Quick Jump to Sections: Strategic Goals Discussion, Collegewide Discussions on Core Values/Strategic Plan, Summer School 2013 Scheduling, Next Meeting.
After attending the Poverty 101 Leadership Breakfast led by Donna Beegle in L149 (and finding out how little we middle-class folks know about the lives of those, especially our students, who live in poverty), we spent some time with discussion about previous two strategic goals presentations (facilities & infrastructure projects and program review/SLOs). Future presentations will need to make more explicit connections to the Strategic Focus "map" laid out in the Strategic Focus document.
For facilities & infrastructure we got a list of upcoming projects that will get started in the summer with the hope that they'll be done in time for fall semester start.
With over $200 million in needed repairs and maintenance needs for our decades-old facilities, we need to know the rationale behind the prioritizations of which buildings and infrastructure are attended to. With these particular projects I think that health & safety issues are prioritizing these ones and we try to tag along other needed items (like the technology upgrade in FA 30) with the needed repairs (seat repair in FA 30 because no other large classrooms are available for the courses taught in FA 30). We did not find out the current status of the SAM (Speech Arts Music) remodel but we were reminded again that the money for that $14-15 million project is coming from state capital funds ($10 million) and SRID bond and other local sources ($4-5 million)—no general fund dollars.
The $180 million SRID Measure G bond passed in November 2002 still has $95.5 million left available for the projects on its list. Any projects using SRID money have to match the project list approved by the voters (another link to the project list from Chancellor Serrano's response to grand jury in 2002/03). There has been about $22 million in interest and other revenue added to the original bond amount and $106.5 million spent on projects for the past decade with BC spending $49 million of that. BC still has about $50 million of its SRID allocation left to spend. I don't know why there is still so much left in the SRID bond money---the original plan was to have the bond spent in 10 to 12 years. Part of it might have to do with the fact that the cost of steel rose by a third because of the Iraq War during that time period and the great recession. With BC's facility/infrastructure needs being over $200 million and SRID left being just $50 million, the Board of Trustees is seriously considering going out for a very local bond (i.e., one just for BC) in 2014 to fill the gap. At the same time we have a private fundraising campaign going on for upgrading the stadium.
There was some question about whether or not the stadium was in the SRID project list so here's what I found after doing some digging around: Before the 2002 SRID bond, there was a Maintenance Assessment District created by the Board of Trustees that was for critical repairs and seismic refit of the stadium. The stadium was not explicitly in the SRID project list approved by the voters, so SRID money very, very likely canNOT be used for upgrading the stadium. There is an item in the project list that says, "Acquire updated physical education equipment, improve physical education fields/facilities for health/safety (BC, CC, PC)" that has been accomplished at BC with the upgrade of the Women's Softball field and the Men's Baseball field in the 2008-10 timeframe.The stadium upgrade is not for health/safety purposes anyway (those were done with the late-1990s Maintenance Assessment District), so I don't think we could fit it in anyway.
Regarding the program review/SLOs presentation: we ran out of time to do much reflection on it or the evaluation forms that are now posted in the Strategic Plan section of the new committees website---go to the "Strategic Focus" section in there and scroll down to the Research and Reporting Work Session Evaluation to see the initial "teaser survey" results and the summative evaluation results from the survey at the conclusion of the March 1st presentation. Sonya did say that she does not expect College Council members to have a deep understanding of all of the topics that come before College Council such as program review/SLO assessment but instead we should have a broad, collegewide understanding of the various issues. We'll rely on the expertise of individuals and committees who have the expert, deep understanding of specialized areas if we need further information in College Council deliberations.
Sonya also talked about the College Brain Trust report on four areas of our college processes: institutional effectiveness, program review, program discontinuation, and student services. (See my previous report for some more background on College Brain Trust.) BC is already on the track they outlined in their report, so instead of teaching us what needs to be done, they validated what we're doing, so we are on the right track and we don't need to visit other places or get more consultation to do more research. We have the tools we need to modify our processes in order to improve student success. In an earlier email to college council sent on March 11th, Sonya said:
Last fall, Bakersfield College secured the services of the College Brain Trust, a community college consulting group. Consultants from the College Brain Trust interviewed our staff and reviewed college processes, while conducting an assessment of four components of the college: institutional effectiveness, program review, program discontinuation, and student services.
I am happy to report the findings, conclusions, and recommendations are in alignment with the work Bakersfield College has been doing over the last few months. In the eight weeks I’ve been with Bakersfield College, I have been guiding our work to focus largely on committee integration, strategic direction, and use of data in improving practice. The results from the College Brain Trust report, in my opinion, validate the direction we have already taken for our work.
Most of the findings identify issues we’ve already uncovered, and reflect work already incorporated into our practices. We will continue to incorporate efforts in program review and program discontinuance. Nan, as Vice President of Academic Affairs, has been working and will continue to work on program review and program discontinuance. Zav, as Vice President of Student Services, has engaged with the aspects of student services identified in the report and has already started working with the student services leadership team and staff to sharpen the focus on student success.
I am pleased that the report from the College Brain Trust is a validation of the work we are already doing.
The report can be downloaded from my website at http://www.bakersfieldcollege.edu/president/Communications/Files/CBT-Bakersfield%20College%20Final%20Report.pdf.
Here is the remaining schedule of presentations (tentative schedule, definitely subject to change!)
By now you should have received the BC_ALL "An Opportunity to Partner with College Council - Engaging in "Big Picture" Discussion" that invites you to one or more of the forums focussing on the college core values and fleshing out of the college strategic plan. Here are the key parts of that BC_ALL (including the schedule of forums)
All college community members are invited to participate in the meetings or participate via a virtual process, which will be sent in a separate announcement. Members of the Program Viability work group are encouraged to attend and share their perspectives based on foundational work they completed last fall.
Meetings are scheduled:
March 18 – 2:00 – 3:30 p.m. DELANO CAMPUS
March 19 – 7:00 – 8:30 a.m. LEVAN CENTER
March 21 – 12:30 – 2 p.m. LEVAN CENTER
March 21 – 4:30 – 6 p.m. LEVAN CENTER
WHAT WILL WE DISCUSS?
By developing a two-way conversation, we hope to find answers or solutions to the following questions. These answers will shape the Strategic Plan development.
1) Who we are? and/or Who are we? How do we define ourselves?
2) What are our core values? How do our values shape our decisions?
We are needing summer school 2013 to boost the BC "target enrollment" by 300 students. This target number includes room for growth money from the state that we might capture if other districts don't meet their "cap enrollments". BC will do the heavy lifting of the extra FTES for the KCCD district since we have a larger base to draw from. There will be special efforts to target advertisements of the summer offerings to recent high school graduates and those coming home for the summer.
Cap Enrollment vs. Target Enrollment numbers
Our district enrollment gurus talk about "target" enrollment numbers and meeting "cap" enrollment. What is the difference?
"Cap" is the set amount of money given to a college district by the state, beyond which the state will not pay for any extra students. While technically, it is a number calculated on $$/student, it really is the state saying they will pay for X number of students, so there is a ceiling on the amount of $$ the state gives the district.
Our enrollment "target" is the number of FTES we hope to have enrolled for a given semester. This determines the number of course sections we will offer that semester. The "target" is usually set higher than the "cap" to provide some cushion in case our projections for FTES enrollment are too high. If we fall below our "cap", then we will have to give money back to the state. College budgeting and planning, including hiring decisions, assume that we will meet "cap".
Other items on the agenda Accreditation, Budget, AB 620 (colleges need to establish point of contact for LGBT students), and MOOCs were not gotten to in alloted time. MOOCs (massively open online courses) may be one way to expand delivery of courses as proposed in Governor Brown's budget proposal.
Next College Council meeting will be April 5th. Have a good spring break!
Last updated: March 20, 2013
Document author: Nick Strobel