Sunken Garden Fountain

Instructional Planning & Budget Team

Meeting Notes - October 26, 2010

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



 

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

sizeplaceholder


Last Updated: 3/29/11