The meeting began
with an introduction by Ann explaining why we are here and what we
will be covering. She explained that we will be examining the life
of PC over the past ten years. She used the quote an unexamined
life is not worth living to explain this. We will critically
reflect how well PC is preparing for the future. This reflection
will then be written up.
The goals of the
concerns of the last self study (hand-outs of the 1996 self study
and from the comments received regarding the self study)
that Criterion 2 is connected to the college mission and goals
(hand-out of new criteria)
critically reflect and describe our evaluations based on evidence
for improvement, can make recommendations for the future or recommendations
for improvements needed now, before the site visit in 2006
out of selections of the self-study design submitted to HLC)
of self-study due May 2005
draft for comments August/September 2005
self-study report October 2005
visit April 2006
After giving an
introduction and background information on the self-study Criterion
2 and what we are to do Ann presented an outline of the entire process
divided into the following three steps:
Criterion 2 means to us, the process the committee took
Show how Criterion
2 is or is not aligned to PCs mission and goals
Pick two to
four best practices to use as evidence that Criterion 2s core
components are being met
Ann then discussed
the four cross-cutting themes which should also be looked at by each
criterion. (hand-out of matrix and definition
of themes). The four themes are:
Next the group
discussed the best way/necessary steps to get the materials/data collected
to Betsy, the Criterion 2 writer. The necessary steps are:
To have a common
understanding of what the components are and what the components
are asking for.
our opinions; are we doing/meeting the core components.
If we are meeting
the core components what evidence do we have that makes us say we
are? Here the group will focus on gathering evidence and collecting
data, i.e. planning documents, processes, interviews, focus groups,
surveys, environmental scans.
Are our assumptions
correct? After analyzing the data collected is it evident that
PC is prepared for the future?
If yes, can
we use it as a best practice?
If no, what
are the recommendations for improvement?
Some of the suggestions
from the group were:
It is important
that we are honest
that we are supposed to be projecting into the future-look at what
Phoenix will look like
in the next ten years.
The group then
went into a discussion regarding the question, to what extent is
PC using the information gathered and the projections being made?
The recommendation was made that this information be used for our
future, but we need to look at how much we use the information. When
looking at this information we need to evaluate what is important.
It would be useful to have annual evaluations to see if the data is
Ann then presented
the first two core components and the group discussed what data would
be necessary to evaluate or support each component. The following
are the two core components with the list that the group came up with:
2A: The organization realistically prepares for a future shaped
by multiple, societal and economic trends.
committee, look at their reports/minutes, get a timeline of their
establishment in the past ten years
office reports (batelle-Dr. Solleys
departments such as strategic planning
law, nursing, etc. programs being established downtown
and the effect it will have on the student population.
planning: to what extent is PC shaped by the multiple economic
technology on our campus
of district office decisions: Rio, CTC,
we planning for it?
of software, i.e. childcare center
is their relationship/role in planning, i.e. new lot-was it part
of long term planning?
alternative funding-economic trend of not relying on state monies.
If we look into
all of these and see that people say they are using these resources
then we can show that PC is meeting core component 2A.
2B: the organizations resource base supports its educational
programs and its plans for maintaining and strengthening their quality
in the future.
to do when monies run out, how is it incorporated into planning,
is it good for the long run? Planning tools, there needs to be
PC is hiring
a grant coordinator
and social change in demographics
in marketing plan Go far, close to home
they evaluate and assess if that change affected PC? i.e.
or did it cause an increase in enrollment?
We also need
to look at what PC will do with the new Bond.
For our criterion
it will be necessary to decide what data we want to collect out of
all the brainstorming. The meeting ended by deciding
the dates for our future meetings. Criterion 2 will meet
Wednesday, September 29, Monday, October 11, Wednesday,
October 27, 2004 at