Meeting Notes - October 26, 2010
IPBT Notes - October 26, 2010 4:00 - 5:00 PM
Co-Chairs:
Christina Espinosa-Pieb
Coleen Lee-Wheat
I. Overview
II. Activity - Identify criteria for resource allocation from Annual Program Review Update:
The purpose of program review and how it relates to the new college mission and strategic initiatives was discussed. Lee-Wheat and Tomaneng emphasized the necessity to ensure that the annual program review updates (APRU) relates to the future comprehensive program review. The data collected in the APRU documents need to lend to the evidence that the college is working towards it mission, strategic initiatives and the District Strategic Initiatives as referenced in the updated Educational Master Plan. Placing the APRU within the 6-year Outcomes Based Program Review cycle encourages long term planning. The District Strategic Initiatives that were identified in 2006 state that 2015 has been set as the date to accomplish its goals.
-The current APRU was critiqued using several APRUs that were created Spring, 2010. Small group reports yielded the following observations:
-C. Muzzi observed that the Chemistry Department believes that SLO work is the only criteria by which resource allocations will be made. There is difficulty in addressing/connecting other resource needs such as instructional equipment and adequate Lab staff support.
-Tomaneng noted that program SLO trends/data could be brought out in support of a wider range of resource needs if a we also focus on PLOS (Program Level Outcomes).
-Woodward noted that in the past each program review had a “theme”/emphasis towards which the program review writers wrote in order to attain their resources. It would be interesting to look at past documents to compare how the documents were formatted. i.e. in the 2008 Program Review work, equity was a dominant theme/criteria. The observation that resource requests were usually stated first then supplemented with rationale was also noted.
-Bryant suggested, that as a program review writer himself, inserting updates into the last comprehensive program review would be much a much more effective process, i.e. why not have the exact same categories updated with the addition of SLOS and PLOS.
--Tomaneng suggested that short term (year long) and long term goals should be identified in the Comprehensive Program Review so that an APRU could address short term program goals.
-Who should complete an APRU also needs to be fleshed out.
Action: Tomaneng and Lee-Wheat will research and bring forth past comprehensive program review documents, criteria, data used, and examples of the range of responses. We can also review models of program review from other colleges.
III. Good of the Order: None
Attended ( ): italics means non-voting member
|
Administrative Reps |
Classified Reps |
Faculty Reps |
Student Reps |
|
Christina Espinosa-Pieb, Co-Chair-absent |
Donna Bradshaw-absent |
Randy Bryant |
Sana Kathuria |
|
Ron McFarland |
Bradley Creamer |
Catie Cadge-Moore |
Victoria Nguyen |
|
Edmundo Norte |
Greg Knittel |
Cinzia Muzzi |
Guests: FA; Rich Hansen |
|
Rich Schroeder-absent |
Coleen Lee-Wheat, Co-Chair |
Cheryl Woodward, Counseling |
|
|
Rowena Tomaneng |
Kulwant Singh-absent |
Tom Dolan, Library |
|
|
Dean of Counseling-absent |
Robert Stockwell |
Gregory Anderson, Academic Senate-absent |
|
|
Mary Pape, SLO Coordinator |