Sunken Garden Fountain

Instructional Planning & Budget Team

Christina Espinosa-Pieb - Co-Chair

Coleen Lee-Wheat - Co-Chair

Present:        

Administrative Reps: Anderson, Espinosa-Pieb, Muthyala-Kandula, Norte, Tomaneng, Schroeder

Classified Reps: Bdzil, Rueda, Qian

Faculty Reps: Bryant, Lee-Klawender, Lee-Wheat, Mitchell, Singh, Stockwell

Student Reps: Andrew Zhou

Absent: Anderson

Visitors: Karen Chow, Mallory Newell

 

I. Approval notes:

Approval of notes for May 1, 2012 postponed until May 15, 2012

II. Governance Assessment: (Mallory Newell)

M. Newell, College Researcher led a review of the first College Planning Committee’s governance survey. This survey is being piloted amongst the major college committees. Newell was seeking the group’s consensus about the answers to the questions as well as a critique about the questions themselves. The outcome of the survey will be to assess the effectiveness of governance across the campus.

III. Reduction Plan Update:

Espinosa-Pieb reviewed the budget scenario. The College has been given a new date for supplying the Board of Trustees with a preliminary plan to meet the “worst-case” scenario of July 1. The IPBT must complete its deliberations by Tuesday, June 19th. A revised calendar of events was then discussed. A final version would be expected by tomorrow, May 9, 2012.

Espinosa-Pieb explained that there are still many variables that may shift the reduction targets one way or another, however as of today, unofficially the State’s May revised report does not bode well and may even be worse than predicted.

Instruction’s target reduction without the loss of apportionment (4.6 million to the district) is about 3 million. The target with the loss of apportionment factored in is about 5 million.

Espinosa-Pieb stated that the IPBT’s charge is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of instructional programming; encourage the reduction of the breadth of offerings or growth of programs that show high student demand. At this level of reduction whole departments or programs must be considered. A review of data: 3-year fill rates, enrollment trends as interpreted by APRU writers, certificate, degrees awarded will lend to the determination of student demand. Courses that do not fill may be recommended for elimination or a revised targeted scheduling plan of offering could be set. The effect of external factors that impose curricular changes, and the department’s plans to respond are also key factors to be considered. The IPBT teams are expected to formulate questions that will help to clarify the data and the possible effects of a reduction. During the summer, a viability process will take place such that programs that are proposed for elimination or deep reductions will be fully investigated relative to possible consolidations with Foothill, as well as the possible ripple effect across the district. Mitchell brought up a point for consideration: it might be wise to consider that students may decide not to stay in the district if a program was consolidated. He also voiced a concern we are moving forward with a reduction plan without determine the desired future outcome i.e. “what should a college look like” before actually taking steps to reduce. In response to Mitchell’s concern, it was pointed out that the CCState Chancellor’s office has already set its priorities towards: basic skills, transfer and CTE.

Lee-Wheat presented a matrix developed from the annual program review update in response to a query from Woodward who asked for a tool the teams might use to help “norm” their perspectives. The majority of APRU’s have been uploaded for the IPBT to use.



 

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

sizeplaceholder


Last Updated: 5/21/12