{"id":266,"date":"2015-10-15T17:54:24","date_gmt":"2015-10-15T17:54:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ct-test-wp.taftcollege.edu\/spc\/?p=266"},"modified":"2015-10-15T17:54:24","modified_gmt":"2015-10-15T17:54:24","slug":"strategic-planning-september-18-2015","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/committees.taftcollege.edu\/spc\/strategic-planning-september-18-2015\/","title":{"rendered":"Strategic Planning – Minutes September 18, 2015"},"content":{"rendered":"
Minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee <\/strong> Members Present:<\/strong> Diane Baeza, Darcy Bogle, Agnes JEguaras, Greg Hawkins, Vicki Jacobi, Mark Williams<\/p>\n Members Absent:<\/strong> Eric B\u00e9rub\u00e9 The Committee welcomed Diane Baeza, the new CTE Director, and made brief introductions around the table.<\/p>\n The Minutes from the September 4, 2015 meeting were approved without changes.<\/p>\n 1. Comprehensive Program Planning\/Review<\/strong><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n In order to \u201cfacilitate collaboration as per Board Policy with Academic Senate on all recommendations for new program creation and discontinuations,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n Discussion on the proposal was as follows:<\/p>\n \u2022 The committee would be operational in nature. Discussion regarding how programs should be considered for inactivation using benchmarks and graduation rates took place:<\/p>\n \u2022 We have not set benchmarks for programs, graduation rates, retention, persistence, and employment\/transfer. Action Item:<\/strong> Define the processes and criteria in line with Academic Policies (program creation and discontinuation).<\/p>\n Action Item:<\/strong> Start from the bottom and establish benchmarks.<\/p>\n
\n10 a.m. \u2013 12:00 a.m., Friday, September 18, 2015<\/strong>
\nCaf\u00e9 Conference Room<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nGuest:<\/strong> Sharyn Eveland
\nSecretary:<\/strong> Brandy Young<\/p>\n\n
\n\u2022 The committee would not make policy.
\n\u2022 The committee would focus on implementation, \u201cthe Legislative Office.\u201d
\n\u2022 The committee would analyze information for programs.
\n\u2022 For program discontinuance, would current Academic Policy need to be changed?
\n\u2022 The committee would monitor the steps to inactivation.
\n\u2022 Need to integrate Program Review data to monitor graduation rates for program inactivation.
\n\u2022 Advocacy \u2013 not a decision making body.
\n\u2022 The Senate will initiate as well as the Governance Council \u2013 program creation\/inactivation.
\n\u2022 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.<\/p>\n
\n\u2022 Institution Set Standards have been set, but how are we achieving them?
\n\u2022 PIC would also look at ISLO and PSLO data.
\n\u2022 We need to process\/inform so we can plan.<\/p>\n