Educational and Facilities Master Plan: In-Flight Update

1. Educational and Facilities Master Plan: In-Flight Update Flex Day January 26, 2006

2. Planning began in 2004-05 • Response to internal & external factors • Accreditation recommendations • Program review • Strategic planning • Student learning outcomes • Passage of Measure H • State facilities reconstruction plans • Economic changes in Silicon Valley • Changes in enrollment patterns • Award of Title V Grant • Emphasis on student learning

3. The Governance & Planning Committee believed that with pre-planning… • We could design a process that would accomplish several major goals at one time • Reinstate program review for all programs & services • Update the 2001 educational & facilities master plan • Address student learning outcomes

4. The Governance & Planning Committee designed a process that would be… • Transparent • Inclusive • Information based • SIMPLE!

5. The desired outcome is a current plan that… • Is educationally driven and supports student learning • Is meaningful, relevant and timely • Results from a transparent and inclusive process • Can be implemented within existing resources, both human and fiscal • Results in all programs and services having completed program review

6. Silos to Sharing

7. Results will be used to… • Guide improvement in student learning • Better respond to dynamic student and community needs • Provide the appropriate mix of instructional and support programs and services • Guide design of new facilities • Guide allocation of resources • Provide a foundation for ongoing planning and improvement

8. GAP agreed on a process and a time line recognizing that… • The time line is ambitious • The process is not linear • Some steps will be simultaneous, not sequential • We are building the plane in mid-flight

9. Process & Time Line • 8/17 Planning agenda set with GAP • 8/26 Flex Day – EFMP Takeoff • 9/30 Assignment #1 – Update from 2001 • 10/14 Assignment #2 – Student Learner Outcomes • 10/21 College Forum – Update and Discussion • 12/2 College Forum – Asst 3 Workshop • 12/07 Assignment #3 – Future Directions • 1/26 Flex Day – EFMP Mid-Flight Update • Feb-Apr Review and Evaluation • 5/12 Final Recommendations – EFMP Landing • 9/06 Review and Approval of EFMP Document

10. We have liftoff . . .

11. Transit Log • Flex Day – EFMP Takeoff • Mission Statement Review • Assignment #1 • Assignment #2 • Assignment #3

12. Transit Log: Mission Statement • Alex Braun has led a task force to revisit the Mission Statement • Discussions and consideration of alternatives have been held with the Academic Senate, GAP, and at College Forums • These groups have agreed on two final options (existing statement and one new alternative) • Final decision will follow college-wide vote

13. Transit Log: Assignment #1Programs & Services 2001-2005 • Nearly 100% of programs and services have submitted Assignment #1 • Over 60 faculty and staff attended the first college forum to discuss the results of Assignment #1

14. Transit Log: Assignment #2Student Learner Outcomes • Held Flex Day training on writing Program Level SLOs • Collected program level SLOs from 82% of academic programs and 73% of student services programs • The Mission College Academic Senate approved a set of Guiding Principles and Institutional Practices to guide the college • The Academic Senate created a representative SLO committee

15. Transit Log: Assignment #3Programs & Services in Near Future • 91% of programs and services have submitted Assignment #3 • All submissions are being posted to the Inside Mission section on the PARIS website http://paris.wvmccd.cc.ca.us/

16. It’s been a smooth flight thus far . . .

17. Remaining Itinerary • Review of Assignments • Validation of information • Core group analysis and evaluation • Global Evaluation • College-wide discussions • Series of forums • Recommendations • Synthesis of outcomes from Forums • Preparation of EFMP document

18. Assignment Review • Establishment of Core Group to: • Read and evaluate all submittals • Facilitate college-wide discussions • Synthesize results of discussions • Propose recommendations

19. About the Core Group • The Core Group model follows from the 2002 program planning model • To be established as 15 members with 3-4 working subgroups • Chair will serve as contact person for Office of Instruction, which will provide clerical and organizational support

20. Core Group Membership (Total 15) • Instructional Programs • Academic (1) • Vocational (1) • Economic Development/Community Ed (1) • Library (1) • Non-instructional Programs/Services • Student Services (1) • Instructional Support (1) • Students • ASB (1) • Administration/Shared Governance • Academic Senate (1) • Classified Senate (1) • Administration (1) • Research (1) • Technology (1) • Resources • Facilities (1) • Budget (1) • Open Slot (1)

21. Phase 1: Validation • Information provided in Assignment 3 will be validated as sufficient for analysis and evaluation • Core Group subgroups will each validate a portion of assignments • Subgroups will use a Validation Checklist to guide the process

22. Phase 2-A: Core Group Analysis and Evaluation • Core Group members will read, analyze, and evaluate all submittals • Core group analysis and impressions will form basis of college-wide discussions

23. Phase 2-A: Core Group Analysis and Evaluation • Primary Charge: • Identify programs/services for which projections appear reasonable within context of what is known about internal and external trends • Identify programs/services that they believe warrant further analysis and discussion for discussion in college forums

24. Phase 2-A: Core Group Analysis and Evaluation • Members will read all submittals in subgroups, provided in sets: • Instructional programs (50) • Non-instructional programs/services (20) • Administration/Shared Governance (30) • Subgroups will use an Analysis and Evaluation checklist to guide the process of review

25. Phase 2-B: College Analysis and Evaluation • A series of 5 Forums will be organized for the college community to review and discuss the evaluations of the Core Group • Forums will build on each other, allowing for feedback on the previous discussion before introducing the next set of programs/services for review • Tentative recommendations will be collected at the end of each of the first four forums and brought together for synthesis in a fifth and final forum

26. Phase 2-B: College Analysis and Evaluation • Instructional programs are the foundation for the educational master plan and will be evaluated first, followed by student services, and finally by administration/shared governance • Forum 1: Instructional Programs – Academic • Forum 2: Instructional Programs – Vocational • Forum 3: Student Services • Forum 4: Administration/Shared Governance • Forum 5: Synthesis of Recommendations

27. On to the landing . . .

28. Phase 3: Recommendations • The Core Group and GAP will organize and synthesize the recommendations from the five College Forums • GAP will make final recommendations to the college in May • Drafting of the EFMP document will occur over the summer with review and approval of a final draft in September

29. Time Line for EFMP Completion • 2/10 Core group identified • 2/28 Validation process completed • 3/17 Evaluation process completed by core group • 4/28 College forums completed • 5/12 Final Recommendations – EFMP Landing • 7/28 EFMP document drafted • 9/06 EFMP document reviewed and approved – Deboarding complete

30. Beyond the EFMP • Together we will have traveled a great distance • Every journey leads to another • Turning Recommendations into Decisions • Implementation of Decisions into Action • This leg of our journey will help lead Mission College into the future – thank you for your continued support!