Institutional Effectiveness Council minutes

February 7, 2017 – 1:30 p.m.

ACA 2504

Present: Mike Lee, Karen Daar, Elizabeth Negrete, Christina Peter, June Miyasaki, Ruby Christian-Brougham, Gregory Morrison, Meghan Cason, Meredith Leonard, Hao Xie, Michael Jack, Beatriz Medina, Erika Endrijonas, Florentino Manzano, Josh Miller, Erika Endrijonas – Ex Officio

Absent: Anna Palacios Robinson,Yih-Mei Hu, SaleemMoinuddin

Resources: Jennifer Borucki, Michelle Fowles, Ilene Sutter

Guests: Ryan Cornner, Scott Weigand, Faye Sheikholeslami, Francie Hurwit, Marco de la Garza, Luz Shin, Amari Williams, Cathy Jin, Sarah Song, Barbara Goldberg, Llanet Martin, Deborah diCesare, Matt Jordan

Meeting Date: November 15, 2016 RecordedBy:Ilene Sutter

AN= Action NeededAT = Action TakenD = DiscussionI=Information Only

DISCUSSION/DECISIONS

Meeting called to order at :
  1. Approval of Agenda
/ AT /
  • M/S/PMiyasaki/Christian-Brougham
  • Amendments to the agenda: Change the date; place ScottWeigand’s presentation at the start of the meeting. Add institution-set standards to the agenda under Old Business. Add “A Day in the Life at LAVC”under New Business.

  1. Approval of Minutes- Dec 06, 2016
/ AT /
  • M/S/PDaar/Manzano as amended.
  • Amended to correct room to ACA 2507.

  1. President’s Response to Forwarded Motions
/ I /
  • E. Endrijonas signed the motion approving the Emergency Response Plan.

  1. Old Business/discussion items

a. Hiring update- Endrijonas /
  • Due to time constraints, no hiring update was provided.

b. District Strategic Planning- / I, D, AN /
  • Ryan Cornner, Vice Chancellor for Educational Programs and Institutional Effectiveness, presented “LACCD Planning for the Future,” and solicited input from the Council regarding revision of the District Strategic Plan.
  • The District Planning Committee is evaluating the current plan. The current strategic plan and planning process were reviewed. The existing plan does not drive decision making and is not tightly integrated with the colleges. The LACCD is now collecting information to drive the plan from the college level, and as such, is seeking inclusivity from internal and external constituency groups; creative solutions to the barriers faced by students and institutions; a vision for the district; and accountability with defined metrics and targets.
  • The timeline is as follows:
  • Draft goals will be brought to the colleges at the end of March.
  • Metrics will be reviewed in May.
  • The plan is slated for approval by the DPC in August
  • The plan will be brought through college governance in September, and brought to the Board on October 17.
  • The current mission statement was projected for the council. Feedback included:
  • “Civic engagement” cannot be measured. Community engagement was suggested as a more measurable outcome.
  • The definition of “lifelong learning” is unclear.
  • Workforce development and education and transfer should be embedded and more closely entwined.
  • Baccalaureate degrees will be included in the revised plan.
  • The existing vision statement (Page 5) and current goals and objectives were projected(Page 3; with details on LACCD site).
  • Outcomes were projected for the committee. As a district, the six-year completion rate is 40 percent, compared to a state completion rate of 47 percent. The district has many students who complete 30 units but fail to complete their academic program; the drop off is in remedial English and Math.
  • The district has faced the same equity gaps and success challenges for the past five years.
  • Board Goals were presented:
  • The Board has set goals that will be incorporated into planning. A ten percentage point increase in the completion rate over six years has been requested. The increase would move the colleges from 40 percent to 50 percent starting with the incoming class of 2017. Progress toward this achievement will be used asa data point for the Presidents’ evaluations.
  • Improve customer service.
  • Increased access to Career and Technical Education CTE, along with increased enrollments and completions.
  • Increase additional revenue streams and effectively use district resources.
  • Complete current and future bonds efficiently.
  • The council was asked to provide feedback about goals they would like to see included in the District Strategic Plan. Feedback included:
  • The wording should be changed to reflect that it is the colleges and not the district that will be responsible for achieving these goals.
  • The goal should state that theDistrict will provide services and resources to facilitate each college’s ability to promote student success. This will connect the District Strategic Plan to its true function.
  • The goals are very vague; local, district and district wide efforts should be coordinated more efficiently as a way to help college achieve goals.
  • Goals should be broad with more specific objectives and activities directed at achieving these objectives. Some of the goals stated above should instead be incorporated into objectives.
  • When asked what barriers we face to increasing institutional effectiveness the following barriers were identified:
  • A lack of organizational structure at the district; as a result, the processes are unclear.
  • The current state of our Student Information System (SIS) system. Currently the colleges do not have a single database to find or crosscheck data. The infrastructure needs improvement.
  • Access to the college, including clear navigation for data on the College’s and the LACCD’s web sites.
  • Communication between the colleges and the district in terms of how the district implements procedures for the colleges to follow. Additionally, more notice should be provided to colleges to prepare for and better adhere to these processes.
  • College-level communication with students to support our programs should be improved. It is currently very cumbersome and ineffective; a district wide solution would be helpful.
  • A baseline expectation of what colleges need in order to operate and what support the district should be providing to them is needed. The new SIS rollout is unclear and IT mandates have been unclear in terms of training.
  • Textbook affordability is still an issue.
  • Staffing issues regarding appropriate and timely staffing, and an uneven distribution of staff.
  • The council was asked what works at the college level that could make sense for the District?
  • Grant writing has been successful, and there have been good collaborations between the constituencies.
  • The Academic Senate and the AFT have strong relations.
  • How can the district better support the colleges?
  • The district should be more responsive fiscally to support its initiatives. If the district wants to maintain a significant presence in the community, funding must be allocated for this at the district level or as part of the allocation process.
  • The district needs to revisit the allocation model and review exactly how money is distributed. Currently funding is based on FTES minus the district’s assessment. This model fails to account for college size, different populations, the need to advertise, and funding for international students. The College can only serve students if it is appropriately funded.
  • The costs associated with achieving increases, as well as the investment the College places in the on-boarding process should be considered and communicated.
  • Faculty have a poor understanding of how much money is available and where it is being used. The faculty need basic teaching tools and are often asked to provide learner centered environment without the basic technology (e.g., newer computers, printers, etc.) to provide it.
  • M. Fowles has provided the survey response requesting input from shared governance constituencies, and the results may be found in SharePoint. Fifteen people responded to provide input into the District Strategic Plan.

c. Open Educational Resources (OER)- Cason and Miller / I /
  • M. Cason reported that the College has not yet received state funding, but aims to provide professional development stipends for course development using OER.
  • A workgroup convened before the break and will meet again soon; the group discussed activities involving OER and getting the ASU involved.
  • There is a requirement from the state, effective Jan. 2018, that OER classes should be indicated in the Schedule of Classes; some of these courses may be indicated in the College’s course schedule as early as this fall.
  • J. Miller reported thatboth the need for counseling and textbook costs were noted by students as boundaries to completion.

d. Institution Set Standards motion / AT /
  • Motion F16-13
  • Senate approved the revised institution-set standards without revisions;
  • M/S/PPeter/Daar

5. New Business/discussion items
“A Day In The Life at LAVC” / I /
  • Barbara Goldberg and Francie Hurwit presented “A Day In The Life at LAVC” to the council. A high percentage of students start and don’t return; retention is a focus.
  • Modules will be created to help teams of campus employees walk in the shoes of students seeking registration, enrollment and services.
  • Action plans will be tied to each module in order to implement changes recommended during feedback sessions.
  • Incorporating the classroom experience has been discussed, as well as teaming prospective students with continuing students for mentoring.
  • The President and the council expressed their support for this effort.
  • Teams will launch Feb 21 and the program will finish in May.
  • Contact Barbara Goldberg or Francie Hurwit to sign up.

a. Pathways- Weigand / I, D,AN /
  • S. Weigand presented a report from a conference for Guided Pathways. LAVC had the largest number of representatives at the conference.
  • Most community colleges do not have structured pathways to a degree; services and programs are disconnected and lead to poor decisions regarding course selection and how to seek help. Students feel lost, and success, retention, persistence are negatively impacted.
  • Paths to goals are unclear, intake sorts/diverts students, progress is unmonitored, and learning outcomes are not well defined.
  • LAVC currently offers134 programs.
  • Guided pathways provides a clearly defined pathway from the point of entry to attainment of postsecondary credentials.
  • Characteristics include: simplified choices, course sequences, progress milestones and program learning outcomes.
  • The AACC Pathways Project has been adopted by Irvine Valley College, Bakersfield and Mt. SAC.
  • The pathway begins with fields of interest and provides an overview of degrees and related skills, career information, and coursework in a simple, clear presentation.
  • Results have shown that guided pathways increase degree and transfer in a shorter period of time with fewer excess units; enable predictable schedules; entwine SSSP, College Promise, and Equity; and integrate approaches to student success.
  • The program provides an umbrella and roadmap for revising the College’s Mission Statement and Educational Master Plan (EMP), along with providing better alignment with CSU/UC pathway.
  • E. Endrijonas commented that this campus wide effort would dovetail nicely with a reverse transfer grant for which Ryan Cornner has applied. The grant, if received, would provide $2.5 million in funding to create a pipeline/pathway to completion at CSUN through a reverse transfer project for students who are not prepared to finish at CSUN. The President additionally expressed support for these changes and emphasized that we are here to help students and both the pathways and reverse transfer projects would help the College accomplish this.
  • S. Weigand proposed that an exploratory workgroup should be formed to analyze the process, timeline and resources needed to implement guided pathways. S. Weigand stated that the pathway is not an add-on to an existing plan, but rather the umbrella under which everything else would be structured.
  • Discussion about how to organize the process ensued.
  • It was agreed that the initial process would take place outside of the shared governance process. The emphasis should be placed upon what will be measured and how to measure it, and how activities and objectives of the pathways align with the Educational Master Plan.
  • M. Fowles suggested that the workgroup examine a document produced by the Student Success Committee tracking the alignment of campus activities with the Educational Master Plan and review the pathway in a similar fashion.
  • An additional document mapping a proposed implementation of the Basic Skills Transformation Grant and the Valley College Promise should be reviewed.
  • The California State Budget has allocated $150 million for the pathways initiative; grants are also available, but require that campuses contribute $45,000 over three years.
  • It was decided that an exploratory workgroup would be formed with the following volunteers: Karen Daar, Llanet Martin, Meghan Cason Gaynor, June Miyasaki, Marco de la Garza, Deborah diCesare, Cathy Jin,and Meredith Leonard. S. Weigand and J. Miller will contact volunteers to find an agreeable time.

6.Budget Update- M. Lee /
  • The 2016-2017 Projected Budget was shown to the class.
  • The College has held backthe two percent money provided by the district; it is expected that the College will return it to the district. We are expecting to return $1.3 million dollars that we held in reserve.
  • Late-start classes will help the College attempt to meet base, but there are still concerns.
  • With zero percent growth,the College could end in the positive; if the College ends more than one percent below base, there may be a negative balance.
  • The Governor’s January budget was very conservative because there is a lot of economic uncertainty and state revenue is down. There are called to increase the employee contribution for STRS and Pers, as they are not yielding what was expected.
  • Multi-year projections dependent upon continual growth project deficits over the next five years if the growth model is retained.

7. Accreditation Update- D. Kaye/K. Daar /
  • There was no accreditation update.

9. Reports
a.EPC
b.PEPC
c.TECH
d.WEC
e.SSC
f.BC
g.FPC
h.Constituency groups
9. Public Agenda Speakers / There were no public agenda speakers.
10. Adjournment / 3:17 pm

Page 1 of 7

Institutional Effectiveness Council Minutes