West Los Angeles College Educational Master Plan Workgroup

Notes on Relations with Other Plans, Processes, and Standards

Matthew C. Lee, Ph.D.

October 17, 2013

  1. Mission, Vision, and Values
  2. The Mission is the foundation for the EMP. All Strategic Directions must support or contribute to pursuit of the Mission, either directly or indirectly.
  3. The EMP must be consistent with the Vision and Values.
  4. The EMP should build on, not merely echo, the Mission, Vision, and Values.
  5. Student Services Plan 2011-17 (SSP)
  6. The new EMP is explicitly required to integrate student services planning with academic planning at the strategic level, and thus render a separate SSP unnecessary. The new EMP will therefore not just guide the SSP; the EMP will actually incorporate the new SGs, Objectives, and Actions that would otherwise comprise a new SSP.
  7. In the SSP, Goal 4 is the one most directly related to the existing EMP: “Increase the number of students who graduate with an AA/AS degree, transfer or are prepared to transfer.” The other five goals are designed to support student success and/or improve student services operations.
  8. Selected goals or strategies in the SSP, to the extent that work on them is incomplete and requires additional effort or focus, might be revised to serve as SGs, Objectives, or Actions in the EMP. In addition, certain Student Services programs might appear as links in the summary table for one or more SGs that involve student support.
  9. Facilities Master Plan (FMP)
  10. The Goals in the 2004 FMP changed dramatically in 2008, and then again in 2010. As of one year ago, the FMP Goals were as follows:
  11. To design for future growth and accommodate projected student enrollment on College campus in light of available funds
  12. To modernize and improve academic, sports, recreational and aesthetic amenities on the College
  13. To increase amenities available for College students
  14. To improve campus circulation and access to the College campus and promote a pedestrian friendly environment
  15. To ensure that design considerations for people with mobility limitations, visual impairments, or other disabilities are incorporated into the overall design
  16. To continue to create a strong sense of place that supports the academic and social life of the College
  17. To improve aesthetics in and around the campus
  18. Maintain flexibility in use of spaces
  19. An effort to identify linkages between these FMP Goals and the EMP Goals and Objectives in September 2012 was unsuccessful, based on my analysis: The cited relationships were mostly forced, tenuous, or unclear.
  20. The latest approved facilities projections at the program and institutional levels assume overall enrollment growth and reflect the establishment of some new programs as well. For the EMP, such growth might suggest SGs, Objectives, or Actions concerning organizational capacity, professional development, facilities maintenance, distance education, or potential implications of a larger number of students on campus carrying a larger number of units.
  21. I recommend that at least one SD, SG, and/or Objective provide clear guidance to facilities planning and the next iteration of the FMP. Assuming that the FMP Goals remain for the time being as they were a year ago, candidate concepts for consideration as guides for facilities planning in the 2014 EMP might include the following:
  22. Student engagement in campus life, in part through extracurricular activities and opportunities (as promoted by amenities for students in campus facilities)
  23. Inclusiveness (as expressed in facilities design considerations for people with disabilities)
  24. Curricular or pedagogical innovation (as supported by flexibility in the use of spaces)
  25. In addition, the creation of the successor EMP will necessitate review and possible revision of the FMP Goals, to ensure that their relationship with progress on the SDs and SGs is clear.
  26. The Facilities Committee might appear as a link in the summary table for any SGs that involve facilities.
  27. Outcomes Process
  28. One major function of educational master planning is improving institutional effectiveness and student learning for the long term. The results of cyclical assessment of student learning outcomes (particularly at the institutional level) and of service and administrative outcomes can therefore serve as important indicators of progress on the applicable SDs and SGs.
  29. If outcomes processes require more focus or energy to become more meaningful or effective, an SG, Objective, or Action in the EMP might help the College move in that direction.
  30. ACCJC Standards and Rubrics
    The Standards and Rubrics all require integration of the EMP with other evaluation, planning, resource allocation, and decision-making processes aimed at improving student learning and institutional effectiveness.
  31. Evaluation in the EMP, as in all integrated planning, must be based on analyses of both quantitative and qualitative data.
  32. Institutional planning must integrate planning for human, physical, financial, and technological resources. Therefore, the EMP should take into consideration these four areas of planning, as applicable.
  33. Educational planning must be “integrated with resource planning and distribution to achieve student learning outcomes.”
  34. Results of program reviews and learning outcomes assessment should be integrated into the educational master planning process.
  35. The EMP must be part of an “ongoing and systematic cycle of evaluation, integrated planning, resource allocation, implementation, and reevaluation.”
  36. The EMP should take into consideration institution-set standards for student learning and student achievement, certainly in the evaluation of overall College progress, and possibly explicitly in an SD, SG, or Objective.
  37. Communication and dialogue about institutional effectiveness, the EMP, and its results are essential.
  38. Program Review (PR)
  39. Progress on EMP SDs and SGs typically occurs through execution of Objectives and Actions at the program level, as well as by committees and individuals. For example, faculty and staff in the Math, English, and ESL disciplines will no doubt be heavily involved in the execution of any Objectives related to a foundation skills SG. To facilitate and demonstrate appropriate integration in planning, the PRs of such programs should reflect their contributions to progress on the SDs and SGs, as well as progress on their local goals.
  40. Evidence reported as part of the PR process, appropriately summarized, should serve as part of the evidence of progress in the EMP, both in its various components and as a whole.
  41. The Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Committee (PIEC), one of the parent bodies of the Educational Master Plan Workgroup, bears responsibility for monitoring such integration among all major planning processes, including program review, outcomes assessment, and educational master planning.
  42. Board Rule 6801 requires, “Program review shall link the college’s mission with the educational master plan, and department goals and educational objectives.”
  43. In their PRs, all programs are required to link each of their improvement goals with at least one of the “strategic plan” goals. Five of the “strategic plan” goals (Student Learning, Transfer, Career Technical Education, Foundation Skills Program, and Diversified Instructional Delivery) are drawn from the existing EMP. The PRs beginning in Fall 2014 should include analogous linkages to the new EMP’s SDs or SGs.
  44. Communication and coordination with the group(s) responsible for coordinating PR will help ensure that the transition to the new SDs and SGs will be seamless.
  45. Technology Master Plan 2009-16 (TMP)
  46. The TMP was explicitly constructed to advance the goals of the existing EMP.
  47. I recommend that the new EMP provide guidance for technology planning at the SG, Objective, and Action levels as appropriate, and for the next iteration of the TMP. Assuming that the TMP Goals remain stable for the time being, candidate concepts for consideration as guides for technology planning in the 2014 EMP might include the following:
  48. Use of technology to improve access to programs, services, and information
  49. Use of technology to improve student learning and achievement outcomes in vocational and academic programs
  50. Use of technology to support expansion of learning communities
  51. Use of technology in the delivery of instruction and services
  52. Application of technology to enhancing campus infrastructure
  53. In addition, the creation of the successor EMP will necessitate revisiting the TMP, to ensure that its goals and strategies contribute to progress on the SDs and SGs.
  54. The Technology Master Plan Committee (TMPC) might appear as a link in the summary table for any SGs that involve technology.
  55. Foundation Skills
  56. Student performance evidence suggests that one or more candidate SDs or SGs might well involve foundation skills.
  57. The Foundation Skills Comprehensive Plan carries implications for the following broader concepts that are not uncommon in EMPs:
  58. Learning communities
  59. Tutoring services
  60. Class scheduling to accommodate student needs
  61. Articulation with feeder high schools
  62. Alternative student services models
  63. Improved collaboration, communication, and dialogue
  64. Professional development
  65. Selected Strategies listed in the Foundation Skills Comprehensive Plan, to the extent that work on them is incomplete and requires additional effort or focus, might be revised to serve as Objectives under one or more appropriate SGs in the EMP. In addition or instead, the Student Success Committee might appear as a link in the summary table for one or more SGs that involve foundation skills.
  66. Achieving the Dream (AtD)
  67. One or more EMP Strategic Directions (SDs) or Strategic Goals (SGs) might well align with AtD’s focus on improving student success, or build upon AtD goals.
  68. AtD, as an explicitly data-driven project, might well provide quantitative and/or qualitative evidence for progress on such SDs or SGs.
  69. The AtD Implementation Proposal explicitly asserted that AtD “priorities and intervention strategies align with” the existing EMP. The creation of the successor EMP might necessitate revisiting that alignment.
  70. Budget Process
  71. The EMP, particularly since it will also function as West’s strategic plan, should take into consideration the likelihood of enrollment growth or decline, and therefore revenue growth or decline, based on the evidence available. Reasonable attention to such issues helps ensure that the set of initiatives and other actions that the EMP represents is not wildly out of line with resource expectations. On the other hand, resource expectations should not dictate the content of the EMP, which should reflect the College’s ambitions more than its limitations.
  72. The EMP review and revision schedule should mesh with the annual resource allocation prioritization and budget development schedules, so that resource requests associated with the EMP can enter the resource allocation prioritization process in timely fashion.
  73. LACCD Strategic Plan: Vision 2017
  74. Selected District Goals might be revised to serve as SDs, and selected District Objectives might be revised to serve as SGs or Objectives, if they fit the College’s own needs based on the available evidence.
  75. Because the College will be required to report on the Measures listed under each Objective, it would make sense to use some of the same measures in gauging progress on the EMP, but only those that turn out to fit SGs, Objectives, or Actions that are included in the EMP. It is not good practice to construct an SG, Objective, or Action merely to match a previously established measurement requirement.

Note on Referral Links in the EMP

Referral links should focus on strong connections and likely contributions, not weak connections or merely possible contributions, because each referral will entail labor on the part of the committee/plan/process referred to. Each committee or coordinating body will be asked to report its progress/contributionannually to the IPW’s successor, which will evaluate overall EMP progress and might recommend a revised Objective or Action as that body’sresponsibility.