Planning Cycle and Use of Results

667 views

Published on

Presentation by Dean of Institutional Research and Program Review Chairperson

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Planning Cycle and Use of Results

  1. 1. Program Review & Planning Cycle Use of Results <ul><li>Presented to the </li></ul><ul><li>Planning & Budgeting Committee for Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Office of Institutional Effectiveness </li></ul><ul><li>January 26, 2010 </li></ul>
  2. 2. Accreditation <ul><li>New Era on Accountability </li></ul><ul><li>ACCJC strengthen the Accreditation requirements. </li></ul><ul><li>22 Colleges on Sanction as of January 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Deficiencies Causing Sanction </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Program Review – 16 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Planning, Using Results - 21 </li></ul></ul></ul>
  3. 3. LATTC - Recommendation 2 <ul><li>“ In order to meet the standards, the college develop and fully implement an integrated planning process that clearly links program review, all aspects of human, physical, technology and fiscal planning , and resource allocation in a cohesive and inclusive manner. </li></ul><ul><li>Development of the model should be based on prevailing best practices that include a clearly established and calendared cycle, use of current and relevant internal and external environmental data, analysis of data to inform planning, a committee review process, linkage to resource allocation, and evaluation of the implemented plan.” </li></ul>
  4. 4. New Cyclical Process Old Process
  5. 5. Program Review & Planning at All Levels
  6. 6. Program Review &Planning for All Areas
  7. 7. Regulation <ul><li>Title 5 regulation says that every program should undergo a program review at least every 6 years. CTE programs every 2 years. </li></ul>
  8. 8. Different Timing of Program Review & Planning Cycles and Their Alignment
  9. 9. Meta-Analysis
  10. 10. Comprehensive Program Review & Planning <ul><li>Periodic comprehensive reviews are important to </li></ul><ul><ul><li>to assess the effects of changes that were implemented </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>to set new goals for improvement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>to align those goals with institutional goals & priorities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Modules/ Sections </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mission and Vision </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Effectiveness - Enrollment Trends </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technology Change </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Each module includes sections on </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Data </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Analysis </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Validation </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Changes proposed/ implemented </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Example of Comprehensive Modules <ul><li>Mission & Vision </li></ul><ul><li>Program Effectiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Departmental Engagement </li></ul><ul><li>Professional Development </li></ul><ul><li>Environmental Scan </li></ul><ul><li>Vocational Programs </li></ul><ul><li>Instructional Support: Technology </li></ul><ul><li>Instructional Support: Services </li></ul><ul><li>Clubs, organizations and special activities </li></ul><ul><li>Learning Outcomes </li></ul><ul><li>Curriculum </li></ul><ul><li>Facilities </li></ul>
  12. 12. Validation of Comprehensive PR & P <ul><li>Each module is evaluated by a theme committee </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mission & Vision => College Council </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Enrollment Trends => Enrollment Management Committee </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Technology => Technology Enhancement Committee </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Etc. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Each theme committee develops a recommendation list for each program. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>These recommendations are expected to be addressed or acted upon by a program on an annual basis. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Annual Program Review & Planning Components <ul><li>Address the previous recommendations /validations </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Narrative on what changes have been made </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Indicating status: complete or in progress </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Learning Outcome </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Assessment </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Use of Results </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Changes Implemented </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Goals </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Objectives/Actions </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Resource Requests </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Goals <ul><li>Linked to </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Strategic / Master Plan </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Learning Outcomes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Connection to Planning </li></ul>
  15. 15. Examining 2 different approaches to the Comprehensive PR & P Cycle <ul><li>Staggered by Program </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>PR per program is done every 4 years , lottery based </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A program does all the sections of the comprehensive PR on its scheduled year </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Goals, SLOs, and recommendations addressed annually </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Modular Cycles </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Each module/section presented with different cycle </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Each year only 2-3 modules are being addressed by all programs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Goals, SLOs, and recommendations addressed annually </li></ul></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Staggered by Program <ul><li>Pros </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The PR process on the campus is ongoing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Validation committees have fewer documents to review </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Several campuses are implementing this PR model </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The college committees approved the process/calendar </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cons </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The PR process is not ongoing per department </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Very extensive process for faculty & chairs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Validation committees have to review lengthy documents </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Several campuses have abandoned this approach </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The college planning cycles are not consistently linked </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Managing the college PR process becomes challenging </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Modular Cycles <ul><li>Pros </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Every department/division on the campus works on PR continuously </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The college planning process is synchronized </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Institution-wide use of PR results becomes more relevant </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not as extensive for faculty & chairs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Validation committees have shorter documents to review </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The college PR process becomes more manageable </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cons </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No current data/evaluation of this approach has been documented </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This will be a new approach to the PR process at Trade </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Needs approval process; time sensitive for accreditation </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Q & A <ul><li>Your input is valued </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Please bring or send all your pros and cons concerning both approaches to the meeting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Please bring your questions to the committee meeting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Please call if you have questions/concerns </li></ul></ul>

×