to the community colleges emphasizing best practices, providing technical assistance and training and offer support to the community colleges
In support of this research effort, Citrus College will be participating in a focus group involving all areas of the campus with Claudette as the point person
There will be upcoming discussions about who will participate in the focus group via a nomination process
III. Review of Integrated Planning Manual Cross Review (Attachment Two)
The following committees have reviewed their respective pages from the 2014-2015 IPM:
Page 12 Educational Programs, Physical Resources. Student Services will review the page at their next meeting, Thursday, Dec. 10
Page 13 Physical Resources Pages 16-17 Program Review Page 18 Financial Resources
Pages that still need to be reviewed include:
Page 14 College Information Technology Page 15 Human Resources
There are several pages to be reviewed by IEC: pages 5-10 and 19. Lan and Roberta will preview these pages and bring suggested revisions back to the committee.
External Relations has provided photos for the 2015-2016 IPM publication
Marilyn has been tasked with drafting the President’s letter
The cross-review process was discussed: The cross-review will begin in spring 2016. It is not necessary that a cross-reviewing committee have an understanding of
the committee whose page(s) they are reviewing. The cross-review will go beyond simply proof reading. The cross-review will be done from the perspective that anyone reading the
IPM will have a clear idea of the purpose and responsibilities of that committee. There will be a guiding statement/rubric to be completed by the reviewer
upon completion of the review. The cross-review will ensure that the IPM has gone through a thorough
Governance vetting process.
IEC Meeting Minutes Monday, December 7, 2015 3
IV. Review of Integrated Planning Model (Attachment Three)
The discussion began by addressing the direction of the arrows and what they represent: The arrows can be interpreted as a guide of what informs the next step. Arrows imply process to the casual observer. The arrow from Strategic Plan and Board Goals should go both directions. All items on the Model represent major institution planning components. Color-coding explained:
o GREEN = process o BLUE = related to Program Review o ORANGE = plans
Some steps are done annually; some are long-term (Strategic Plan is every 5-years; EFMP is every 10-years).
Plan time-periods omitted to avoid confusion. The model is meant to be a bird’s-eye view of processes and the relationships among the major planning efforts of the school – it is not meant to represent a timeline.
We do not want to create lines of authority or control. The goal is to show the dynamic process for which things happen.
Should there be a line coming from Mission, Vision, Values to Board Goals? Pertaining to the 4 green boxes – should the arrows be going both directions or
should they depict a cycle? The order of Program Improvement and Assessment should be switched. It was suggested to remove the arrows throughout the document and only have
lines showing that items are linked or associated. The group agreed to replace the arrows with lines and change the placement of
the GREEN boxes to illustrate a cycle. V. Institution-set Standards
ACCJC Standard I.B.3.
The institution establishes institution-set standards for student achievement, appropriate to its mission, assesses how well it is achieving them in pursuit of continuous improvement, and publishes this information. (ER 11)
Roberta: The revised ACCJC standard (now in effect as of 2012) calls much closer attention to institutional-set standards over and above the few questions appearing on the ACCJC Annual Report. We should be looking at other areas of student achievement where we want to set aspirational goals. The expectation will be that we have a metrics in place to define and assess progress towards those goals. Claudette asked for clarification: Do the goals we set for the IEPI indicators and our Institution Set Standards (ISS)
contain the same (or similar) language? Roberta clarified: Our ISS can be seen in the IEPI indicators and the ACCJC Annual Report. The group looked at the ACCJC Standard IB.1-4 (annotated version).
We can expect to receive the ACCJC Annual Report in March 2016.
We should respond to the ACCJC Standard via the Annual Report and IEPE standards.
IEC Meeting Minutes Monday, December 7, 2015 4
V. Institution-set Standards (continued)
IEC should be the body at Citrus College to carry-on the conversation about institution-set standards.
Lan will bring visuals to the next IEC meeting which will include metrics of basic set standards (i.e., degrees, certificates, transfer, course completion, etc.) and will also include historic data.
We should also have a clear understanding of the annotations.
The final product should meet both IEPI and ACCJC annual reports requirements.
VI. Review and Status Check of IEC 2015-2016 Responsibilities (Attachment Four)
The group reviewed the Responsibilities from the 2015-2016 Purpose Statement. We have done a significant amount of work in the fall semester and still have several projects we need to be addressed in the spring. #1 is DONE #2 is IN PROGRESS #3a is DONE #4a we haven’t done that #4b has not been started #5 needs to be finalized #6 needs to be done #7 has not been started #8 discussion started
VII. BP/AP 3225: Institutional Effectiveness Tabled to February 22, 2016 meeting. VII. Other Reports None Meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Remaining meetings: February 22, 2016 March 28, 2016 April 25, 2016 May 23, 2016 June 6, 2016
Recording secretary: Jody Barrass Administrative Secretary, IRPE
INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
REPORT – CCLC CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER, 2015 – CATHY DAY
Presenters Dr. Dianne Van Hook, Chancellor, College of the Canyons, Dr. Barry Gribbons, Deputy
Chancellor, College of the Canyons, Ms. Theresa Tena, Vice Chancellor, California Community College
Chancellor’s Office, Dr. Paul Steenhausen, Executive Director, Success Center, and Dr. Matthew Lee,
Project Director, Institutional Effectiveness Partnership Initiative.
Presentation began with a short, fascinating YouTube clip found at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJjfDUzD7M
The current IEPI structure is made up of:
Executive Committee:
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office
College of the Canyons
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges
Foothill College
Success Center (funded by Kresge Foundation)
Advisory Committee:
66 members from 20 statewide organizations
Formed into workgroups to provide input to the Executive Committee on the initiative’s four
major components
The IEPI Major Components:
Indicators
Partnership Resource Teams
Professional Development
Policy, Procedures, and Practice
The context for indicator framework:
Statutorily required
Board of Governors adopted Year-One framework March 16, 2015
All 112 colleges adopted goals framework and set goals by June 30, 2015
https://misweb.cccco.edu/ie/DistrictSelect.aspx
Indicators for Year 1:
Student Outcomes (Achievement) – including Completion (prepared/unprepared/overall),
Remedial Rate (Math, English, ESL), and Course Completion Rate*
Attachment One
Accreditation Status*
Fiscal Viability – Fund Balance*
State and Federal Programmatic Compliance – Overall Audit Opinion*
(*) indicates indicators requiring a target to be set by colleges
Indicators for Year 2:
Course Completion Rate: Change to Fall from Annual
College Choice: Unprepared/Basic Skills
College Choice (Additional Optional)
Audit Separate into Three
(Goals are required as well as confirmation that an additional achievement indicator is required from the
original year 1)
Indicators for Year 3:
Access: Participation Rate – traditional plus GIS and Percent of Students who apply registering
Employment and Wage Data – CTE Outcomes Survey and EDD Data
Dozens of additional indicators to help with internal planning
Limit the number of required targets
Disaggregations
Pilot visualizations
The Technical Assistance portion of the IEPI is made up of Partnership Resource Teams (PRTs):
Peers (faculty, administrators, classified professionals, trustees)
Utilize the “appreciative inquiry” approach
Strive to be positive, constructive, and solution-oriented
Provide assistance without judgment or predetermined courses of action
Provide an opportunity to brainstorm ideas and share challenges with peers
Underlying governance and resource issues surface and become evident
Are a professional development opportunity for volunteers statewide
Regarding technical assistance:
31 institutions selected to receive technical assistance by Partnership Resource Teams:
The spring 2015 cohort includes 8 institutions
The fall 2015 cohort includes 15 colleges, 1 center, and 1 district
The spring 2016 cohort includes 6 institutions
Seven (7) of the ten (10) colleges currently with accreditation sanctions are being served
by PRTs
A pool of more than 230 subject matter experts from within CCC system populate PRTs
Application link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/IEPI-PRT-ExpertiseInventory2015-2
PRT Training occurs twice each year, through a webinar and two face-to-face workshops
Attachment One
Technical Assistance – Areas of Focus:
Integrated planning at all levels, with resource allocation
SLO and SAO assessment, reporting, improvement, and integration with institutional planning
Using student success and achievement data for improving decision-making and institutional
effectiveness
Enrollment management
Delineation of function between college and district
Technology tools for monitoring and management of institutional effectiveness processes
Improvement of governance, decision-making, and communication
Fiscal management and strategies
Partnership Resource Team Observations
Lessons learned
Institutional visits – what was the most helpful observation to your institution?
Suggestions for going forward?
Through November, 2015, a total of more than 1,000 participants have attended IEPI-sponsored
workshops. ‘Coming Attractions’ include:
Additional Student Support (Re)defined Workshops
Inmate/Re-Entry Education
Integrated Planning
Audit and Fiscal Issues
A ‘Professional Learning Network’ has an anticipated release scheduled of December, 2015. This will
pull together hundreds of resources by topic and will include a system-wide calendar in addition to
other features.
PPP (Policy, Procedures, and Practice) Work and Proposals include the initiation of a communication
plan and collection of successful college practices to share with other California Community Colleges as
well as a proposal to conduct research to see what we can learn from reviewing IE practices and
standards used in other states. Additional proposals include the idea of developing a list (or rubric) of
best practices in areas identified in Letters of Interest as well as the formation of a community of
practice for ALOs or College Accreditation Liaison Officers and Chairs.
Subsequent steps: Given the 2015-16 budget augmentation ($2.5M to $17.5M) and the Chancellor’s
Office additional 6 new staff:
Expand number of colleges, districts, and centers served
Year-2 IEPI goals framework adopted by Board of Governors at November, 2015 meeting.
Roll out IEPI Strategic Communications – ensure colleges/districts and external audiences
understand value and benefits of IEPI
Attachment One
Establish a voluntary Community of Practice focused on colleges/districts visited by PRTs. IEPI
set a goal to have the first multi-day cohort in spring, 2016
$12M to identify and disseminate effective practices – Board of Governors to award RFP at
November, 2015 meeting
Develop content/materials
Dedicate staff to develop content and coordinate activity
Deploy resources to disseminate content – in person, online, regional
Support the Professional Learning Network
Evaluate activity
In addition to the presentation, two additional items were documented:
2.12 – Presented to the Board of Governors – Approval of Institutional Effectiveness Specialized Training
Contract: This item presents the Institutional Effectiveness Division’s $12 million specialized training
contract award for approval. It is hoped this funding will allow for enhancing student access, success,
equity and assist in avoiding accreditation sanctions and audit findings as well as assistance and support
for emerging initiatives. The plan is to revitalize and re-envision Professional Development and
confirm/support evidence based decision making.
2.13 – Presented to the Board of Governors – Institutional Effectiveness, Framework of Indicators: This
item requests approval of the Framework of Indicators which include select metrics on which
colleges/districts will set goals pursuant to the requirements of Education Code section 84754.6.
Attachment One
Review of the Integrated Planning Manual Fall 2015 IEC, 12/7/2015
PAGE DESCRIPTION RESPONSIBLE COMMITTEE CONTACT PERSON/ Reviewers
Cross Review
1 Cover N/A Lan
2-3 Completion Pledge N/A Linda W.
4 Presidential letter N/A Linda W./Marilyn G.
5 Table of Contents I.E.C. Lan & Roberta/all IEC members
6 Introduction I.E.C. Lan & Roberta/all IEC members
7 I.P.M. Narrative I.E.C. Lan & Roberta/all IEC members
8 I.P.M. Flow Chart I.E.C. Lan & Roberta/all IEC members
9 Mission, Vision, Values I.E.C.
Lan & Roberta/all IEC members
10 Strategic Plan I.E.C. Lan & Roberta/all IEC members
11 Board Goals N/A Lan Dr. Perri
12 E.F.M.P.
EPC, SSC, Physical Resources Arvid, Martha, & Claudette
13 Sustainability Plan
Physical Resources Committee Claudette
14 Technology Plan CITC Linda W.
15 Human Resources Plan H.R. Committee Robert S.
16-17 Program Review Program Review Committee Roberta
18 Resource Allocation
Financial Resources Committee Claudette
19
Plan Implementation/ Assessment/ Program Improvement I.E.C. Lan & Roberta/all IEC members
20 Board Roster N/A Linda W. /Paula G.
Attachment Two
INTEGRATED PLANNING MODEL An ongoing and systematic cycle of evaluation that ensures the improvement of institutional effectiveness
Mission, Vision, Values Serves as the basis for all
college planning
Strategic PlanGuides the direction of the
college’s energies and resources
Board GoalsRespond to Board’s role in
accomplishing institutional goals and strategic objectives
Educational and Facilities Master Plan
Charts the college’s long-term course toward accomplishing its
mission, vision, and values
Institutional Support Plans Developed to meet those goals and
objectives from the Strategic Plan and Educational and Facilities Master Plan
Human Resources Plan Meets the strategic
objectives aligned with Human Resources
Technology Plan Guides the implementation of technology at the college
Instructional Program Review Vehicle for ongoing
integration of the needs and recommendations for the
college’s instructional support programs
Academic Support Program Review Vehicle for ongoing
integration of the needs and recommendations for the
college’s academic support programs
Student Services Program Review Vehicle for ongoing
integration of the needs and recommendations for the college’s student services
programs
Annual Implementation Plan/Progress Report
Establishes the timeline for accomplishing annual goals; reports the results and success levels of the
annual plan
Resource Allocation Links program reviews and
strategic planning to resources needed to accomplish
institutional goals
Plan Implementation Manages timelines, assesses levels of success and reports
activities and results
Program Improvement Uses assessment findings to
make necessary changes
Sustainability PlanActualizes the strategic
objectives regarding sustainability
Institutional Support Program Review
Vehicle for ongoing integration of the needs and
recommendations for the college’s institutional support
programs
Assessment Documents progress, reviews
planning components and makes modifications Excerpted from 2014-2015 IPM
Approved by IEC on 11/24/2014
Attachment Three
The Citrus College Mission, Vision, and Values
share a common theme — To ensure student
learning, success, and academic goal completion
through the establishment of measurable
institutional objectives. This systematic process is
an ongoing campus-wide endeavor accomplished,
in part, through the implementation of:
Student Learning Outcomes and
Assessment (SLOA)
Data and Analysis
Program Review
Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment:
Citrus College is committed to the process of
student learning outcomes and assessment
(SLOA) at all levels and in all areas. At Citrus,
faculty, staff, administrators, and students all
share in the student learning outcomes and
assessment process. Recommendations
generated from assessment analysis are
integrated into institutional planning through
the process of program review. The College
continually evaluates and fine-tunes
organizational structures to support student
learnings of campus culture. Data and Analysis:
The Office of Institutional Research, Planning
and Effectiveness supports the college’s
mission by providing data and analysis
mostly related to program reviews in Instruc-
tion, Academic Support and Student Services
programs; the identification of measurable
outcomes; and benchmarking progress
toward longstanding institutional priorities
and commitments. Objectives, activities and
programs calling for increased student
access, equity, success, persistence, and
completion of educational or vocational goals
require proper identification of outcomes and
data to hone in on targets for improvement
and change. Although it is each program and
department’s responsibility to initiate the
research study needed for evaluation and
program improvement, the Office of IRPE
provides support through research and data
analysis to assist the departments in meeting
their goals.
Program Review:
At Citrus College, program review is the vehicle
for ongoing integration of student learning and
completion information, program needs, and
recommendations with the college allocation
processes and institutional planning. Citrus
College conducts review of its programs
throughout the institution to ensure responsive-
ness to the needs of the college community and
to ensure students have the opportunity to
achieve outcomes in areas of institutional core
competencies. Programs identify goals and
resource needs and link them to the major
institutional planning documents, in particular, the
Educational and Facilities Master Plan and the
Strategic Plan. Programs analyze data to support
planning and allocation decisions.
The Financial Resources Committee reviews
and considers funding requests from the
Program Review Process.
Attachment Three
CITRUS COLLEGE INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS COMMITTEE
2015-2016 PURPOSE STATEMENT
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee is a standing committee of the Citrus College Steering Committee. The purpose of the Committee is to review and make recommendations on matters regarding institutional effectiveness, i.e. the review and assessment of the integrated planning process and the means by which it is linked to the institutional planning processes. The committee is charged with advancing the college mission by promoting an ongoing, collegial, self-reflective dialogue based on a culture of evidence and data-driven decision-making. The committee engages in the design and implementation of assessment tools that evaluate and improve institutional effectiveness. Also, the committee oversees functions and responsibilities related to ACCJC standard I.B. Institutional Effectiveness. RESPONSIBILITIES FOR 2015-2016
1. Contribute to and participate in accreditation-related activities.
2. Review and update the Integrated Planning Manual.
3. In support of the Program Review Committee and HotShots, continue assessment of
program review and student learning outcome processes through the following:
a. Repeat survey of program review users in all four areas (Academic Support,
Institutional Support, Instruction, and Student Services);
b. Continue to assess and improve college-wide engagement in program review
and student learning outcomes.
4. Assess the progress made towards goals set in the Educational and Facilities Master Plan
(EFMP) through the following:
a. Update assessment tables for EFMP.
b. Write an executive summary of findings.
5. Develop a flow chart that describes the route that program review recommendations
travel throughout the college, including the report back to the recommendation
initiator.
6. Conduct analysis of program review new/funded recommendations and provide an
executive summary.
7. Monitor the timeline for the cyclical review of Mission, Strategic Plan, Educational &
Facilities Master Plan, Technology Plan, Sustainability Plan, Human Resources Plan,
program review and student learning outcome assessment.
8. Review the 2014-2015 IEPI goals and results. Develop new goals if needed.
FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS: Monthly in primary terms.
Attachment Four
IEC 2015-2016 Purpose Statement Page 2
DAY/TIME OF MEETING: 4:00 to 5:00 p.m., in CI 159, following the last Steering Committee meeting of the month. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP:
Director of Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness (co-chair)
Program Review Coordinator (Faculty Co-chair)
Accreditation Liaison Officer
Accreditation Faculty Co-chair
Academic Senate President
Student Learning Outcome Assessment Coordinator
Chairs of the Steering standing committees
Representatives from academic affairs
Representatives from student services
Representatives from financial and administrative services
Faculty Reps
Classified Staff Reps
Supervisor/Confidential Reps
ASCC Reps Approved by IEC on September 14, 2015
Attachment Four