SC@Work: June 8, 2010 Board Meeting

090317_atwork

Board Meeting Details:

June 8, 2010 at 2:00PM (public session at 4:00PM)
Sierra College Rocklin Campus, Room LR-133
Main agenda items begin at 4:00PM, public comment for items not on the agenda at 5:40PM
Meeting Agenda
Contracts (General / Capital Projects)
Warrants

This meeting will include the board’s self-evaluation, planning for our board retreat, potential action on the board policy for program vitality (see my related post here) and an update on facilities and budget planning.

Use the comments below to answer the Question of the Month! How should Sierra College measure the vitality of our educational programs? What criteria should we use to determine when programs should come to an end and resources be redirected to other industries with growing job needs?

Dan Lee

Some of the first things that come to mind are…

Relevance to the job market
Importance to daily life
How quickly a student can get employment
Demand for jobs in that particular field
Taxpayer dollars IN (the cost of the program) VS. taxpayer dollars OUT (amount of taxes generated by that industry which “should” pay for the program)

General ed programs should be subject to vitality review process as well, a big question is are you going to use the same rule book for ALL programs across the board or are you going to use a softer set of rules for them? I think this question needs to be answered first before an adequate set of guidelines can be created.

Another big question is if the review is to be conducted this coming year how fair is it to put a program through a vitality review when it's going to be running at roughly 50% of it's original capacity?

Also…

Can the program be augmented to better target it's job market and workforce as things change over time?

Additionally I do think the opinions of the majority of people count for something – while the administration and trustees have the final say it would be sad to see a program discontinued when 70-80 percent of the population felt it a necessary program, I think we saw that at the 7.5 hr marathon board meeting.

Some other food for thought….

This morning my father was complaining that his car was not running right and was going to take it to a mechanic, he started it up and I could tell it was missing on two cylinders. With some quick diagnostic work that I learned in class I was able to have his car repaired in less than an hour for only about 90.00 in parts.

Consequently my father has been very pleased with my decision to study automotive tech at Sierra College, probably because I just saved him hundreds of dollars.
http://www.aaronklein.com/ AaronKlein

Great thoughts.

First, all programs are subject to program review. In response to your other Facebook comment, I'm going to write a post discussing program review. If a program has a “needs improvement” status after program review, that's when a program vitality process is triggered.

Second, it seems to me that the program vitality process criteria should be identical between general education and CTE programs. Perhaps there's a logical reason why it should be different, but I haven't heard or thought of one yet.

Now, I think most of your criteria are great ideas. I can't fully agree with how you stated “public opinion” — while it was awesome to have the input of hundreds at that meeting, I don't think it would be fair to say that their opinions were representative of the public as a whole. The folks at that meeting were the ones with a specific interest in those three programs.

It's also true that just about everything is “good” and “needed” — if that was the sole criteria, we would never end any government program.

So public opinion can and should play a role in the decision, but this is why we live in a representative democracy. We elect leaders to synthesize the public input, and make the best decisions possible with the resources available.

Here's hoping that we can find a way to have a strong, relevant and revitalized automotive tech program continue at Sierra College – I think we've got a very good shot! Thank you for your work as a student leader to make that happen.
Dan Lee

Perhaps I didn't word it adequately, I wasn't necessarily saying that public opinion is an overriding factor but more as another source for input – a barometer so to speak. I realize that most of the speakers at that meeting were biased, but I think American's (myself included) are waking up to the fact that we have to get involved and show our leaders what we want, otherwise they will keep going on about their own agenda's regarding about what they “think” the people want. Without any input from the community they have no way of knowing how the people they represent really feel and can only rely on their “best educated guess” when making some decisions.

We complain when the government makes decisions with undesired impacts to our lives, but unless many people step up to the plate and drive a home run (to use the analogy) we are just as guilty as a result of our inaction.

It must have hit close to home for a lot of people for them to go out of their way and sit through that meeting just to get a moment to voice their opinion as I can speculate that it was probably the most attendees you've ever had at a board meeting, not to mention the most lively. I do sympathize I know it wasn't easy for you guys to sit through all that either. I think, I hope.. the trustees saw that their was more concern for those three programs than previously realized and I assume influenced the decision to create a process for evaluation and I and the rest of the students thank you immensely for that opportunity.
http://www.aaronklein.com/ AaronKlein

Now THAT I agree with!

Honestly, I had no problem sitting through it – it was a valuable part of the process. I question whether the meeting could be structured more productively because I think some attendees labored under the preconceived notion that the board didn't arrive with close to the same feeling the attendees had. We wanted to know — what objective criteria and process was there for making this determination? Ultimately, I think the system worked and the public played a huge role in achieving a positive outcome.

My hope is that the vitality process — which I believe is being conducted fairly — produces a recommendation that everyone can get behind. Hopefully it's a positive recommendation that is easy to get behind, but if not, I hope it's one that everyone accepts because it's the right thing to do in the context of available resources and all of those other criteria that come into play.

I'm glad you'll be there Tuesday — let's make sure we have a chance to say hi!
Dave Nelson

Hey Dan, Aaron, I need to comment on the need for a Vitality process, I’m aware of the need to verify the productivity of a program as it is detrimental to its survival and would be necessary to feel comforted investing in such program having met the goals that have been set. So, what goals have been set? And how do we measure those goals? How do we record the progress of other programs in the college? I’m definitely interested in a resolve to these issues and have some ideas to present, some of which have been previously presented and others that may be impossible. Nevertheless I’ll be attending the meeting also on my birthday to ensure that our automotive program be a vital part of our transportation industry. Looking forward to working with everyone 
http://www.aaronklein.com/ AaronKlein

Hi Dave,

Thanks a lot for your comment. It's important to distinguish program review from program vitality. Program review is the evaluator of programs, while program vitality is the process that starts when a review signals a need for improvement, and Academic Senate decides to form a committee.

It's a complicated process but one that I hope becomes clearer over time. Thanks for sacrificing and attending the meetings — we need your help and input!

Aaron

SC@Work: June 8, 2010 Board Meeting

Markets change. Do your investments still fit you?

Subscribe to the Blog via Email