Members Present: Eric Bérubé, Darcy Bogle, Greg Hawkins, Vicki Jacobi, Mark Williams

Members Absent: Diane Baeza, Agnes JEguaras

Secretary: Brandy Young

Overview – Equity Plan – Mark Williams

Mark distributed a copy of the Executive Summary section of the Equity Plan and gave a brief description of the timeline to completion. A draft of the plan will go to the Board on December 9th for review. The overview of the Equity Plan and key points:

Defining disproportionate impact (DI)
Establishing disproportionate impact (DI)
o Master DI Success List
o Cohort selection
o Managed success
Intervention
o Filtering
o Sorting
o Stratification
o Selection
Goals
Activities to achieve goals
o “Equity First” SSSP Integration
Foster youth
Veterans
o “Equity First” AB86 plan integration
o Communication Strategy
o Persistence Support
o Peer Mentors
o Success Coaches
o Completion Coaches
o Success Plus
o Enrollment ManagementBudget allocation
o It was stated that the Equity Plan is not a funding source, but a coherent plan with activities that have been budgeted for.
Eric made a statement that in his experiences with these types of studies, looking at a snap shot in time may be dangerous. Because there are fluctuations between semesters, data may not show true trends. He recommended a study of data over a period of three years. Other Committee
members expressed agreement and suggested that all plans follow the same consistent practice to study data over a period of three years. It was also recommended that the assessment of SLOs follow a three year pattern. It was stated that when the sample size is large, a shorter time frame may be used. When the sample size is small, a longer time frame should be used. It is important to measure the same strategy.

Mark distributed a draft copy of the Planning and Collaboration section of the Equity Plan. This section of the plan depicts the history and planning processes. The document describes the roles of the Access and Success committees and stresses the point that the Strategic Planning Committee is central to the planning process.

Overview – AB86 – Mark Williams

AB86 is a Consortium project that will launch an Adult Education project in Taft and surrounding rural towns. The Consortium consists of Taft Union High School, Maricopa High School and Taft College.

The focus areas (strategies of outreach) in the program are:
o ESL
o Literacy
o High School Completion (GED)
o Citizenship
There will be six outreach centers:
o Taft Union High School
o Maricopa High School
o Taft – possibly the Methodist Church and other locations
o The other three locations have not been decided upon yet but it has been suggested that ESRI (data base software that is used for geographic mapping) be used to identify the areas of need.
The goal is to “weave” the AB86 program in to the Equity Plan.
A statement was made that the English 800 course at Taft College does not have a floor. It is hopeful with the establishment of AB86 that pre-collegiate faculty and staff can identify those students that would benefit from the AB86 program and then continue on to Taft College in the Basic Skills courses.
It was stated that there needs to be a bridge for these students to transition.
AB86 → GED → Comprehensive Ed Plan → Persistence
Staffing of AB86 has begun. Taft College will facilitate the recruiting process.

Draft – Revised Program Review Forms – Eric Bérubé

Eric presented the revised Annual Program Review Form and the Annual Goal Form for 2016/17. The changes to the forms were minimal:
Annual Program Review Form
o Added PEMs (Program Effectiveness Measures) and Other Outcome Data to the Program Outcome Data Type list
o A whole page will be dedicated to the Program Outcome(s) section IIC
o Section III: Program Student Learning Outcomes Data – Summary will change from Section Level to Course Level
Annual Program Goal Form
o It was recommended that the Data Types are consistent with the APRR
As stated in the Charter, the Committee must check all Annual Program Reviews and Goal forms to ensure that the reports are true Program Review and not a reiteration of the outcomes data.

IEPI Metrics and Goals – Darcy Bogle

The IEPI standards will be increasing from 18 to 22 this year. It was suggested that the College evaluate and set goals for eight standards instead of four. The deadline to submit the goals to the Chancellor’s office is June 30th. This topic will be a future item of discussion in upcoming meetings.

Update – Data Standards Workgroup – Mark Williams

Mark informed the Committee that there is a new workgroup. The Data Standards Workgroup will focus on improving the accuracy of data across the campus and develop data definitions that will be used campus-wide.

Next Meeting: Friday, January 15, 2016 – 8:10 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. in the Café Conference Room

Respectfully submitted by Brandy Young
Attached (1) photo

SPC Minutes 12-4-2015

SPC Agenda 12-04-2015

1. Accreditation Team Guests
2. Comprehensive Enrollment Model
3. Next Meeting time and date

SPC Agenda 09-30-15

1. Comprehensive Program Planning/Review
2. Access Committee and Cognos Club

• Review the work that has been done in replicating Annual Program Review reports with the goal of integrating equity data

3. Proportionality for Access and Success
4. Next Meeting Date and Time

SPC Agenda 09-18-15

Members Present: Eric Bérubé, Darcy Bogle, Agnes JEguaras, Greg Hawkins, Vicki Jacobi, and Mark Williams

Members Absent: Diane Baeza
Guest: Sharyn Eveland
Secretary: Brandy Young

The Committee had a special meeting in order to discuss the newly proposed Enrollment Management Model. The minutes from September 18, 2015 will be carried over to the October 9, 2015 meeting for approval.

1. Accreditation Team Guests
Members of the Accreditation site visit team were made aware of the special meeting of SPC, but they did not attend.

2. Comprehensive Enrollment Model
Mark and Darcy presented the Comprehensive Enrollment Model. There was much discussion on what the model will be able to provide. The Committee discussed several scenarios and examples of how the model will/can be used. (See attached photos at the end of this document). The model will be able to pin point where we are losing students. It will be able to detect at what point we are losing the students as well as help to facilitate the process in answering why we lose those students. The model will provide us with consistent data. The model will use a base “group” of students. The group of students will not change, but the filters can change. The model will consist of a series of snapshots or baselines. The Committee will need to establish the points of when we “look at the data.” Some suggested snap shot points in time were:

• Enrollment Date
• Registration Date
• Census Date
• W Date
• FW Date
• Final Grade

Much discussion was had on the role Cognos Club would play in the development and implementation of the model. Sharyn depicted the types of reports that could be generated. It was suggested that the model follow a timeline and a recommendation was made to use the Standard Reports Template that Eric and Dena created and presented to the Governance Council on the September 25th meeting. It was also stated that data to support the model will be generated from both Cognos and the Institutional Research office.

Action Item: The proposed Comprehensive Enrollment Model will be taken to the Access and Success Committees for presentation in order to gain Equity funding to implement the project. The model will be presented to the Governance Council as an informational item and will go to the Board for approval at the October 2015 meeting.
.

Next Meeting: Friday, October 9, 2015 – 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. in the Café Conference Room

Respectfully submitted by Brandy Young
Attached (2 photos)

SPC_2015_MINUTES_09_30

Members Present: Diane Baeza, Darcy Bogle, Agnes JEguaras, Greg Hawkins, Vicki Jacobi, Mark Williams

Members Absent: Eric Bérubé
Guest: Sharyn Eveland
Secretary: Brandy Young

The Committee welcomed Diane Baeza, the new CTE Director, and made brief introductions around the table.

The Minutes from the September 4, 2015 meeting were approved without changes.

1. Comprehensive Program Planning/Review

Mark opened the discussion with an overview of the status of Comprehensive Program Planning/Review. The Comprehensive Program Planning/Review is mandated in our Strategic Action Plan. A suggestion was made to change the terminology of Comprehensive Program Planning/Review to the Comprehensive Program Plan. The committee agreed to the new terminology.

In order to “facilitate collaboration as per Board Policy with Academic Senate on all recommendations for new program creation and discontinuations,” a proposal for a new committee was made. The committee would be a sub-committee of the Governance Council. The proposed name was Program Implementation Committee (PIC). A handout was distributed that outlined the charge, rationale, and structure of the committee. The committee would provide recommendations to Governance Council for program resource allocation, creation, planning assessment, and discontinuation.

• Consideration of new program proposals, including assessments of resources needed, probable enrollments, required partnerships, etc.
• Oversight and implementation of program discontinuation, including periodic assessment of program viability based on the program discontinuation policy/criteria
• Implementation of comprehensive program planning including periodic assessment of resource implications of programs, annual program reviews, division input, etc.

Discussion on the proposal was as follows:

• The committee would be operational in nature.
• The committee would not make policy.
• The committee would focus on implementation, “the Legislative Office.”
• The committee would analyze information for programs.
• For program discontinuance, would current Academic Policy need to be changed?
• The committee would monitor the steps to inactivation.
• Need to integrate Program Review data to monitor graduation rates for program inactivation.
• Advocacy – not a decision making body.
• The Senate will initiate as well as the Governance Council – program creation/inactivation.
• A suggestion to the wording of the first bullet on the proposal was made: Oversight and implementation of the program discontinuation process, including periodic assessment of program viability based on the program discontinuation policy/criteria.

Discussion regarding how programs should be considered for inactivation using benchmarks and graduation rates took place:

• We have not set benchmarks for programs, graduation rates, retention, persistence, and employment/transfer.
• Institution Set Standards have been set, but how are we achieving them?
• PIC would also look at ISLO and PSLO data.
• We need to process/inform so we can plan.

Action Item: Define the processes and criteria in line with Academic Policies (program creation and discontinuation).

Action Item: Start from the bottom and establish benchmarks.

Next Meeting: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. in the Café Conference Room

Respectfully submitted by Brandy Young

SPC Minutes 09-18-2015

Members Present: Eric Bérubé, Darcy Bogle, Greg Hawkins, Vicki Jacobi, Mark Williams
Members Absent: Agnes JEguaras
Guest: Sharyn Eveland
Secretary: Brandy Young

1. Outline of Process for ACCJC Annual Report – Eric Bérubé

• The main focus of discussion was on the CTE data for the 2015 Annual Report.
• Eric distributed a hand out titled, “Process for Annual Report Data.”
• Eric has been in contact with the EDD and they will be able to provide information regarding Standard Labor Market Outcomes Based on State Wage Records Matching for Graduates.
• The EDD sent template examples from the Labor Market Information Division.
• The templates contain data depicting counts of employed graduates and salary information on students after graduation.
• The templates are problematic due to the fact that the data is not broken down by what industry the student is working in. The data show that the graduate is employed but there is no way to tie that back to what degree the student graduated with and if that student followed in to the specific industry the degree was meant for.
• The templates will satisfy the ACCJC standards.
• It was suggested that a crosswalk be developed between coding back to the Chancellor’s office to CIP Codes back to TOPS codes. “Work backwards” TOPS codes → OSC → SOP → CIP →NAICS
• The report that TC will submit matches the templates. The report has aggregated data.
• The cost of the templates is estimated at $2000.00 regardless of the number of records.
• In the future, more attributes can be added; Equity, demographic data and employment field.
• The next issue is to set Institution Set Standards for job placement rates after we receive placement results.
• Not all AA & AS degrees transfer to schools. Some students go to work.
• To account for transfers, two reports should be generated: one from the EDD and the other from National Student Clearinghouse/Cal PASS.
• Mark would like to sit down with Vicki, Velda and Danielle to review/analyze where the data starts and ends.
• The data being looked at for the report is CTE – 2012/13 and SLOs 2013/14.
• Students that move out of state after graduation are not reported by the EDD. Questionnaires will need to be sent to those students.
• Vicki gave a brief update on the recommendations from the ACCJC Annual Report follow up letter.
• The IEPI group will be coming to the campus to help facilitate the process of tying SLO data to resource allocation.
• The main areas that are lacking in SLO assessment activity are the adjunct faculty, WESTEC, ILS, Dental Hygiene, DSE and Court Reporting.
• Courses that aren’t being offered need to be inactivated as well as programs that aren’t producing graduates.
• A task force focusing on program inactivation should be created.

Next Meeting: Friday, September 18, 2015 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. in the Café Conference Room

by

SPC Minutes 09-04-2015

Members Present: Eric Bérubé, Darcy Bogle, Vicki Jacobi, Mark Williams, Agnes JEguaras

Members Absent: Greg Hawkins, James May, Karen Ziegler

Secretary: Brandy Young

1. Annual Accreditation Report

The committee continued the discussion on the Annual Report. All areas of the report are complete and will be sent to Dena for final review and submission on Wednesday, April 15th.

• The discussion will continue regarding setting Institution Set Standards for CTE licensure and passage rates. Stacy Eastman and Gary Shaw participated in the conversation and clarified the numbers for question #20. The Institution Set Standards still need to be identified. This will be a future agenda item.
• It was recommended that a narrative be created that gives a detailed account of how all the calculations were made to answer the questions on the report.

2. Substantive Change Monitoring Process

A form was created to use as a checklist to identify possible triggers for Substantive Change Proposals. The form was taken directly from the ACCJC Manual for Substantive Change.

• A recommendation was made to add further instruction to the form to clarify the process and flow. Eric will update the form.
• A graphical representation of the process will be created and added to the Planning Guide.
• The finalized process will be presented to the Governance Council for approval.

3. Other Discussion

The committee will present the recommendation of 4 Institution Set Standards to the Governance Council on April 17th. The Institution Set Standards criteria are:

• Course Completion
• Retention
• Persistence
• Completion

Future agenda items:

• Institution Set Standards for CTE licensure and passage rates
• Research agenda for Program Review
• Data analysis
• IEPI

4. Next Meeting Dates – in the HR Conference Room

• Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
• Friday, May 1, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.

MW/by

SPC 2015 Minutes 04 14

Members Present: Eric Bérubé, Darcy Bogle, Vicki Jacobi, James May, Mark Williams,
Agnes JEguaras, and Brandy Young

Members Absent: Greg Hawkins, Karen Ziegler

1. Annual Accreditation Report

The ACCJC Annual Accreditation Report is due April 15th. An extension was granted from the March 15th due date so that the report could be reviewed by both the Strategic Planning Committee and the Governance Council. The areas of focus today:

• Institution Set Standards – Question # 14a. It was decided that the average from fall 2014 would be used to compute the number
• Correspondence education – it was agreed that the District does indeed have these types of courses
• Eric will work with the staff from the Office of Instruction to complete the other areas of the report, CTE, etc.
• The committee will meet again on April 14th to finalize the report

2. Program Review Data Analysis

The committee discussed the new idea of Minimum Viable Program Review (MVPR). The idea stemmed from the need for a standard analysis of data sets used for program review. The flow of the MVPR was laid out as:

Traditional Program Review data → Other data – ISS, Scorecard, Dashboard → From that data, produce a clear picture – Radar chart → Look at successful course completion → 80% rule → Identify lowest 5% within other areas – look for trends – Equity, SLOs, Gateway courses → Disaggregate courses by discipline → Implement intervention strategies not only within instructional programs but within student services as well → create Program Review goals → defend budget requests using conclusions from MVPR → align process with Strategic Action Plan goals, IEPI measures:

• Outcome measure – disaggregate
• Isolate effects
• Identify and implement intervention
• Monitor outcome
• Adjust

3. IEPI – Institutional Effectiveness Program Initiative – tabled for April 14th meeting

4. Substantive Change Monitoring Process

A spreadsheet was created to track Substantive Changes within the Instructional Programs. The spreadsheet lists the ACCJC criteria that is used to determine the need for a Substantive Change report. The Tech Review Committee will review all new courses and programs and use the checklist to determine if any changes trigger the need to initiate the Substantive Change process. If a need is determined, the Tech Review Committee will forward the information to the ALO, Eric for further review. If Eric agrees the process requires submission of the Step-One form, the information will be sent to the Curriculum Committee for further discussion. The Academic Senate and the Governance Council will be included in the discussion. Other points of discussion:

• The original process to identify the need for a Substantive Change was embedded in the Annual Program Review form
• The process will need to be initiated for the Welding program
• The Engineering program did not require a report
• There is the question of online courses and how many are offered
• Need to verify the online courses offered for degrees and certificates
• The process for Substantive Change is the same for both the Chancellor’s office and the ACCJC, but the rules are different
• The next steps: The General Education and Curriculum Committee will have a discussion at their next meeting. The discussion will be taken to the Governance Council and the Academic Senate

MW/by

Strategic Planning Committee

Program Review design notes v2

Designing toward the minimum viable program review that meets the why’s of

o Resource decisions ⇔ student achievement ⇔ student learning

PRD*: a new standard data set, building on the existing data framework

o PRD: Program Review data,

 aligned with scorecard data definitions

o Scorecard data –

 suitably disaggregated and generalized,
 not just the 6‐yr cohorts

o Augmented by possibly other data
o Presented graphically in a standard way ‐ (graphs, radar diagram, red/yellow/green lists)

MVPR – successful course completion as the “minimum viable”

o Outcome of governance counsel retreat and presentations => focus on successful course
completion
o Using 80% rule to define disproportionate impace
o To create “the list” of courses that are defined as an institutional focus set
o A prioritized subset of the list – e.g. the 5% to focus on

 Possible other ways of generating / prioritizing a list that are not part of the “minimum viable” program review
 These will be done by other groups
 E.g., disproportionate impact of equity disaggregations
 Division/dept focus on subject codes

o Student success analytical model – e.g. the “gateway” classes
o Outcome of MVPR specifically goes to Governance Council as primary support for resources requests
o Analysis of use of SLO’s to design interventions
o MVPR is the most generic system for focusing attention on courses with low success rates
o Focus is on integrating efforts – all‐hands‐on‐deck, team that engages in

 Outcome measure
 Isolate effects
 Identify and implement interventions (instr, SS, community, other…)
 monitor outcome,
 adjust → cycle back to top

Scaffolding – program reviews beyond the MVPR

o “scaffolded” – programs, depts., divisions decide on subsequent review that addresses the needs of student success, alignment with SLO’s, etc.
o These parts of review also used as basis of resource requests, etc. as normal
o But – need to ensure MVPR is addressed first for all resource considerations – alignment of resources with institutional focus on successful course completion

MVPR Interventions

o Instructional, Student Services, Facilities
o Can be targeted, or aimed and raising ambient success (floating all)

SPC_2015_Minutes_04_07

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 “why we do Program Review”

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’s) => 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 “why’s”

o Baseline data/analysis

i. Use existing program review (baseline) data set – no change needed
ii. Augment with baseline “analysis”

1. Discussion what should that analysis look like?
2. Need to focus, use “minimum viable” strategy, progressively focus
Comprehensive PR => PR => baseline analysis => 80% => triage
May be more to work on than can be done immediately – use idea of “triage” to
focus even further on highest priority sub-80% courses
Incorporate “half done is not done” strategy – 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 – need to have addressed sub-80% courses before proposing
beyond that

o Establishing spending “criteria” more than soon-to-be-outdated decisions

i. Captures alignment with mission, strategic intent and priorities better than fixed set of momentary “needs”, “wants”

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’s  student achievement  budgets
o MVPR – 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…)

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 – essential role in all resource decisions
o Create standard analysis

i. 80% rule to identify disproportionately impacted courses vis-à-vis completion
(Not disaggregated by demographics for purposes of Program Review – that work done elsewhere by Student Success and Equity committees)
ii. 80% rule vis-à-vis retention

o SPC to analyze/refine the “standard analysis”
o SPC proposal for process to create budget

i. Decisions – for long-cycle, strategic decisions, (generally) larger scope
ii. Priorities, criteria – for short-cycle, tactical decisions, (generally) smaller scope
iii. Define “thresholds and exceptions” 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
Attachments

SPC_2015_MINUTES_03-19