March 19, 2015 Meeting
Agenda
Minutes
Strategic Planning Committee
2:00 p.m., Thursday, March 19, 2015
Cafeteria Conference Room
Goals and prioritization
Possible goals from last meeting
o Calendaring/scheduling system
o Comprehensive Program Review
o Program review
Where to focus our efforts
o Comprehensive Program Review needs to be built on Annual Program Review
o Time to re-examine Annual Program Review
Discussion of 鈥渨hy we do Program Review鈥�
o Required
i. by Title 5
ii. by ACCJC (throughout standards, but particularly I.A (mission) and I.B (effectiveness)
o Functional, not compliance
i. Motivate/support resource planning (planned requests)
ii. Provide criteria for other resource decisions (unplanned requests)
iii. (Re)assess external demand
iv. Create (standard) performance profile (# students, etc.)
1. Measures workflow (budget, SLO鈥檚) => Governance Council
v. Motivate program improvement
vi. Provides link with institutional planning
vii. (Re)align with mission
Discussion of what it would look like to accomplish the 鈥渨hy鈥檚鈥�
o Baseline data/analysis
i. Use existing program review (baseline) data set 鈥� no change needed
ii. Augment with baseline 鈥渁nalysis鈥�
1. Discussion what should that analysis look like?
2. Need to focus, use 鈥渕inimum viable鈥� strategy, progressively focus
Comprehensive PR => PR => baseline analysis => 80% => triage
May be more to work on than can be done immediately 鈥� use idea of 鈥渢riage鈥� to
focus even further on highest priority sub-80% courses
Incorporate 鈥渉alf done is not done鈥� strategy 鈥� do less, to completion of full
improvement cycle
3. Broad use of 80% rule on course completion as the baseline analysis
a. Flow into student success (SSSP), equity, budget, Academic Senate
4. Augment with retention
5. MVPR (Minimum Viable Program Review) addresses courses that fall below
80%,
6. More strongly 鈥� need to have addressed sub-80% courses before proposing
beyond that
o Establishing spending 鈥渃riteria鈥� more than soon-to-be-outdated decisions
i. Captures alignment with mission, strategic intent and priorities better than fixed set of momentary 鈥渘eeds鈥�, 鈥渨ants鈥�
o Timeline that is short-cycle
i. Not current problem of decision sets that are 1-2 years old
ii. Quick process anchored in standard analysis, adaptive, agile
o Make real the alignment of SLO鈥檚 飪� student achievement 飪� budgets
o MVPR 鈥� Minimum Viable Program Review
i. Purpose is to tell a story that supports both planned and unplanned spending decisions
ii. Could be as short as couple of pages if properly anchored in the standard analysis
(NOT just presenting standard dataset without the story鈥�)
o Incremental/Integrated
i. Extend idea from accreditation discussion that *defines* committee work in terms
of accreditation standards
ii. Similarly, *define* program review work in existing context(s), not a periodic
chore unrelated to the regular work of the college
1. Academic Senate
2. Committees (e.g. budget)
3. Division/departmental meetings
Where to start? Next steps?
o Bring these ideas to the Governance Council 鈥� essential role in all resource decisions
o Create standard analysis
i. 80% rule to identify disproportionately impacted courses vis-脿-vis completion
(Not disaggregated by demographics for purposes of Program Review 鈥� that work done
elsewhere by Student Success and Equity committees)
ii. 80% rule vis-脿-vis retention
o SPC to analyze/refine the 鈥渟tandard analysis鈥�
o SPC proposal for process to create budget
i. Decisions 鈥� for long-cycle, strategic decisions, (generally) larger scope
ii. Priorities, criteria 鈥� for short-cycle, tactical decisions, (generally) smaller
scope
iii. Define 鈥渢hresholds and exceptions鈥� processes for decisions/priorities/criteria
1. For District funding
2. For categorical funding
3. For grants
o Bring budget decisions/priorities/criteria *process* proposal back to Governance Council for discussion
MW/by