Round 5 of our review of the Educational Master Plan Update moves on to the area of Academic Directions with focus of the following sections of the Discussion Draft:
18. Ed. Master Plan Implications for the Facilities Master Plan
19. Standards for Learning Spaces
And a new preface entitled, “Introduction and Background for this Update of the Educational Master Plan.”
After reviewing 18 (Educational Master Plan Implications for the Facilities Master Plan) do you have any feedback on the directions being set for facilities planning? If so, please give as detailed an explanation as possible.
After reviewing 19 (Standards for Learning Spaces) do you have any feedback on the standards for our learning spaces? If so, please give as detailed an explanation as possible.
A new preface has been added entitled “Introduction and Background for this Update of the Educational Master Plan.” Do you have any suggestions for this section?
Monday, November 9, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Round 4 of Our Review
Round 4 of our review of the Educational Master Plan Update moves on to the area of Academic Directions with focus of the following sections of the Discussion Draft:
12. Ten-Year Enrollment Growth Assumptions: 2008-2018
15. Local Commitment to Strong Contingent of Full Time Faculty
16. New Faculty Position Prioritization
06. Program Review Description (new section)
Please provide feedback on the following questions:
A. After reviewing Section 12 (Ten-Year Enrollment Growth Assumptions: 2008-2018), do you have any feedback on the assumptions being made? If so, please give as detailed an explanation as possible.
B. Section 12 also contains the following strategic question to consider: Is there an enrollment level at which Ohlone would be at the “right-size,” beyond which growth would be minimal? Given the current demographics and population density and growth projections, is it reasonable to assume that Ohlone should ever be a 10,000 FTES college? Or 12,000? Or more? Do you have any thoughts on this question?
C. Section 15 and related Appendix information present an argument for a local commitment to a strong contingent of full time faculty and setting a level of full time faculty positions based on a ratio with FTES. What are your opinions of this idea?
D. Does Section16 adequately describe the shared governance process for advising the President on priorities for new full time faculty positions?
E. A new section (Section 6) has added under Part B of the plan (Institutional and External Planning Context), which presents an overview of our Instructional Program and Services Review Process. Does this seem to be an adequate description of the process and how it relates to the overall college planning process?
12. Ten-Year Enrollment Growth Assumptions: 2008-2018
15. Local Commitment to Strong Contingent of Full Time Faculty
16. New Faculty Position Prioritization
06. Program Review Description (new section)
Please provide feedback on the following questions:
A. After reviewing Section 12 (Ten-Year Enrollment Growth Assumptions: 2008-2018), do you have any feedback on the assumptions being made? If so, please give as detailed an explanation as possible.
B. Section 12 also contains the following strategic question to consider: Is there an enrollment level at which Ohlone would be at the “right-size,” beyond which growth would be minimal? Given the current demographics and population density and growth projections, is it reasonable to assume that Ohlone should ever be a 10,000 FTES college? Or 12,000? Or more? Do you have any thoughts on this question?
C. Section 15 and related Appendix information present an argument for a local commitment to a strong contingent of full time faculty and setting a level of full time faculty positions based on a ratio with FTES. What are your opinions of this idea?
D. Does Section16 adequately describe the shared governance process for advising the President on priorities for new full time faculty positions?
E. A new section (Section 6) has added under Part B of the plan (Institutional and External Planning Context), which presents an overview of our Instructional Program and Services Review Process. Does this seem to be an adequate description of the process and how it relates to the overall college planning process?
Friday, October 2, 2009
Round 3 Of Our Review
We now enter Round 3 of our review of the Educational Master Plan Update, which is a continuation of review in the area of Institutional and External Planning Context with focus of the following sections of the Discussion Draft:
Section 9. Thirty (30) Important Indicators from the Environmental Scan
Section 10. Environmental Scan Gap Analysis
The deadline for input on this round is Friday, October 16.
A. Section 9 of the current Discussion Draft of the Educational Master Plan Update identifies “Thirty (30) Important Indicators from the Environmental Scan” related to teaching and learning programs and services. The full Analytical Summary of the College’s Environmental Scan is presented at:
http://www.ohlone.edu/org/research/envscan/
Are there other indicators from the full Analytical Summary besides the 30 currently identified that should be cited in the Educational Master Plan as relating to teaching and learning programs and services?
B. Section 10 of the current Discussion Draft of the Educational Master Plan Update identifies a list of gaps in our programs and services based on conclusions drawn from a review of the indicators in Section 9. Are there additional gaps that you would conclude from a review of the Environmental Scan?
Section 9. Thirty (30) Important Indicators from the Environmental Scan
Section 10. Environmental Scan Gap Analysis
The deadline for input on this round is Friday, October 16.
A. Section 9 of the current Discussion Draft of the Educational Master Plan Update identifies “Thirty (30) Important Indicators from the Environmental Scan” related to teaching and learning programs and services. The full Analytical Summary of the College’s Environmental Scan is presented at:
http://www.ohlone.edu/org/research/envscan/
Are there other indicators from the full Analytical Summary besides the 30 currently identified that should be cited in the Educational Master Plan as relating to teaching and learning programs and services?
B. Section 10 of the current Discussion Draft of the Educational Master Plan Update identifies a list of gaps in our programs and services based on conclusions drawn from a review of the indicators in Section 9. Are there additional gaps that you would conclude from a review of the Environmental Scan?
Monday, September 21, 2009
Institutional and External Planning Context
We now move on to review of the Institutional and External Planning Context sections of the Discussion Draft with includes:
Section 6. Relationship to Institutional Strategic Goals and Objectives
Section 7. Self Identified Improvement Agenda from 2008 Institutional Self Study Assessment
Section 8. Accountability Reporting for Community Colleges (ARCC) Findings and Self Assessment: 2009
Please respond to any or all of the questions below by October 2, 2009
A. RE: Section 6. Relationship to Institutional Strategic Goals and Objectives
Are there any of these Goals or Objectives that are unclear to you? If so, please identify the item(s) and state what is not clear to you.
B. RE: Section 6. Relationship to Institutional Strategic Goals and Objectives
Are there any of these Goals or Objectives that do not seem appropriate as part of an Educational Master Plan? If so, please identify the item(s) and state what is not clear to you.
C. RE: Section 7. Self Identified Improvement Agenda from 2008 Institutional Self Study Assessment
Are there any of these Improvement Agenda items that are unclear to you? If so, please identify the item(s) and state what is not clear to you.
D. RE: Section 7. Self Identified Improvement Agenda from 2008 Institutional Self Study Assessment
Are there any of these Improvement Agenda items that do not seem appropriate as part of an Educational Master Plan? If so, please identify the item(s) and state what is not clear to you.
E. RE: Section 8. Accountability Reporting for Community Colleges (ARCC) Findings and Self Assessment: 2009
Are there any of these items that are unclear to you? If so, please identify the item(s) and state what is not clear to you.
F. RE: Section 8. Accountability Reporting for Community Colleges (ARCC) Findings and Self Assessment: 2009
Are there any of these items that do not seem appropriate as part of an Educational Master Plan? If so, please identify the item(s) and state what is not clear to you.
Section 6. Relationship to Institutional Strategic Goals and Objectives
Section 7. Self Identified Improvement Agenda from 2008 Institutional Self Study Assessment
Section 8. Accountability Reporting for Community Colleges (ARCC) Findings and Self Assessment: 2009
Please respond to any or all of the questions below by October 2, 2009
A. RE: Section 6. Relationship to Institutional Strategic Goals and Objectives
Are there any of these Goals or Objectives that are unclear to you? If so, please identify the item(s) and state what is not clear to you.
B. RE: Section 6. Relationship to Institutional Strategic Goals and Objectives
Are there any of these Goals or Objectives that do not seem appropriate as part of an Educational Master Plan? If so, please identify the item(s) and state what is not clear to you.
C. RE: Section 7. Self Identified Improvement Agenda from 2008 Institutional Self Study Assessment
Are there any of these Improvement Agenda items that are unclear to you? If so, please identify the item(s) and state what is not clear to you.
D. RE: Section 7. Self Identified Improvement Agenda from 2008 Institutional Self Study Assessment
Are there any of these Improvement Agenda items that do not seem appropriate as part of an Educational Master Plan? If so, please identify the item(s) and state what is not clear to you.
E. RE: Section 8. Accountability Reporting for Community Colleges (ARCC) Findings and Self Assessment: 2009
Are there any of these items that are unclear to you? If so, please identify the item(s) and state what is not clear to you.
F. RE: Section 8. Accountability Reporting for Community Colleges (ARCC) Findings and Self Assessment: 2009
Are there any of these items that do not seem appropriate as part of an Educational Master Plan? If so, please identify the item(s) and state what is not clear to you.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Ed. Master Plan Update - Foundations
The Discussion Draft for the Ohlone College Educational Master Plan udpate can be found on the Academic Affairs website under Educaitonal Master Planning.
This purpose of this post is to solicit input from the Deans and Faculty Leaders Task Force working on the Ed. Master Plan udpate.
Specifically, please use respond to this post with comments or suggestions on the following componenets of the Foundations section of the plan:
Foundation Principals of Educational Master Planning
Mission Statement
Core College Values
We Are a Learning College
Our Students Related to Our Mission
Please post your input on or before Friday, September 18, 2009
This purpose of this post is to solicit input from the Deans and Faculty Leaders Task Force working on the Ed. Master Plan udpate.
Specifically, please use respond to this post with comments or suggestions on the following componenets of the Foundations section of the plan:
Foundation Principals of Educational Master Planning
Mission Statement
Core College Values
We Are a Learning College
Our Students Related to Our Mission
Please post your input on or before Friday, September 18, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
