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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
well- in light of state cuts being imposed on categorical, providing support services to our most in need students will likely be much more difficult. Our ability to recruit underrepresented groups may likewise be severely impacted.
ReplyDeleteThis is good observation for the present moment. The master plan needs to take a longer view, with hopes the economy will turn around and the college's budget will improve. There have been cycles like this over the years and the college needs to keep it's ideals and goals in tact through the tough times to be able to move forward in the better times.
ReplyDeleteUnder Program and Services Gaps
ReplyDelete(1) Two programs, Multimedia and Environmental Sciences, are specifically mentioned as growing. This raises questions for me.
(a) Are there other programs that are growing?
(b) Are there programs that have contracted or remained stable at low levels?
(c) Is there a systematic review of the relevancy of all departments? Yes, I know about the Program Review process but I really doubt that any department will vote itself "off the island."
(2) Another bullet specifies that more academic managers are needed. I agree completely that the workloads of some managers are far too high and that by comparison with other districts, we have too few academic deans.
(a) Can this be partially addressed by reallocating workload?
(b) What is our target - the average of schools our size?
(c) We switched to full-time deans about 12 years ago. Has there been an assessment if full-time deans are more or less effective than deans with a 25% teaching load?
Responses to Bob's points:
ReplyDelete(1) See section 12 of the Discussion Draft. Deans and faculty have been asked to work on these projections, which should get at the questions you raise.
(2) First, here is the language in question:
"There will be a need to replace a good number of management positions over the next five years, including Dean and higher levels. More academic managers are needed."
Comments:
(a) We are continually looking at this.
(b) Good point, we should get this data.
(c) No assessment has been done. However, I believe we are a bigger, and more complex (three campuses: Fremont, Newark and online) than we were 12 years ago.
My general feeling is that this gap is not relevant for the Ed. Master Plan, but more relevant for the college strategic and budget planning.
Do we need more data to get an idea why we are lagging behind other schools in these respects?
ReplyDelete1. Transfers to CSUs
2. ESL improvement or in basic skills completion rates
I don't see from present data why we do poorly in these areas. It seems that we will have to figure that out before we engage in fixing it.
Also, the spelling of E-Campus bothers me - I wonder if we could be grammatically incorrect and use e-campus, instead? E-Campus just looks too much like trying to formalize the new model into the stuffy old ways.