Sunken Garden Fountain

Instructional Planning & Budget Team

Meeting Notes - November 3, 2009

De Anza College

Co-Chairs:

Christina Espinosa-Pieb

Cynthia Lee-Klawender

Present:  Anderson, Bradshaw, Bryant, Cadge-Moore, Espinosa-Pieb, Hearn, Irvin, Kubo, Lee-Klawender, Mowrey, Pham, Qin, Schroeder, Singh Tomaneng,

Visitors:  Diana Alves-de-Lima, Rich Hansen, Wendy Low, Carmen Pereida, Cheryl Woodward

I. Approval of Agenda and Meeting Notes: Notes of October 27, 2009 and agenda of November 3, 2009 were approved.

II. Course/Program Rubric Review  and  III.   De Anza Criteria and Priorities:

   (These two topics blended as the meeting’s discussion ensued.)

The assigned groups reported on their findings in trying to develop a rubric for the various CORE values, and reported the following:

  • Basic Skills—could not come up with criteria—doesn’t distinguish between offerings—nothing fits to apply. Possible criterion might be to measure success rates of students at a particular level.
  • Transfer Classes—possibility of working to fit multiple criteria—transfer to a particular major?—GE focus needs to be added. “How many multiple areas does it fit?” If meets multiple levels, raise its score?
  • CTE—it was noted that Stephanie Sherman and the VTEA staff are working on a rubric for this core value.

 Many ideas for determining criteria were voiced—which continued to make the assignment more complex. C. Lee-Klawender displayed a sample template titled, Rubric to Determine CORE status of Courses within a Department, and the committee analyzed the distribution of this information.

The question was revisited: “What is the CORE of the college?” “What is our major objective in determining criteria for courses fitting into our CORE category?” “What is De Anza to look like in the next few years?”

It was stated that the instructional deans will be making reduction decisions for their divisions. Options will be considered—focusing on strategic ways of maintaining enrollments of classes, and looking at programs that could be reduced. The time-line for the deans to present their reduction plans is short—the end of November to the President’s Office—which then will be forwarded to the Chancellor’s Office.

A suggestion was made to look at those programs that previously received state funding, had it removed, and ultimately the school had to absorb those costs. In addition, categorical programs that were started at De Anza because of available funding—which is now unavailable—will be looked into. Team members asked to look at “mandated programs,” and “mandated” criteria for those programs under the umbrella of Title V. A request was made to look at other colleges that have made reductions that have not affected their CORE, and to look at what the State Chancellor’s Mission has emphasized.

The IPBT members inquired as to what the instructional deans were currently doing to address the reduction issue.  D. Kubo shared the IIS Division’s plan—how the faculty and staff determined the criteria for their reductions ratings.

This committee decided that the current rubrics that they were trying to establish were not working, and a different plan will need to be developed.

Some ideas were as follows:

  • list programs by criteria (e.g., productivity)
  • list programs that would not fit into CORE—Basic Skills, Transfer, CTE
  • look to the IIS Division’s example—by looking at every course, and determining where each course fits into which category
  • determine how applicable is each course to the college CORE
  • look at programs that serve targeted students
  • look at costs of running the programs—get informational sheet
  • review Program Reviews and check the progress of the programs
  • invite the division deans to bring their selected course reductions to IPBT
  • obtain course lists, SLO courses, course numbers with descriptions
  • identify course by major/transfer/vocational/or none of the above (check mark)

        At the end of this meeting the team members agreed that everyone had difficulty in coming up with a rubric. S. Sherman’s rubric was considered, but with changing some of the identifiers. A similar type of list with the identifiers being “basic skills,” “transfer,” “CTE,” or “other”—with a place for a check mark was suggested. Program reviews will be reconsidered, and “rating sheets,” if available, will be examined.

For the next meeting scheduled for 11/10, program review ratings will be looked at; how to use the ratings will be considered; and how to direct the deans to use the Excel spreadsheets—a listing of all of their courses.



 

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

sizeplaceholder


Last Updated: 12/3/09