Quick Jump to Sections: Strategic Goals Discussion, Collegewide Discussions on Core Values/Strategic Plan, Accreditation, College Brain Trust, Achieving the Dream, 100% Tobacco-Free Campus, Summer School 2013 Scheduling, Next Meeting.
The 90 minutes was devoted to one of the projects in the strategic focus of the college. The last hour of the meeting was a regular business meeting. This meeting's project part was about the use of ARCC data and the data gathered in our SLO/Assessment efforts to improve student success. The SLO/Assessment is done at all levels: course level, department/unit level, general education level, and entire institution level. College Council is an open meeting and campus employees are welcome to join us in the training times. Members of certain committees (FCDC, ASC, Assessment, Curriculum, SDCC, Budget, ISIT, PRC, and Admin Council) were specifically invited by the college president to join us, so the first part of meeting was held in the Fireside Room. This session included a presentation of the need to move beyond the reporting function of Institutional Research to how to use the data to improve student success. We heard from several groups: Institutional Research, Program Review, and the Assessment Committee, so this session was devoted to lecture mode. A follow-up session will be needed for reflection and discussion of how we apply what was presented to our own areas. Therefore, the College Council work plan schedule will need to be adjusted. The modified schedule in its current form is given below, but there will undoubtedly be changes after the March 15th meeting. Most are at 8:30 on Friday except for one listed in the schedule below:
Link to the Research and Reporting study session materials. The link will take you to the "Strategic Focus" part of the new committees site. The Research and Reporting study session materials are in the "Strategic Goals Discussion" section of that page. Several other people from our college council unit area were present at the study session. For the institutional research piece, the goal is to get us to the point that we can all query the data for ourselves without having to go through the Institutional Research & Planning office (IRP) because IRP has a huge queue of reporting projects they are required to do for compliance reasons (see the Research and Reporting "Big Picture" slides) and the faculty "in the trenches" (the practitioners) have a better idea of what particular data they need and what the numbers mean. A self-service process for querying the databases would provide more timely and meaningful results to effect the needed changes. We aren't at that point but that is where we want to eventually be. Something like Achieving the Dream would get us there in a short time. Sonya also noted that the peer review process of accreditation is one very special thing about higher education in the United States and this peer-reviewed accreditation is what ensures a high level of quality unparalleled anywhere else.
Liz Rozell gave a brief overview of how she approaches the data in the APR and using it to make action plans---see the "Program Review" slides in the Research and Reporting section) . She did note that often departments put their identified program (department) needs at the top of the section in the APR where the quantitative and qualitative data (itemized in the "Program Review" slides) are given, i.e., the departments have identified department needs BEFORE any real analysis of the data have been done. The identified program (department) needs should be AFTER the analysis of the data is done. The analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data then leads to needs of the department to meet the goals and action plans. Action plans that have been developed ahead of time are very nice when unexpected grants or other $$ dollars come up.
College Council will also be facilitating collegewide discussions in the next 18 months on three major areas: 1) updates on our strategic plans and determination of what are our core values; 2) "Who are We?"; and 3) reorganization of the college. The first two items need to happen in the March/April timeframe and the third needs to happen in the first part of the fall semester. Members of the Program Viability Task Force will be specifically invited to participate in the collegewide discussions because they wrestled with the "who are we?" and "what is the new core?" questions in their deliberations last fall. However, all faculty, classified staff, and administration are invited/needed in these discussions. Another possible avenue to gathering input is a discussion board in InsideBC so that back-and-forth conversations can happen and people take ownership of their opinions.The team facilitating these discussions could use your help. Please contact Corny Rodriguez or Sonya Christian.
Teams are now working on figuring out how we can meet the accreditation recommendations by mid-April (yes, mid-April). We not only have to make plans for how we'll meet the recommendations, we actually have to have something implemented by mid-April so that we can write it up with the evidence and then have that report go through all of the levels of review/approval. Please be especially kind to those who are chairing the various recommendation teams. The recommendations and timeline are given below.
Here's the timeline for Bakersfield College to prepare its report in response to the ACCJC Recommendations.
In my October 19, 2012 report I reported that the College was working with a consulting group called "College Brain Trust". They have completed their assessment. The College contracted with College Brain Trust to help us figure out the reorganization of Student Services in conjunction with Academic Development faculty so that we can get the HUGE number of students who place more than two levels below transfer level in remediation up to transfer level skills more quickly. Two levels below transfer level is lowest level for how far down the college has decided to commit remediation efforts, so the usual remediation classes further down than that are not being offered. The College Brain Trust people were on campus in the first week of last November.
College Brain Trust also worked with the College in improving the linking of budget and planning decision making processes. John Spevak and Dan Roseberg were the ones who consulted for that aspect of our operations. College Brain Trust is a consulting group of retired California community college administrators. Included in their group is Bob Jensen (our interim president last spring) and Walter Packard (former KCCD chancellor before Sandra Serrano). The $50,000 fee was drawn from the Administrative Services part of the college budget.
Their assessment report on Program Review and Institutional Effectiveness is supposed to be posted right away---where on the web is TBD. The Program Review piece includes program viability and discontinuance. Their assessment of the Student Services organization will be posted later after the Student Services area has had a chance to read through the report and digest their recommendations.
The proposed four-college consortium for Achieving the Dream will be a threesome the first year since Taft College cannot join in the first year. (See my previous report for all of the background on Achieving the Dream.) That means that each of three remaining colleges would split the $150K annual fee three equal ways = $50,000/college for the first year. President Sonya Christian has asked ATD Senior Vice President, Carol Lincoln if we can still go with the $37.5K/college for the first year but she's probably pushing her luck on that one.
The College Council voted to support the principle or concept of the proposed 100% Tobacco-Free campus policy from SGA but the practicalities of how we'll implement it and enforce it need to be worked out. There are also implications with faculty and classified staff contractual or working conditions that need to be worked out with the unions. There was one thought that in order for it to go into the Board Policy Manual (so that campus personnel could enforce it), we'd need to have all colleges agreeing to the same policy. That's not necessary---the Board Policy Manual could simply say that each college will have a smoking policy and leave it up to each college to decide what the policy should be for their college.
We will have four and six week classes offered this summer. We want to time the four-week courses so that they bracket July 1 so that they can be counted in either this year's FTES or next year's FTES depending on how our current year FTES numbers shape up. We also want to time the four-week classes just right to match the schedules of two targeted groups: recent high school graduates and those coming home for the summer.
Next College Council meeting will be March 15th.
Last updated: March 8, 2013
Document author: Nick Strobel