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 8/17Planning agenda set with GAP 8/26Flex Day – EFMP Takeoff 9/30Assignment #1 – Update from 2001 10/14Assignment #2 – Student Learner Outcomes 10/21College Forum – Update and Discussion 12/2College Forum – Asst 3 Workshop 12/07Assignment #3 – Future Directions 1/26 Flex Day – EFMP Mid-Flight Update Feb-AprReview and Evaluation 5/12Final Recommendations – EFMP Landing 9/06Review 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 #1 Programs & 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 #2 Student 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 #3 Programs & 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 2/10Core group identified 2/28Validation process completed 3/17Evaluation process completed by core group 4/28College forums completed 5/12Final Recommendations – EFMP Landing 7/28EFMP document drafted 9/06EFMP 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!