Assessment Planning Team

The college-wide SLO Assessment Team is a workgroup that began under the Accreditation Team, but is now a working group under the Planning Participatory Governance committee.

Goal: Assist the SLO Coordinator in developing plans, processes, reports, and dialogue across the college for outcomes assessment (across all units).

Chairs: SLO Coordinator and Dean of Institutional Effectiveness

Most Recent Meeting Notes

April 20, 2016

Attendees: Pamela Mery (Co-chair), Sheri Miraglia (Co-chair), David Agam, Rick Fillman, Ray Gamba, Kristina Whalen, Katryn Wiese


1.       Minutes from March 2 – Review

·         Minutes are posted on the website.  No changes were suggested.


2.       Institutional Effectiveness Indicators for Year Two – Propose Aspirational             Goals

·         Materials are available at

·         IEPI performance goals are aspirational in contrast to ACCJC Institution-Set Standards which are acceptable “floors” but not necessarily aspirational.  Failure to achieve performance goals bears no punitive consequences. 

·         Year Two indicators will be presented to the Board of Trustees (not just provided in a written report) and will likely cover the wider perspective of CCSF’s overall participation in IEPI. 

·         Short-term (1 year) and long-term (6 years) fiscal indicators fall under the Vice Chancellor of Finance and Administration.

·         Year Two includes two required Student Performance and Outcomes indicators:  a) Successful Course Completion is the same as last year except revised to look at fall term rather than annual and b) a  new “College Choice” goal from among the framework indicators focused on unprepared or basic skills students.

a)      The Successful Course Completion rate has been steady at or near 70% for many years.  In the spirit of encouraging further achievement, the proposed 1 year goal is 71% and the proposed 6 year goal is 73%.

§  How do we push the College to achieve these goals?  There are many variables to tackle in taking on this issue.  There needs to be more college-wide discussion.  Possible venues include Deans and Chairs meetings, joint meetings with Counseling, Academic Senate, and also program review.  The data become more meaningful at the program level.

b)      The Remedial English Completion rate is expected to continue to increase due to program acceleration, curriculum redesign, and multiple placement measures.  The English Department Chair and APT agree that this indicator should be used for the College Choice indicator.  The proposed 1 year goal is 55%, and the proposed 6 year goal is 60%.

c)       Should the College be more proactive towards setting unrequired indicators in anticipation of future year requirements?

§  There may be an opportunity to utilize the QFE to promote this work.

§  A possible future Optional College Choice indicator is a goal in noncredit.  This could be enhanced noncredit certificate completion, noncredit to credit transition, or progress indicators.  These are under discussion with the Noncredit Issues Committee.


3.       QFE on Assessment Recommendations – Discuss Progress to Date and             Future Steps

·         Currently being written.  The draft is available for view and comment via Google Docs.


4.       Institution-Set Standards for Job Placement – Follow up

·         Institution-Set Standards have been approved and entered into the ACCJC Annual Report (see responses #20 and #21) .  Licensure standards are based on individual program standards.  The job placement standard for all CTE and certificate programs is 80.7% based upon a goal set by Perkins.  Programs performing significantly lower than their standard warrant follow up.  AVC of Workforce and CTE Theresa Rowland was unable to join the meeting today but is following up..