1 Foothill College, El Monte Road, Los Altos Hills, CA | foothill.edu El Monte Road Los Altos Hills, CA foothill.edu 2016 Governance Survey Results PaRC meeting June 15, 2016 E. Kuo

2 Annual Governance Survey  Evaluates our planning and resource prioritization process  Identifies agenda for the Integrated Planning & Budget Task Force(IP&B)

3 Survey Administration  survey invite  Monday, June 6 to Monday, June 13  All employees, student participants in the shared governance process

4 Survey Respondents N=82

5 For IP&B’s Consideration  Faculty/Staff prioritization process  Resource prioritization process  Program review process Prompt: Select the items you’d like to see the Integrated Planning & Budget task force review this summer. Options include: Annual program review template, Comprehensive program review template, Education Master Plan, Faculty/Staff prioritization, Institutional standards process, Institutional goals process, Resource prioritization process, Program review process, Other (Responses included: Governance structure, Stipend/release/reassign time)

6 For Additional Consideration  Link btw annual and comprehensive program reviews  Link btw program review and resource prioritization process  Comprehensive program review cycle length  Review the AUO process  Training for program review and resource requests

7 Most Effective Means of Communication But….not too much ! N=81

8 Information Management  Clearer documentation of process  Diagrams/Charts  Use Opening Day  “One stop shop” with links  “Snapshot” summary  Newsletter  Repeat important s

9 Annual Program Review  More discussion/feedback at department and division levels  Link btw program review and student success? Is there follow through?  More targeted subjective reflections  More accessible program review webpage  “Good,” “bad,” “ugly” program review document examples

10 Comprehensive Program Review  More data and time needed  Expand beyond 3-yr trend  Comprehensive every 4-5 yrs?  More targeted subjective reflections  Define discussions when mtg with PRC  Expand participation to include classified staff and part-time faculty

11 Resource Prioritization  Clearer understanding of Perkins criteria  Clearer understanding of PaRC’s role  Follow-up regarding requests (closing the loop)

12 Student Learning Outcomes  More SLO discussion at all levels (dept, div, campus)  Confusion/disagreement about what are SLOs  More dept/div support  Dean support important  SLO committee seen as positive

13 Comments? Questions?

El Monte Road Los Altos Hills, CA foothill.edu