home.portervillecollege.eduhome.portervillecollege.edu/bulletin_board/CLC/2011/04.… · Web view... Maria Roman, Steve Schultz, Miles Vega, Ann Marie Wagstaff and John Word

COLLEGE LEARNING COUNCIL3:00 PM – 5:00 PM Monday, April 04, 2011 AC-107

Co-Chairs: Ann Beheler, Susan Lala-Bell, Tiffany Haynes

MINUTES

Present:Lorie Barker, Ann Beheler, Kim Behrens, Donna Berry, Craig Britton, Michael Carley, Rosa Carlson, Chris Craig, Bret Davis, Antonia Ecung, James Entz, Baldomero Garcia, Richard Goode, Virginia Gurrola, Bill Henry, Resa Hess, Eric Mendoza, Andrew Messchaert, Maria Roman, Steve Schultz, Miles Vega, Ann Marie Wagstaff and John Word

Absent:David Bezayiff, Terry Crewse, Russell Fletcher, Stewart Hathaway, Tiffany Haynes, Susan Lala-Bell, Susan Regier, Cynthia Smith and Leif Syrdahl

Guests:

I. Call to OrderThe meeting was called to order by Dr. Ann Beheler at 3:06 PM.

II. Adoption of AgendaMotioned: Chris CraigSeconded: Richard Goode

Ayes: 13 Nays: 0 Abstentions: 0

Motion: Carried

III. Approval of MinutesApproval of the Minutes will be deferred to the next meeting.

IV. Information ItemsA. KCCD Strategic Plan

Dr. Carlson reported that Michael Carley, Erin Cruz, Judy Fallert, James Thompson served on the District committee. The plan was drafted in about six weeks.

There is a concern about some of the timelines (i.e. surveys ever year). There is a request for campus feedback. Dr. Givens is the lead for this effort; the Chancellor has also taken a lead on this project, with the assistance of a consultant. The Chancellor is planning to take this to the Board of Trustees’ April meeting.

College Learning CouncilMeeting AgendaApril 04, 2011Page 2 of 10

This plan was written from scratch, rather than updating the previous plan. Mr. Carley provided a copy of the Mission, Goals, and Objectives.

Concerns: The plan commits to the completion of the CCSEE every year, which can be both

unnecessary and burdensome, and at a cost of close to $80,000. Many of the goals are not measurable. Many of the goals are immediate, require additional work (without additional

staff), ambitious, unrealistic, and therefore, designed to fail. Specific amounts are not set so that the college’s can determine independently

and/or as a group. There is a change from “each college” to “the colleges,” which appears to mean

the colleges will lose local control over these decisions. The mandate to acquire grant funding, without a grant writer, and without

District assistance, will cost additional money. Would require an assurance that the District will provide support.

Lacks definition of mission, vision, and values. Multiple versions have been presented; clarification of which version requires

input is needed. Lacks assignment of responsibility. Figures provided appear arbitrary and lack supportive data.

The Board of Trustees compared this year’s ARCC report to last year, in which we were all at average or just above average. The Board wants the colleges to all strive for above and beyond. Therefore, a decision was made to set goals at a high level in order to encourage growth.

Feedback can be provided via CLC, individually, or via Dr. Carlson. Responses should be given by Monday, April 4, 2011. Feedback should begin with the unrealistic request to have feedback given in so

short a time. Initial review of various goals resulted in a determination that many are

unrealistic, immeasurable, and unattainable.

The colleges are to give presentations to the Board at the April Board meeting.

Concern: That while there were representatives from various constituencies involved in the drafting of the document, there was a serious lack of campus discussion in order to provide adequate and informed feedback.

Question: How does this align with the upcoming Accreditation?o Not sure that the team will necessarily be concerned with the District’s

having a Strategic Plan; however, they will note if the District Plan does not align with campus Plan’s and if the District Plan lacks measurable goals.


Motion: “Although the College Learning Council generally supports the values, mission, and vision as presented in the 2011-15 KCCD Strategic Plan we respectfully request additional time in order to provide informed feedback. The following concerns were expressed: insufficient time to provide informed feedback, no identification or discussion of funding to meet objectives, objectives that are not measurable, incomplete items, arbitrary percentages assigned for improvement over baseline, vagueness and inconsistencies.”

Motioned: Ann Marie WagstaffSeconded: Richard Goode


Motion: Carried

B. Transition Task Force (TTF)Mr. Vega reported that the Task Force met a week and a half ago. There have been numerous volunteers to serve on the TF. The next meeting will be held on April 12 at 3:00 p.m. Discussions have included a summer bridge type program, completing research by both looking at what has been successful at other colleges and by having Mr. Carley supply relevant data, and a focus on action. The TTF has already broken into smaller groups in order to focus on specific issues. Anyone and everyone is welcome, student are encouraged to join. Anyone interested should email Mr. Vega. The first meeting was attended by nine people and three additional people have joined since.

C. Enrollment Management Plan – Goals Dr. Beheler presented the draft Goals prepared by the Enrollment Management

Committee. Mr. Goode explained that the current draft was created by narrowing down an original 13 goals into the current six. The numbering doe not denote priority and is used only for identification. These are the goals identified by the committee as the most important for focus over the next couple of years.

Goals 1 and 2 are similar in that they both address SB1440 issues. This includes working with Bakersfield and Cerro Coso colleges in offering low enrolled courses, especially in regard to the degrees we will offer. The degrees currently being submitted for approval include Communications, Administration of Justice, and Mathematics.

The Mathematics Degree will include three classes of Calculus, Differential Equations, and Calculus-based Physics, all of which are low enrolled classes. This means that collaboration with the other campuses will be necessary in order to provide the degree.o Question: Would collaboration then mean looking at some form of Distance

Learning class?


Calculus could; however the Physics course would not be doable due to lab component. Many of the CSUs have indicated that they will not accept online lab components in the sciences. Students majoring in the sciences need to complete a physical laboratory component. It may be possible that lecture could be offered as ITV with the labs done individually on each campus. Negotiations will need to be completed to work out equitability between instructors.

Suggestion was made to look at how some colleges provide “marathon” labs, where they are provided from Friday night and Saturday. In this case, students spend several different weekends attending at various sites.

The preference is to provide the lab alongside the lecture. In this way, the students are exposed immediately to hands-on reinforcement of concepts being taught in lecture.

Compromises may need to be made in discussion the various issues involved with shared courses.

Student learning should remain the top priority in any class. The remaining goals are issues that affect enrollment all of the time, including

high school enrollment and unemployment. Prerequisites, if improperly applied, could cause a drop in enrollment. Discussion

continues on how best to apply prerequisites. Off site offerings are already done, including Fire Academy and Nursing Labs.

Discussion continues on other options including research and investigation into the practicality, need, and benefits of offering additional off site courses.

The committee has not yet assigned start dates. Suggestion was made that a goal be drafted that addresses the need for support

staff to assist in the management of enrollment. Or at least that as the Committee is reviewing the goals it be recognized that there is need for staff to support the planned efforts and that decisions being made will impact the current staff we do have.

D. PC Mission and Vision Due to one of the Accreditation Planning Agenda Items we need to review,

discuss, and approve the Mission and Vision Statements each year. Suggestion that the CLC members will review the current Mission and Vision

Statements for Action at the next meeting.

V. Action ItemsA. Program Review

1. Fine and Applied Arts2. Health Careers

The Program Reviews were reviewed at the last Strategic Planning Committee. Mr. Schultz reported that both passed the set standards based


on the rubric created. They both met the standards, and in some cases exceeded those standards.

In reviewing these Program Reviews the Strategic Planning Committee identified areas in the rubric that did not quite align with the Program Review document and will therefore be revising the rubric at the next meeting.

The Strategic Planning Committee recommends acceptance of both the Fine and Applied Arts and Health Careers Program Reviews as presented.

Motion was made to move for approval of both.

Motioned: Miles VegaSeconded: Richard Goode

Question: In regard to the RN review, it appears that a lot of obstacles were presented in relation to the goals.o RN specifically?o No, for all of Health Careers. There seems to be instances of programs

being cancelled, funding being cancelled, lack of faculty funding, etc. o There needs to be a recognition of the obstacles Health Careers as faced,

rather than a simple approval of the Review. There should be an acknowledgement of all that Health Careers has had to overcome. When assessing Program Reviews we need to do more than approve them, they should provide a tool in which to obtain a picture of what a program has gone through. In this instance, the program has been repeatedly cut and thus unable to do what they have planned. Not to say that there is anything we can do to change this; however, we should acknowledge that a lot has changed since the last Review and it has affected them in a negative way.

o From looking at the past years, it becomes clear that the program is only now being able to address current goals.

o Program Reviews need to be used to better understand the issues being face campus-wide, especially as we look to future goals.

o Other campuses hold a Program Review Showcase, in which the Review is presented as a presentation to which all were invited. This provided anyone who was interested with an opportunity to learn more about each program.

Question: Is there any additional information or anything from this Review that should be highlighted as especially noteworthy?o Since the Program Review was written, PDC has begun to phase out all of

its funding for the Psychiatric Technician program. Therefore, the Health Careers program will continue to downsize. There will not be any new


students in the PT program in the fall semester. The current plan is to take 30 students in the spring. Mr. Henry and Ms. Lombardi are working on a grant to provide funding. Otherwise, there is uncertainty about the future of the PT program, possibly take 30 students in the third semester or take 30 every two semesters and skip a semester, it will depend on funding.

o There are currently 120 applicants, and only 20 slots, for the RN program. There are about 150 applicants, and only 30 slots, for the VN program. There are more than 80 applicants, and no slots, for the PT program.

o This is going to negatively impact the success and career completions, which is something that we will be measured against.

o According to hearsay, Sierra View District Hospital is saying that they are giving the Vocational Nurses 18 months to acquire their RN License and if they do not have it by then, they will be laid off. At this time, there are no openings in the program for them.

o Health careers, statewide, are facing huge budget cuts. All of the state hospitals and college RN programs are being reduced due to the uncertainty of the economy.

Question: Are we only offering one class?o Yes. We could be approved for more; however, we would need to have

the staff. Question: Is it true that RN prospects are not very good at this time?

o Yes. It is harder to find a job as a new RN graduate and especially without a Bachelor’s degree. In many cases, the hospitals are paying current staff overtime rather than hiring new staff.

o San Diego State had 1200 applicants for 40 slots.


Motion: Carried

VI. Subcommittee ReportsA. Enrollment Management Committee

Dr. Beheler reported that the Committee is working on Goals for the Enrollment Management Plan.

B. Grant Oversight Committee/Grant Progress ReportsDr. Beheler reported that there is a STEM / HSI grant currently open for application. A presentation is to be made tomorrow on the status. However, unsure how and who would write the grant because there is a lack of staff available.

Question: Is there any help from the District?o The can assist but they do not have anyone that could write the grant.


Grant Oversight meets tomorrow. STEM grant discussion tomorrow to include the need for a writer. The District has forwarded names of possible writers, if a discussion can occur in order to inform the writer. Lack of discussion within the Mathematics & Science Division

o Discussion happened; however, cannot visualize what direction would be taken.

o Already have low enrolled courses.o Concern over feasibility

The decision as to whether or not we should pursue this grant should be made by the Science & Math Division.o Mr. Goode will talk with the faculty.

Dr. Carlson reported on the multi-district grant being completed by Mrs. Lombardi, Mrs. Behrens, and Mr. Henry.

Important to keep in mind, that new grants cannot supplant existing services and/or activities. Also, be aware of whether or not a grant obligates the College to maintain services and/or activities.

C. Budget CommitteeMrs. Berry reported that the Committee discussed the BAMII recommendation, which did go to Chancellor’s Consultation.

The final 2010-2011 allocation has been received. Because the State did not cut, there is an additional $1 million received which will go into our carryover funds. However, because of the $900k SHRID funding, this will wipe out most of the million.

Question: What is SHRID money?o The District is requiring that the college provide a match to the SHRID

funding. The SHRID funding is for capital projects paid by the bond funds. A list has been made of projects to be completed over the next 5 years, some of which qualify for SHRID and some that do not. An attempt is being made to convince the District that there are enough non-SHRID projects to fund that a match should not be required.

Received the 2011-2012 tentative budget. This is based on the Board of Trustees determination at the March meeting to use the worst case scenario (Scenario 3). This budget is $1.8 million less than the allocation received previously.


Received the final 2009-2010 carryover calculation due to the audit being finalized. There were some additional carryover monies. A Performa of the carryover is being completed so that a review of the scenarios can be completed.

An Open Forum regarding budget is scheduled for Thursday at noon. The Budget Committee will be meeting tomorrow to review plans for discussion. Everyone is invited and encouraged to attend.

The Committee continues to look at sustainability reports and comparing these with the Program Reviews to ensure there is a match between them. However, there are several areas that submitted requests and yet do not have a Program Review. The Committee has requested that all Program Reviews be updated by 4/15. At this point, the Committee will then begin working on prioritization of the sustainability requests.

Question: Should the one-year update form be used?o For those areas that are completing Program Review this year, that is the

document being used for comparison. For areas who have submitted Reviews previously, the Committee is looking at those. Therefore, if an older Program Review does not contain the same information as that which was included in the Sustainability Report, a one-year update should be submitted.

Question: Is there a form for that?o Yes. The one-page update sheet for budget requests.o The Administrator over the area should be discussing any discrepancies

between the Program Review and Sustainability Requests with each department and assisting with any changes that need to be made.

Mrs. Berry will send out an email to notify everyone about the deadline for updated Program Reviews.

Question: Did anyone request a grant writer be included in the program reviews?o Not at this time.o Dr. Carlson will include the request in her own Program Review.

D. Strategic Planning CommitteeMr. Schultz reported that the Committee has been discussing the Self-Study report. Mr. Carley is drafting the initial language. The Committee is working on revising the Program Review Matrix to better align with the Program Review.

Mr. Schultz requested that one more faculty and classified staff member be appointed.


VII. Other ReportsA. President

Consultation Council discussed and reviewed the BAM II recommendations. Porterville and Cerro Coso Colleges provided a one page reaction; however, Bakersfield only a one sentence reaction indicating their approval. Cerro Coso indicated that they: do not want a consultant.

The Chancellor did ask what we meant by wanting the FTES tied to the allocation. Dr. Carlson explained that the FTFO hurts us when compared to larger campuses.

Dr. Carlson made the decision to forego the additional full time faculty position, resulting in Porterville having FT staff hires of 5 replacements (without the 1 new position). While we have given up the additional position, the Chancellor indicated that if the money is available would be able to hire next year.

District needs to have three incrementally new positions, which would be a 6th position for us. Dr. Carlson reported that the decision to forgo this 6th position was based on concern about the possibility of Child Development cuts and the need to subsidize the RN program.

There is a need to understand that prior to SB361, decisions were made about hiring full time faculty based on the allocation model in which we were paid for salaries – funding came with the positions.

Dr. Carlson would like to see a five year breakdown of the 75/25 and 50/50 per campus and compared to other colleges.

Prior to Dr. Packard, former Chancellor, we were breaking the law in regard to the 50% law. Rather than pay the penalty, the Board chose to let the reserve fall to extreme lows and paid faculty a salary increase. In looking back to history, it is important to remember the entire history.

The Chancellor has been reviewing the recommendations and looking into the issues.

2012-2013 Calendar will be going to the Board of Trustees for approval. The Student Services departments would like to have the calendars in advance in order to plan for services.

B. AccreditationSeveral have been working on other reports. The next meeting will be scheduled a week after Spring Break. Areas are still working on their outlines.

C. Academic SenateD. Curriculum Committee


E. Basic Skills CommitteeBasic Skills has an established committee that decides on how that money is spent. The premise of the committee is that anything done for the campus will benefit the basic skills students.

Additionally, in regard to Summer Bridge programs, LISTO and MedPep previously created and provided six sessions of this program (three each). Basic Skills cannot supplant; however, new programs can be discussed.

The committee has established goals.F. Student Learning Outcomes Committee

All of the committee G. Facility Planning Advisory CommitteeH. Marketing and Outreach CommitteeI. Information Technology CommitteeJ. CCA

Election for position is coming up in a couple of weeks. There will be some changes, the negotiator position will be open and the Adjunct Representative is retiring (have replacement already). Mary O’Neal is the only candidate running for President and Dr. Wagstaff will again be CCA Chair.

K. CSEAL. ASPCM. Other

A carpet sample was provided for preview; this is the carpet that will be installed in the Academic Center.

DRC was able to purchase Read & Write Gold (text to speech program) for the entire campus.

VIII. Future Agenda Items The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 3, 2011.

IX. AdjournmentMeeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. by Dr. Beheler.

Documents

home.portervillecollege.eduhome.portervillecollege.edu/bulletin_board/CLC/2011/04.… · Web view... Maria Roman, Steve Schultz, Miles Vega, Ann Marie Wagstaff and John Word