Strategic Educational Master Plan Process Committee

V 14

COLLEGE OF THE DESERT

STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL MASTER PLAN PROCESS COMMITTEE

SUMMARY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Approved by Academic Senate in May and Board in June of 2007)

Background

The Strategic Educational Master Plan Process Committee (SEMPPC) was established in the fall of 2005 for the purpose of developing recommendations for a long-range, strategic educational master planning process for College of the Desert. The committee is comprised of faculty and administrative representatives of each of the College’s instructional divisions, as well as the Student Services and Administrative Services divisions. A list of committee members is provided in Appendix A of this report.

Community college educational planning is typically accomplished via two distinct, yet closely related processes:strategic planning and operational planning. Strategic planning is concerned with the formulation, adoption and implementation of long-range institutional goals and objectives. The strategic planning cycle is generally five years in length, and reviewed annually. Operational planning is geared toward the identification and accomplishment of programmatic objectives that, while linked to the College’s long-term goals and objectives, are designed to be accomplished over a shorter time period. California community colleges generally arrange their operational planning time frames to coincide with the annual state budgetary cycle. In higher education institutions, both strategic and operational planning are driven by the instructional mission of the College; from this perspective, the educational master plan forms the basis of all subsequent institutional planning, such as facilities master plans, and planning for student services, human resources and administrative support services.

In light of the primacy of instructional programs in establishing the foundation upon which higher education institutional planning processes are built, it is essential that those responsible for designing and delivering programs of instruction play an integral role in College strategic and operational planning. Through program review, departmental and divisional-level priorities-setting and participation in college-wide participatory governance mechanisms, faculty members provide the building blocks of an effective strategic master planning process. For the past several years, COD has been gradually putting the pieces in place for such an inclusive, program-based planning process. Most of the College’s instructional units have conducted program reviews and interim procedures for identifying and prioritizing operational objectives has been in place for the past few budgetary cycles. The charge of SEMPCC has been to assimilate these elements into an integrated set of procedures and processes designed to guide the College’s strategic and operational planning on an ongoing basis. The purpose of this report is to present the committee’s recommendations for consideration by the college-wide community, and for approval by the Academic Senate, Superintendent/President, and Board.

Strategic and Operational Planning at COD: The Current Situation

With regard to strategic planning, COD has both an educational master plan and a facilities master plan in place. The impetus for the preparation and adoption of both of these documents was the District’s desire to secure approval of a bond measure to support long-needed improvements to College facilities. Because of time constraints associated with the bond approval process, these plans, by necessity, were developed within a relatively brief time frame and characterized by less than optimal integration of facilities planning with enrollment forecasts and instructional program review. Thus, while the existing plans were effective in establishing a framework for successful adoption of the Measure B bond initiative, the processes by which they were formulated and approved did not provide a suitable model for achieving integration of strategic and operational planning and instructional program review on an ongoing basis.

Concerning operational planning, COD currently identifies and prioritizes program objectives that are linked to the District’s annual resource allocation process. Under the current procedures, instructional and student services departments identify and prioritize their annual objectives, which are then prioritized at the division level. Instructional and student services deans are subsequently charged with prioritizing division objectives and forwarding the priority list to the President’s Cabinet for integration with administrative services, human resources and presidential objectives and further prioritization. While these interim procedures constitute a significant improvement over prior practices, there are at least three aspects of the interim process for prioritizing objectives that are in need of enhancement.

First, the linkage between the operational objectives prioritized through the interim process and long-range institutional goals and objectives can be strengthened, by clarifying the College’s strategic objectives in a revised strategic educational master plan, by communicating those objectives more clearly to those charged with developing unit-level operational objectives, and through greater utilization of the unit-level objectives in determining the College’s strategic objectives.
Secondly, while program-level objectives are developed and prioritized by those responsible for delivering the services (i.e. faculty), their participation is limited past this stage of the cycle. As a result, the prioritization that occurs later in the operational planning cycle often appears disconnected from the unit-level identification and prioritization of program objectives.
Thirdly, the existing process does not provide a means of determining whether the identified goals and objectives are being achieved.

Ideally, the revised set of strategic and operational planning processes set forth in this report can address the existing challenges associated with the interim planning processes that are outlined above.

A Proposed Model for Future Strategic and Operational Planning at the College of the Desert

The model proposed by SEMPPC is designed to address the need for:

a revised strategic educational master plan which will drive the processes by which other institutional plans (facilities, etc.) are funded, developed, and implemented

a process for ongoing review, evaluation, assessment and revision of the strategic educational master plan

a process for identifying and prioritizing operational unit objectives on an annual basis;
improved integration of unit-level and college-wide objectives identification and prioritization

SEMPC Council:

To accomplish the above initiatives, SEMPCC proposes the creation of a Strategic Educational Master Planning Council (SEMPC). This standing committee would be charged with overseeing both strategic and operational planning at COD. The proposed membership of the council is as follows:

Fourvice presidents (Instruction, Student Services, Human Resources, Administrative Services)
Six deans: Dean of Off-Campus Programs, three instructional deans appointed by the Vice President for Instruction, one dean from Student Services, Dean of Information Systems
One faculty representative selected by each instructional division (7 currently)
Two faculty from Student Services
Two Senate representatives, including Academic Senate President or designee
Two adjunct faculty members
Two studentsappointed by ASCOD
Two members of classified staffappointed by CSEA

As construed above, the council has27members, 13of whom would be faculty members, 4vice presidents, 6deans, 2students and 1 classified employee. In addition, the Director of Institutional Research will be a non-voting member of theSEMPC. The composition of the SEMPC would ensure broad faculty, staff and administrative representation at each stage of the strategic and operational planning cycles.

In order to ensure continuity of ideas and to assist with the initial startupof the SEMP Council, it is recommended that current members of the Strategic Educational Master Plan Process Committee be members of the first Strategic Educational Master Planning Council, and that these members serve for two year terms. The balance of the members in the first Council should serve for three-year terms. This scheme will then perpetuate overlapping membership on the Council.

Task Forces:

Much of the work of the SEMPC will be conducted by three task forces organized by function. The task forces, which will consist of members of the Council,will report to the full Council and will be involved at every stage of the strategic and operational planning cycles. The three task forces and their responsibilities are as follows:

Environmental Scanning:The environmental scanning task force would conduct internal and external scans designed to generate information and data regarding the needs of the service area and to align District objectives with the needs of its constituents.
Liaison:The liaison task force would serve as the communication link between the SEMPC and the faculty, helping to ensure the consistency of program objectives with those of the College as a whole and serving as a resource to the faculty in preparing program reviews and formulating departmental and division objectives.
Evaluation:The evaluation task force would be charged with assessing the performance of the College in relation to the objectives specified in its strategic and operational plans. This task force will lead the effort in the evaluation and modification of the Strategic Educational Master Plan, as well as the evaluation and modifications to the process used to create the Plan.

The role to be played by the SEMPC in strategic and operational planning and the timelines associated with the council’s work are outlined below:

Strategic Planning Cycle

Year 0 (06/07):

Spring, 2007 FlexSEMPPC Report/Recommendations presented

Spring SemesterAcademic Senate reviews recommendations

(2007)Recommendations presented to other groups on campus

Senate and Board approve recommendations

Year 1 (07/08):Strategic Educational Master Plan Created

September 2007SEMPC appointed and holds initial meeting

Task forces (environmental scanning, liaison, evaluation)

determined by SEMPC

Fall SemesterSEMP Council observes and assists in the process of determining College Objectives and ranking criteria for the Prioritization Process in the spring

Sept 07-April 08Internal and external environmental scans conducted

(Environmental Scan Task Force)

Review/comment on implementation of existing educational master plan(Evaluation Task Force)

Liaison task force works with program review teams as described below (Liaison Task Force)

Spring SemesterSEMP Council observes Prioritization Process. Work on

(2008)possible improvements

April – July 08Draft new 5-year Strategic Educational Master Plan

Year 2 (08/09):1stYear of Strategic Educational Master Plan Implementation

Fall, 2008 FlexDraft Strategic Educational Master Plan Presented by SEMPC

September, 2008Academic Senate reviews Draft Strategic Educational Master Plan

College Council reviews Draft Strategic Educational Master Plan

October, 2008Academic Senate approves Strategic Educational Master Plan

Strategic Educational Master Plan approved by Board of Trustees

Strategic Educational Master Plan Implementation

Fall SemesterSEMP determines College Objectives and ranking criteria

(2008)for the spring Prioritization Process

Spring SemesterSEMP Council determines Priority List

(2009)

Environmental Scan Task Force updates information

Year 3 (09/10):Mid-term review of Strategic Educational Master Plan

Review and modify Plan for approval by SEMPC, Academic Senate, College Council, Superintendent/President and Board by October, 2009

Fall SemesterSEMP determines College Objectives and ranking criteria

for the current Prioritization Process

Spring SemesterSEMP Council determines Priority List

Environmental Scan Task Force updates information

Year 4 (10/11):(same as Year 2)

Begin environmental scan for revised Strategic Educational Master Plan

Fall SemesterSEMP determines College Objectives and ranking criteria

for the current Prioritization Process

Spring SemesterSEMP Council determines Priority List

Environmental Scan Task Force updates information

Year 5 (11/12):Review and Revise Strategic Educational Master Plan

Evaluation Task Force conducts extensive review of the Strategic Educational Master Plan, and the process used to create the plan in preparation for the creation of a new Strategic Educational Master Plan to be created in Year 6

Year 6 (12/13):New Strategic Educational Master Plan Created

(Same as Year 1)

Prioritization Process

In the fall previous to the determination of the Priority List, the SEMP Council will determine and rank order the College Objectives for the next academic year
Secondly, during this fall, the SEMP Council will determine ranking criteria that will be used in determining the Priority List in the spring
In the spring, each program in the instructional areas, and each non-instructional unit submits its prioritized list of objectives they would like to accomplish for the next year to the SEMP Council.
The lists of objectivesshould be submitted by a representative from the Program or Unit
The Division representatives who are members of the SEMP Council would not be acting as advocates for their divisions, but instead as advocates for the college as a whole in the determination of the final master prioritized list
Ideally, the unit/program objectives should be designed to help achieve predetermined college-level objectives for that year. In addition to objectives designed to achieve the college-level objectives, a category for Innovative Objectives would be included as a result of Program Review to encourage creative contributions to college-level objectives. These objectives, like those designed to achieve the college objectives, should be achievable in that year.

Operational Planning Cycle and Prioritization Process Timeline:

This timeline outlines the Program Review and Prioritization process for one cycle. Note that there will be overlaps between this cycle and preceding and succeeding cycles in the tasks to be performed each semester. Also, this process applies to “program reviews” for both instructional programs and non-instructional units.

Spring FlexAY 1Program Review Teams identified

Teams meet with the Director of Institutional Research to see what data is available through that office, and discuss other possible data they want to obtain

Spring SemesterData provided to the team by Office of Institutional Research

Team reviews data

Initial discussion, beginning of draft

Fall Flex AY 2Team meets to complete initial draft of Program Review
Teams not in 1st year of cycle review and update their Program Reviews

Fall SemesterAdditional Team discussion

Complete Program Review

SeptemberCollege Objectives are determined by the SEMP Council

OctoberSEMP Council determines College priorities and ranking criteria for the Prioritization Process next Spring

Spring FlexAll Program Teams present Program Reviews to Curriculum
Committee in open Flex meeting

FebruaryCurriculum Committee approves Program Reviews
Academic Senate approves Program Reviews

MarchPrograms/units present their Program Objectives to SEMP Council

April 1SEMP Council finishes Prioritized List; Budget due

JuneOperational Plan/Budget for FY2 reviewed/revised/adopted by Board of Trustees

Operational Planning Cycle

Summary

The proposed strategic and operational planning processes outlined above differ significantly from both the process by which the College’s current educational and facilities master plans were adopted as well as the interim procedures currently in place for prioritizing program-level operational objectives and allocating resources geared toward achieving these objectives. Under the processes outlined above, the Strategic Educational Master Planning Councilwould play a central role in both strategic and operational planning and resource allocation. With respect to the long-range master planning process, the SEMPC would supplant functions primarily performed by consultants in preparing the existing educational and facilities master plans. With regard to the annual planning and resource allocation cycle, the role assigned to the SEMPC is performed largely by the Deans’ Council in the interim process currently being employed by the District. Since the structure and processes proposed herein would not become fully operational until fall 2008 at the earliest, an interim process would continue to be needed for one additional operational planning cycle.By the time the newly approved operational planning process is initiated in fall2008, the College will have a revised Strategic Educational Master Plan upon which to base decisions concerning prioritization and resource allocation for 2008/09.

NOTE: Spreadsheets summarizing the above processes and diagrams of the proposed strategic educational master planning process are included in Appendix A of this report. Appendix B contains a list of planning terms and concepts that were utilized by SEMPPC in preparing this report.

Appendices

Appendix A:

A1.SEMPPC Membership

A2.Strategic Planning Cycle Flowchart

A3.Operational Planning Cycle

A4.Strategic (5-year) Planning Cycle

A5.Approval Process Flow Chart

A6.Current Prioritization Process

A7.Proposed New Prioritization Process

Appendix B:

Components of a Strategic Educational Master Plan

Appendix A1: SEMPPC Committee Membership

The following list includes all present and past members of the Strategic Educational Master Plan Process Committee:

Doug MacIntire (co-chair): Associate Professor, Physics (Science & Math)
Gari Browning (co-chair): VP of Instruction
David Acquistapace: Assistant Professor Digital Design and Production (Applied Science & Business), Senate President
Bert Bitanga, Assistant Professor, Architecture (Applied Science and Business)
Matthew Breindel: Director, Institutional Research
David Buttles: Athletic Academic Advisor (PE and Athletics)
Kathlyn Enciso: Assistant Professor (Communications)
Michelle Ferguson: Work Experience (Applied Science & Business)
William Kelly: Interim Dean (Applied Science & Business)
Pam Licalsi: Dean (Center for Training and Development)
Gaither Loewenstein: Dean (Social Sciences & Arts)
Juan Lujan: Dean (Off-Campus Programs)
Jerry Patton: Assistant Superintendent/President Administrative Services
Diane Ramirez: VP Student Services
Rick Rawnsley: Assistant Professor, Basic Writing Skills (Communication Division)
Anne Saddington: Professor, Human Services and Sociology (Social Sciences and Arts)
Wendy Sanders: Professor, Early Childhood Education (Health Sciences/ECE Division)
Ty Thomas: Professor (Adult Education)
Dee Wood: Adjunct Faculty, Speech (Communication Division)

Appendix A2: Strategic Educational Master Plan Creation Process

Appendix A3: Operational Planning Cycle

Appendix A4: Five-year Planning Cycle

Appendix A5: Approval Process Flow Chart