Sunken Garden Fountain

Instructional Planning & Budget Team

Christina Espinosa-Pieb – Chair

Randy Bryant - Chair

Present:

Administrative Reps: Espinosa-Pieb, Fayek, Kandula, Lee-Wheat, Norte, Tomaneng

Classified Reps: Gerard, Martinez,

Faculty Reps: Alves de Lima, Bram, Bryant, Rick Maynard, Pacheco

Student Reps: Nehal Desal, Wendy Xiao

Absent: Trosper, Yeckley

Visitors: Markus, Lorna Maynard

Approval of Notes: The notes of February 24, 2015 were approved.

Program Review – Year of Reflection – continue discussion:  

The discussion during this meeting focused on program reviews and ideas for developing rubrics for resource allocation.  Several examples were cited including DARE and Athletics.

Discussion included:

  • Program review, take data and turn it into a rubric; need to know what we want in a rubric - enrollment, faculty reduction, enrollment demands, completion to date, certificates, degrees and etc. Then what do we do with it? Do we make decisions based on this data?
  • What is the big picture and ideas we want to focus on?
  • Rubric categories - funding specific proposals, outcomes and assessments, data collection
  • Rubric is a tool to have programs look at their processes. Equity, Retention, Success
  • Develop a rubric(s) for Instructional Equipment, Equity Funds, Lottery, general and enhanced CTE; look at each group individually?
  • Rubrics are good for resource allocation, but should be based on Program Review.
  • Program doing poorly, but has great ideas. Does the program deserve to get $?
  • Programs with declining numbers, enrollment – what’s going to change vs. a great program. PR shows declines over the last 3 years.  Who gets and needs the $? Rubric needs to measure way of thinking, approaches, not the results; it’s the process, not static facts.
  • Each program has different needs. Within own divisions, deans would go back and set up processes. Reliant on data. At some level, collect data on programs.  Proposals will be program specific. Dean, divisions, department –to come with specific proposals. Expecting divisions to bring in priority data (also asked in the past)
  • Next Accreditation visit, how is SLO work being tied to resource allocation?
  • Program and certificate program level – PLO work
  • Development of an excel worksheet to capture information
  • Develop the questions based on PR’s
  • One source of funding (Instructional Equipment) to test for spring?

Homework:

  • Getting back to constituency groups. Think about in your own departments, talking to people to determine what they want from the PR review process.
  • Review program review documents and bring questions
  • Bring examples of rubrics (Rowena, Randy, Christina & Teri)


 

GOVERNANCE - IPBT
Building: Administration
Contact: Olga Evert
Phone: 408.864.8940

sizeplaceholder


Last Updated: 4/16/15