Main Navigation:

March 25, 2014

Meeting Notes

Assessment Planning Team

Meeting Minutes

Tuesday March 25, 2014

MUB 140, 11AM-12PM

I.                    Issues surrounding Institution-set standards (10 minutes)

We briefly discussed what we knew about the process and methods employed at other colleges.

A discussion about the “high level” introspection that must occur when standards are not met took place. We discussed creating a concrete timeline for deliberations on institution–set standards that is clear to campus community and starts earlier. This will be in fall draft of the Annual Assessment Plan, approved by the Assessment Planning Team and sent to the Planning Committee and upward.

Pam Mery noted that at the RP conference in October it was stated that sanctions would not be based on the failure of an institution to meet the standards. Others noted we will be evaluated more for how we react to not meeting the standard than being correct about the standard.

II.                  Methods for setting (45 minutes)

a.     Length of data under review—5 year and three data was looked at. Given the tremendous upheaval at the college, we reached consensus that the 3 year means and mediums were more profitable for the analysis.

b.     Method for choosing benchmark

A fairly vigorous discussion ensued about choosing a number we know we can reach so that we do not have another data point that could label us “unacceptable.” The Academic Senate officer strongly cautioned against choosing a number when we don’t have answers for why the numbers are the way they are. In response it was noted that we’ve heard strong caution about “lowballing” the number and it is perhaps more detrimental to the college to contradict the advice we’ve received at trainings and institutes.

It was agreed that we must adjust the number to account for the nearly 20% drop in enrollment, especially for those standards that are not percentages.  The group deliberated on the data and offers the following recommendations as suggestions (or suggestions for further deliberation).

Course completion: 69.5.

This is the one data point where we have data on fall 2013. The number chosen is informed by the 69.49 fall completion rate.

Degree Completion: 1218.

This number is derived from subtracting 20% (decline in enrollment) from the fall 2012 degree completion number of 1,518—the highest degree completion year across the 5 years of data.

Certificate Completion: 737.

Number derived from subtracting 20% from fall 2012 number of 921—like above.

Transfer: 4,000

This number was a bit more vexing. We discussed how tied transfer rates are to factors at SFSU, much more that East Bay community colleges. We anticipate the number falling but perhaps not as dramatically as other numbers given that we’ve increased Transfer Degrees and focused course offerings on discipline “core classes.” 

III.                Next steps (5 minutes)

The deliberations are passed to the Academic Senate. Susan Lamb will be discussing them tomorrow at the EC meeting at the Civic Center.