Educational and Facilities Master Plan: In-Flight Update

Flex DayJanuary 26, 2006

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

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

The Governance & Planning Committee designed a process that would be…

• Transparent• Inclusive• Information based• SIMPLE!

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

Silos to Sharing

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

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

Process & Time Line

8/17 Planning agenda set with GAP 8/26 Flex Day – EFMP Takeoff 9/30 Assignment #1 – Update from 2001 10/14Assignment #2 – Student Learner

Outcomes 10/21College Forum – Update and Discussion 12/2 College Forum – Asst 3 Workshop 12/07Assignment #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

We have liftoff . . .

Transit Log

• Flex Day – EFMP Takeoff• Mission Statement Review• Assignment #1• Assignment #2• Assignment #3

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

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

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

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/

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

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

Assignment Review

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

On to the landing . . .

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

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

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!