Meeting Notes - April 17, 2012
Christina Espinosa-Pieb - Co-Chair
Coleen Lee-Wheat - Co-Chair
Administrative Reps Espinosa-Pieb, Muthyala-Kandula, Norte, Schroeder
Classified Reps: Bdzil, Monary, Qian
Faculty Reps: Bryant, Lee-Wheat, Mitchell, Singh, Stockwell
Absent: Anderson, Tomaneng, Roberts
Visitors: Cabalero de Cordero, Cook, Lee, Milonas, Woodward
I. Approval notes:
Notes of March 20, 2012 were approved as written.
II. Assessment Cycle Funding Project:
Lee-Wheat presented the Assessment Cycle Funding Project application form as a follow-up to the discussion of March 20. She explained that this application was to give departments/programs the opportunity to fund a project planning session or submit a resource request that will accelerate SLO, PLO, AUO or SSLO assessment cycle during the 2012 - 2013 fiscal year. Lee-Wheat pointed out that the title had been changed from “mini grant” to “Assessment Cycle Funding Project”.
This project will be supported by IPBT and SSPBT and will be funded by VPs, President and Foundation offices; each will contribute a small amount of money to support the project requests for their constituents. Espinosa-Pieb remarked: This “one-time money” is important in order to support excellence and innovation for all programs despite the budget deficit.
Lee-Wheat showed some examples how monies might be spend (see attached) and asked the members for the feedback.
Outcomes/changes to application:
- adjunct faculty support (ongoing – encourage their participation and growth in the area of SLO assessment)
- clarification -“submit this application to your dean for informational purposes”
- funds are limited! The process – “first come first serve” basis
- modeling - Staff Development process
- the simple rubric consisting of 5 questions to answer and a form to fill out; don’t make it complicated is good.
Deans will submit to IPBT Chair via email - Assessment Cycle Project Applications, Spring 2012
Deadline: May 1st to May 30th for considerations in early June by the IPBT for summer/ fall projects.
III. Measure C Process:
Lee-Wheat presented the Measure C process and asked for feedback from the IPBT members.
The IPBT subcommittee informed the IPBT that the Measure C prioritized list of requests were sent back to the deans. Deans have been asked to review their requests with the division/departments. They will identify and prioritize items as 1 = critical, must have to support program; 2 = Needed, very important; 3 = 10% of the list they are willing to negotiate if the Measure C funds run short.
The group was then asked to consider the following processes:
Process A--10% negotiation piece could be discussed among the instructional deans and a prioritized list returned to the IPBT as a recommendation.
Process B--10% negotiation piece could be discussed by the IPBT as small program review teams as per past practice and create recommendations.
Subsequently, the IPBT subgroup (Schroeder, Qian, Lee-Wheat) will forward the IPBT recommendations to the Joint College Budget and Tech Task force meeting for further discussion and prioritization. It was noted that the Tech Task Force would also re-review the technology related items and set a calendar for implementation.
There was a discussion members, it was reiterated that there is a need to order items as soon as possible.