IEC Meeting Minutes Monday, December 7, 2015 1

Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC) December 7, 2015 Minutes

Committee Chair(s): Faculty:

Lan Hao, Co-chair P Stephanie Yee P

Roberta Eisel, Co-chair P Dennis Korn A

Management: Academic Senate/Faculty:

Arvid Spor A Alfie Swan P

Claudette Dain P Supervisor/Confidential:

Rosalinda Buchwald A Marilyn Grinsdale P

Lucinda Over P Classified:

Jim McClain P Cathy Napoli P

Linda Welz A Cathy Day P

Robert Sammis A ASCC:

Martha McDonald P Ruben Romero A

Kathryn Jameson-Meledy A P = Present; A = Absent

I. Approval of Minutes

Minutes from the October 26, 2015 meeting were approved by consensus.

II. IEPI Report (Attachment One) Cathy Day attended the Community College League of California (CCLC) annual conference in November and provided an oral report to IEC:

Cathy shared a few interesting statistics from the YouTube video shown at the beginning of one of the conference sessions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJjfDUzD7M

A current IEPI structure was provided. The structure includes an Executive Committee and an Advisory Committee. Every college in California (113) adopted a goals indicator framework and agreed to set goals by June 30, 2015.

They reported that funding is still available but it was not uppermost in the presentation as in last year’s; this year was more about the completion of year 1 and the movement into the indicators/reporting for year 2 as well as what is coming for year 3.

The team seemed quite focused on the Technical Assistance portion of the IEPI: 31 institutions are currently scheduled for technical assistance spanning spring 2015 - (8 institutions); fall 2015 - (15 colleges, 1 center, and 1 district); spring 2016 – (6 institutions) and an additional (7) of the (10) colleges currently with accreditation sanctions are being served by PRT – Partnership Resource Teams in addition to numerous IEPI sponsored workshops.

IEC Meeting Minutes Monday, December 7, 2015 2

II. IEPI Report (continued)

As funding grows and is funneled into this program, it will continue to expand with continued growth in the area of policies, procedures, practices, a Professional Learning Network including a revitalization of professional development, and a strategic communications program to ensure all colleges and their districts are connected, understand the value of the program and can reap the benefits of the Initiative.

Claudette added the following comments:

The Chancellor’s office recently sent a letter to all districts – They have hired an external group called Interact Communications (IC) (a

community college-focused marketing firm): http://www.interactcom.com/ The Chancellor’s office would like IC to conduct research on how they can scale-up

their communications about IEPI to the community colleges emphasizing best practices, providing technical assistance and training and offer support to the community colleges

In support of this research effort, Citrus College will be participating in a focus group involving all areas of the campus with Claudette as the point person

There will be upcoming discussions about who will participate in the focus group via a nomination process

III. Review of Integrated Planning Manual Cross Review (Attachment Two)

The following committees have reviewed their respective pages from the 2014-2015 IPM:

Page 12 Educational Programs, Physical Resources. Student Services will review the page at their next meeting, Thursday, Dec. 10

Page 13 Physical Resources Pages 16-17 Program Review Page 18 Financial Resources

Pages that still need to be reviewed include:

Page 14 College Information Technology Page 15 Human Resources

There are several pages to be reviewed by IEC: pages 5-10 and 19. Lan and Roberta will preview these pages and bring suggested revisions back to the committee.

External Relations has provided photos for the 2015-2016 IPM publication

Marilyn has been tasked with drafting the President’s letter

The cross-review process was discussed: The cross-review will begin in spring 2016. It is not necessary that a cross-reviewing committee have an understanding of

the committee whose page(s) they are reviewing. The cross-review will go beyond simply proof reading. The cross-review will be done from the perspective that anyone reading the

IPM will have a clear idea of the purpose and responsibilities of that committee. There will be a guiding statement/rubric to be completed by the reviewer

upon completion of the review. The cross-review will ensure that the IPM has gone through a thorough

Governance vetting process.

IEC Meeting Minutes Monday, December 7, 2015 3

IV. Review of Integrated Planning Model (Attachment Three)

The discussion began by addressing the direction of the arrows and what they represent: The arrows can be interpreted as a guide of what informs the next step. Arrows imply process to the casual observer. The arrow from Strategic Plan and Board Goals should go both directions. All items on the Model represent major institution planning components. Color-coding explained:

o GREEN = process o BLUE = related to Program Review o ORANGE = plans

Some steps are done annually; some are long-term (Strategic Plan is every 5-years; EFMP is every 10-years).

Plan time-periods omitted to avoid confusion. The model is meant to be a bird’s-eye view of processes and the relationships among the major planning efforts of the school – it is not meant to represent a timeline.

We do not want to create lines of authority or control. The goal is to show the dynamic process for which things happen.

Should there be a line coming from Mission, Vision, Values to Board Goals? Pertaining to the 4 green boxes – should the arrows be going both directions or

should they depict a cycle? The order of Program Improvement and Assessment should be switched. It was suggested to remove the arrows throughout the document and only have

lines showing that items are linked or associated. The group agreed to replace the arrows with lines and change the placement of

the GREEN boxes to illustrate a cycle. V. Institution-set Standards

ACCJC Standard I.B.3.

The institution establishes institution-set standards for student achievement, appropriate to its mission, assesses how well it is achieving them in pursuit of continuous improvement, and publishes this information. (ER 11)

Roberta: The revised ACCJC standard (now in effect as of 2012) calls much closer attention to institutional-set standards over and above the few questions appearing on the ACCJC Annual Report. We should be looking at other areas of student achievement where we want to set aspirational goals. The expectation will be that we have a metrics in place to define and assess progress towards those goals. Claudette asked for clarification: Do the goals we set for the IEPI indicators and our Institution Set Standards (ISS)

contain the same (or similar) language? Roberta clarified: Our ISS can be seen in the IEPI indicators and the ACCJC Annual Report. The group looked at the ACCJC Standard IB.1-4 (annotated version).

We can expect to receive the ACCJC Annual Report in March 2016.

We should respond to the ACCJC Standard via the Annual Report and IEPE standards.

IEC Meeting Minutes Monday, December 7, 2015 4

V. Institution-set Standards (continued)

IEC should be the body at Citrus College to carry-on the conversation about institution-set standards.

Lan will bring visuals to the next IEC meeting which will include metrics of basic set standards (i.e., degrees, certificates, transfer, course completion, etc.) and will also include historic data.

We should also have a clear understanding of the annotations.

The final product should meet both IEPI and ACCJC annual reports requirements.

VI. Review and Status Check of IEC 2015-2016 Responsibilities (Attachment Four)

The group reviewed the Responsibilities from the 2015-2016 Purpose Statement. We have done a significant amount of work in the fall semester and still have several projects we need to be addressed in the spring. #1 is DONE #2 is IN PROGRESS #3a is DONE #4a we haven’t done that #4b has not been started #5 needs to be finalized #6 needs to be done #7 has not been started #8 discussion started

VII. BP/AP 3225: Institutional Effectiveness Tabled to February 22, 2016 meeting. VII. Other Reports None Meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Remaining meetings: February 22, 2016 March 28, 2016 April 25, 2016 May 23, 2016 June 6, 2016

Recording secretary: Jody Barrass Administrative Secretary, IRPE

INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

REPORT – CCLC CONFERENCE

NOVEMBER, 2015 – CATHY DAY

Presenters Dr. Dianne Van Hook, Chancellor, College of the Canyons, Dr. Barry Gribbons, Deputy

Chancellor, College of the Canyons, Ms. Theresa Tena, Vice Chancellor, California Community College

Chancellor’s Office, Dr. Paul Steenhausen, Executive Director, Success Center, and Dr. Matthew Lee,

Project Director, Institutional Effectiveness Partnership Initiative.

Presentation began with a short, fascinating YouTube clip found at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJjfDUzD7M

The current IEPI structure is made up of:

Executive Committee:

California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office

College of the Canyons

Academic Senate for California Community Colleges

Foothill College

Success Center (funded by Kresge Foundation)

Advisory Committee:

66 members from 20 statewide organizations

Formed into workgroups to provide input to the Executive Committee on the initiative’s four

major components

The IEPI Major Components:

Indicators

Partnership Resource Teams

Professional Development

Policy, Procedures, and Practice

The context for indicator framework:

Statutorily required

Board of Governors adopted Year-One framework March 16, 2015

All 112 colleges adopted goals framework and set goals by June 30, 2015

https://misweb.cccco.edu/ie/DistrictSelect.aspx

Indicators for Year 1:

Student Outcomes (Achievement) – including Completion (prepared/unprepared/overall),

Remedial Rate (Math, English, ESL), and Course Completion Rate*

Attachment One

Accreditation Status*

Fiscal Viability – Fund Balance*

State and Federal Programmatic Compliance – Overall Audit Opinion*

(*) indicates indicators requiring a target to be set by colleges

Indicators for Year 2:

Course Completion Rate: Change to Fall from Annual

College Choice: Unprepared/Basic Skills

College Choice (Additional Optional)

Audit Separate into Three

(Goals are required as well as confirmation that an additional achievement indicator is required from the

original year 1)

Indicators for Year 3:

Access: Participation Rate – traditional plus GIS and Percent of Students who apply registering

Employment and Wage Data – CTE Outcomes Survey and EDD Data

Dozens of additional indicators to help with internal planning

Limit the number of required targets

Disaggregations

Pilot visualizations

The Technical Assistance portion of the IEPI is made up of Partnership Resource Teams (PRTs):

Peers (faculty, administrators, classified professionals, trustees)

Utilize the “appreciative inquiry” approach

Strive to be positive, constructive, and solution-oriented

Provide assistance without judgment or predetermined courses of action

Provide an opportunity to brainstorm ideas and share challenges with peers

Underlying governance and resource issues surface and become evident

Are a professional development opportunity for volunteers statewide

Regarding technical assistance:

31 institutions selected to receive technical assistance by Partnership Resource Teams:

The spring 2015 cohort includes 8 institutions

The fall 2015 cohort includes 15 colleges, 1 center, and 1 district

The spring 2016 cohort includes 6 institutions

Seven (7) of the ten (10) colleges currently with accreditation sanctions are being served

by PRTs

A pool of more than 230 subject matter experts from within CCC system populate PRTs

Application link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/IEPI-PRT-ExpertiseInventory2015-2

PRT Training occurs twice each year, through a webinar and two face-to-face workshops

Attachment One

Technical Assistance – Areas of Focus:

Integrated planning at all levels, with resource allocation

SLO and SAO assessment, reporting, improvement, and integration with institutional planning

Using student success and achievement data for improving decision-making and institutional

effectiveness

Enrollment management

Delineation of function between college and district

Technology tools for monitoring and management of institutional effectiveness processes

Improvement of governance, decision-making, and communication

Fiscal management and strategies

Partnership Resource Team Observations

Lessons learned

Institutional visits – what was the most helpful observation to your institution?

Suggestions for going forward?

Through November, 2015, a total of more than 1,000 participants have attended IEPI-sponsored

workshops. ‘Coming Attractions’ include:

Additional Student Support (Re)defined Workshops

Inmate/Re-Entry Education

Integrated Planning

Audit and Fiscal Issues

A ‘Professional Learning Network’ has an anticipated release scheduled of December, 2015. This will

pull together hundreds of resources by topic and will include a system-wide calendar in addition to

other features.

PPP (Policy, Procedures, and Practice) Work and Proposals include the initiation of a communication

plan and collection of successful college practices to share with other California Community Colleges as

well as a proposal to conduct research to see what we can learn from reviewing IE practices and

standards used in other states. Additional proposals include the idea of developing a list (or rubric) of

best practices in areas identified in Letters of Interest as well as the formation of a community of

practice for ALOs or College Accreditation Liaison Officers and Chairs.

Subsequent steps: Given the 2015-16 budget augmentation ($2.5M to $17.5M) and the Chancellor’s

Office additional 6 new staff:

Expand number of colleges, districts, and centers served

Year-2 IEPI goals framework adopted by Board of Governors at November, 2015 meeting.

Roll out IEPI Strategic Communications – ensure colleges/districts and external audiences

understand value and benefits of IEPI

Attachment One

Establish a voluntary Community of Practice focused on colleges/districts visited by PRTs. IEPI

set a goal to have the first multi-day cohort in spring, 2016

$12M to identify and disseminate effective practices – Board of Governors to award RFP at

November, 2015 meeting

Develop content/materials

Dedicate staff to develop content and coordinate activity

Deploy resources to disseminate content – in person, online, regional

Support the Professional Learning Network

Evaluate activity

In addition to the presentation, two additional items were documented:

2.12 – Presented to the Board of Governors – Approval of Institutional Effectiveness Specialized Training

Contract: This item presents the Institutional Effectiveness Division’s $12 million specialized training

contract award for approval. It is hoped this funding will allow for enhancing student access, success,

equity and assist in avoiding accreditation sanctions and audit findings as well as assistance and support

for emerging initiatives. The plan is to revitalize and re-envision Professional Development and

confirm/support evidence based decision making.

2.13 – Presented to the Board of Governors – Institutional Effectiveness, Framework of Indicators: This

item requests approval of the Framework of Indicators which include select metrics on which

colleges/districts will set goals pursuant to the requirements of Education Code section 84754.6.

Attachment One

Review of the Integrated Planning Manual Fall 2015 IEC, 12/7/2015

PAGE DESCRIPTION RESPONSIBLE COMMITTEE CONTACT PERSON/ Reviewers

Cross Review

1 Cover N/A Lan

2-3 Completion Pledge N/A Linda W.

4 Presidential letter N/A Linda W./Marilyn G.

5 Table of Contents I.E.C. Lan & Roberta/all IEC members

6 Introduction I.E.C. Lan & Roberta/all IEC members

7 I.P.M. Narrative I.E.C. Lan & Roberta/all IEC members

8 I.P.M. Flow Chart I.E.C. Lan & Roberta/all IEC members

9 Mission, Vision, Values I.E.C.

Lan & Roberta/all IEC members

10 Strategic Plan I.E.C. Lan & Roberta/all IEC members

11 Board Goals N/A Lan Dr. Perri

12 E.F.M.P.

EPC, SSC, Physical Resources Arvid, Martha, & Claudette

13 Sustainability Plan

Physical Resources Committee Claudette

14 Technology Plan CITC Linda W.

15 Human Resources Plan H.R. Committee Robert S.

16-17 Program Review Program Review Committee Roberta

18 Resource Allocation

Financial Resources Committee Claudette

19

Plan Implementation/ Assessment/ Program Improvement I.E.C. Lan & Roberta/all IEC members

20 Board Roster N/A Linda W. /Paula G.

Attachment Two

INTEGRATED PLANNING MODEL An ongoing and systematic cycle of evaluation that ensures the improvement of institutional effectiveness

Mission, Vision, Values Serves as the basis for all

college planning

Strategic PlanGuides the direction of the

college’s energies and resources

Board GoalsRespond to Board’s role in

accomplishing institutional goals and strategic objectives

Educational and Facilities Master Plan

Charts the college’s long-term course toward accomplishing its

mission, vision, and values

Institutional Support Plans Developed to meet those goals and

objectives from the Strategic Plan and Educational and Facilities Master Plan

Human Resources Plan Meets the strategic

objectives aligned with Human Resources

Technology Plan Guides the implementation of technology at the college

Instructional Program Review Vehicle for ongoing

integration of the needs and recommendations for the

college’s instructional support programs

Academic Support Program Review Vehicle for ongoing

integration of the needs and recommendations for the

college’s academic support programs

Student Services Program Review Vehicle for ongoing

integration of the needs and recommendations for the college’s student services

programs

Annual Implementation Plan/Progress Report

Establishes the timeline for accomplishing annual goals; reports the results and success levels of the

annual plan

Resource Allocation Links program reviews and

strategic planning to resources needed to accomplish

institutional goals

Plan Implementation Manages timelines, assesses levels of success and reports

activities and results

Program Improvement Uses assessment findings to

make necessary changes

Sustainability PlanActualizes the strategic

objectives regarding sustainability

Institutional Support Program Review

Vehicle for ongoing integration of the needs and

recommendations for the college’s institutional support

programs

Assessment Documents progress, reviews

planning components and makes modifications Excerpted from 2014-2015 IPM

Approved by IEC on 11/24/2014

Attachment Three

The Citrus College Mission, Vision, and Values

share a common theme — To ensure student

learning, success, and academic goal completion

through the establishment of measurable

institutional objectives. This systematic process is

an ongoing campus-wide endeavor accomplished,

in part, through the implementation of:

Student Learning Outcomes and

Assessment (SLOA)

Data and Analysis

Program Review

Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment:

Citrus College is committed to the process of

student learning outcomes and assessment

(SLOA) at all levels and in all areas. At Citrus,

faculty, staff, administrators, and students all

share in the student learning outcomes and

assessment process. Recommendations

generated from assessment analysis are

integrated into institutional planning through

the process of program review. The College

continually evaluates and fine-tunes

organizational structures to support student

learnings of campus culture. Data and Analysis:

The Office of Institutional Research, Planning

and Effectiveness supports the college’s

mission by providing data and analysis

mostly related to program reviews in Instruc-

tion, Academic Support and Student Services

programs; the identification of measurable

outcomes; and benchmarking progress

toward longstanding institutional priorities

and commitments. Objectives, activities and

programs calling for increased student

access, equity, success, persistence, and

completion of educational or vocational goals

require proper identification of outcomes and

data to hone in on targets for improvement

and change. Although it is each program and

department’s responsibility to initiate the

research study needed for evaluation and

program improvement, the Office of IRPE

provides support through research and data

analysis to assist the departments in meeting

their goals.

Program Review:

At Citrus College, program review is the vehicle

for ongoing integration of student learning and

completion information, program needs, and

recommendations with the college allocation

processes and institutional planning. Citrus

College conducts review of its programs

throughout the institution to ensure responsive-

ness to the needs of the college community and

to ensure students have the opportunity to

achieve outcomes in areas of institutional core

competencies. Programs identify goals and

resource needs and link them to the major

institutional planning documents, in particular, the

Educational and Facilities Master Plan and the

Strategic Plan. Programs analyze data to support

planning and allocation decisions.

The Financial Resources Committee reviews

and considers funding requests from the

Program Review Process.

Attachment Three

CITRUS COLLEGE INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS COMMITTEE

2015-2016 PURPOSE STATEMENT

The Institutional Effectiveness Committee is a standing committee of the Citrus College Steering Committee. The purpose of the Committee is to review and make recommendations on matters regarding institutional effectiveness, i.e. the review and assessment of the integrated planning process and the means by which it is linked to the institutional planning processes. The committee is charged with advancing the college mission by promoting an ongoing, collegial, self-reflective dialogue based on a culture of evidence and data-driven decision-making. The committee engages in the design and implementation of assessment tools that evaluate and improve institutional effectiveness. Also, the committee oversees functions and responsibilities related to ACCJC standard I.B. Institutional Effectiveness. RESPONSIBILITIES FOR 2015-2016

1. Contribute to and participate in accreditation-related activities.

2. Review and update the Integrated Planning Manual.

3. In support of the Program Review Committee and HotShots, continue assessment of

program review and student learning outcome processes through the following:

a. Repeat survey of program review users in all four areas (Academic Support,

Institutional Support, Instruction, and Student Services);

b. Continue to assess and improve college-wide engagement in program review

and student learning outcomes.

4. Assess the progress made towards goals set in the Educational and Facilities Master Plan

(EFMP) through the following:

a. Update assessment tables for EFMP.

b. Write an executive summary of findings.

5. Develop a flow chart that describes the route that program review recommendations

travel throughout the college, including the report back to the recommendation

initiator.

6. Conduct analysis of program review new/funded recommendations and provide an

executive summary.

7. Monitor the timeline for the cyclical review of Mission, Strategic Plan, Educational &

Facilities Master Plan, Technology Plan, Sustainability Plan, Human Resources Plan,

program review and student learning outcome assessment.

8. Review the 2014-2015 IEPI goals and results. Develop new goals if needed.

FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS: Monthly in primary terms.

Attachment Four

IEC 2015-2016 Purpose Statement Page 2

DAY/TIME OF MEETING: 4:00 to 5:00 p.m., in CI 159, following the last Steering Committee meeting of the month. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP:

Director of Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness (co-chair)

Program Review Coordinator (Faculty Co-chair)

Accreditation Liaison Officer

Accreditation Faculty Co-chair

Academic Senate President

Student Learning Outcome Assessment Coordinator

Chairs of the Steering standing committees

Representatives from academic affairs

Representatives from student services

Representatives from financial and administrative services

Faculty Reps

Classified Staff Reps

Supervisor/Confidential Reps

ASCC Reps Approved by IEC on September 14, 2015

Attachment Four