Skyline College Human Resource Plan: Staffing for Student ... · E. Factors that Influence Staffing...

Revised 7 May 2013 Page 1

Skyline College Human Resource Plan:

Staffing for Student Success


Table of Contents

Message from the President p. 3 About Skyline College

Vision-Mission-Values Goals Institutional (Student) Learning Outcomes

p. 5

Taskforce on Staffing for Student Success (T3S) p. 11 Integrated Planning for Human Resources

Equity and Excellence in Hiring and Retention How the Staffing Plan Informs the Budget Process FTES Goals—FTEF and Staffing Needs Staffing Levels and the Allocation of Resources Position Allocation and Prioritization Faculty Hiring Priorities Process Classified Staff Hiring Priorities Process Administrator Hiring Priorities Process

Integrating Staffing with College Initiatives

p. 13

Conclusion and Next Steps p. 29 Appendices

A. Skyline College Annual Planning and Budgeting Calendar B. Balanced Scorecard C. Employee Voice Survey D. Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) E. Factors that Influence Staffing Needs F. Overview of the Faculty Obligation Number (FON) G. Staff Levels and the Allocation of Resources H. Skyline College Strategic Plan for 2012-2017 I. Strategic Planning in a Basic Aid Environment J. Strategic Priorities Staffing for Student Success for 2012-2017 K. Grant Funded and Measure G Positions

p. 30


Message from the President

The Skyline College Leadership strives to make the college a magnet for attracting the

best faculty and staff: those who believe in Skyline College’s mission and the Master Plan of the

California Community College; and who thus commit their life’s work to serving the students for

whom that Master Plan was traditionally designed. We are firmly grounded in a commitment to

empower and transform the lives of our global community of learners--developing the depth of

their humanity, and maximizing their human potential --to achieve their intellectual, cultural,

social, economic and personal fulfillment.

In an effort to continuously enhance our Human Resources, Skyline College engages in

an integrated planning process that is both participatory and transparent. Guided by the college’s

strategic priorities, mission-vision-values, and goals, each stage of this integrated process

incorporates multiple voices, promotes equity and excellence, and utilizes promising practices

that maximize institutional effectiveness and student success.

Key to inspiring a global and diverse community of learners to achieve intellectual,

cultural, social, and economic fulfillment is the recruitment, hiring, retention, and ongoing

development of exceptional talent. Skyline College’s recruitment processes are designed to

attract a diverse, talented, and engaged faculty and staff who are committed to student success.

Ensuring sufficient faculty, staff, and administration to provide high quality instruction and

student support secures the institutional commitment to excellence and serves our strategic


priorities. Retention of dedicated faculty and staff further strengthens institutional effectiveness

by providing continuity and institutional memory.

This Manual describes the planning, hiring, and evaluation processes enacted to ensure

that the college meets and maintains a sufficient number of qualified faculty, staff, and

administrators with full-time responsibilities to the college. For an overview of ongoing

opportunities and resources for professional development, please reference Professional

Development Resources, at http://www.skylinecollege.edu/prie/assets/profDevDraft2013.pdf

I continue to invite ongoing feedback as the Skyline College community, individually

and collectively, continues to evolve as one of the most exemplary, innovative, and academically

excellent community colleges in the state.

http://www.skylinecollege.edu/prie/assets/profDevDraft2013.pdf


About Skyline College

Skyline College opened in 1969 as part of the San Mateo County Community College

District. Located on a 111-acre site overlooking the Pacific Ocean just south of San Francisco,

Skyline College offers world-class educational opportunities to residents from North San

Mateo County and beyond.

Over 10,000 students enroll in a broad range of affordable day, evening, weekend and

online courses. Many students complete lower division general education requirements at

Skyline College and then transfer to four-year colleges and universities to earn a bachelor’s

degree. Other Skyline College students graduate and achieve an Associate in Arts (A.A.) or

Associate in Science (A.S.) degree. Additionally, Skyline College offers the latest in career

technical education through such nationally acclaimed programs as Automotive Technology,

Networking, Business, Environmental Technology and Allied Health. The students benefit

from state-of-the-art technology, One Stop Student Support Services, SparkPoint at Skyline

College, integrated student services and instruction through learning communities and an

environment designed to support student success. The curriculum consists of 42 Associate

Degree Programs, 52 Certificate Programs, Honors Transfer Program, Interdisciplinary Studies

major and various Learning Communities such as ASTEP, Kababayan, MESA, Puente, Scholar

Athlete and Women in Transition.


The vision-mission-values and goals of Skyline College are reflected in our educational

programs, student services and student success. They are also infused throughout the

integrated planning practices for the college’s human resources.

Vision-Mission-Values

Skyline College inspires a global and diverse community of learners to achieve

intellectual, cultural, social, economic and personal fulfillment. The mission of the college is to

empower and transform a global community of learners.

We believe that education is the foundation of our civilized democratic society. Thus, we

have identified the following values:

Campus Climate: We value a campus-wide climate that reflects a ‘students first philosophy'

with mutual respect between all constituencies and appreciation for diversity. Both instruction

and student services are dedicated to providing every student with an avenue to success.

Open Access: We are committed to the availability of quality educational programs and services

for every member of our community regardless of level of preparation, socio-economic status,

cultural, religious or ethnic background, or disability. We are committed to providing students

with open access to programs and responsive student services that enable them to advance

steadily toward their goals.


Student Success: We value students’ success in achieving their goals, and strengthening their

voices as they transform their lives through their educational experience.

Academic Excellence: We value excellence in all aspects of our mission as a comprehensive

community college offering preparation for transfer to a baccalaureate institution, workforce and

economic development through career technical education programs and certificates, Associate

of Arts and Associate of Science degrees, transfers, skills development, and lifelong learning.

We are committed to academic rigor and quality with relevant, recent, and evolving curriculum

and well-equipped programs that include new and emerging areas of study. We are dedicated to

an educational climate that values creativity, innovation and freedom of intellectual exploration,

discovery, thought, and exchange of ideas.

Community Connection: We value a deep engagement with the community we serve and our

role as an academic and cultural center for community including business, industry, labor, non-

profits, government and the arts. We are dedicated to maintaining a college culture and

institutional climate that is warm and welcoming to all.

Shared Governance: We value just, fair, inclusive, and well-understood, transparent

governance processes based upon open and honest communication.

Sustainability: We value an institutional culture that represents a strong commitment to

environmental sustainability and justice. We are committed to the following tenet of


sustainability: “To meet present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to

meet their needs.”

Goals

Building on the strong foundation of our vision-mission- values, the college has set the

following goals:

1. Develop the scope, quality, accessibility and accountability of instructional and student service

offerings, programs, and services to lead the San Francisco Bay region in transferring students,

awarding degrees and certificates and reflecting social and educational equity.

2. Enhance institutional effectiveness in planning and decision-making processes through

cooperative leadership, effective communication, and participatory governance.

3. Fulfill the college’s role as a leading academic and cultural center for the community.

4. Play a central role in the preparation of the region’s workforce and expand networks and

partnerships with business, the community, and non-profit organizations.

5. Provide human, physical, technological and financial resources to assure excellent educational

programs and student services in order to support students in attaining their educational goals

and improve institutional effectiveness.


6. Establish and maintain fiscal stability and alignment of programs and services to the core

mission, vision, and values of the college.

7. Recruit, retain and support a world-class faculty, staff, and administration that is committed to

ongoing improvement through access to opportunities for professional growth and advancement.

8. Internationalize the educational experience by enriching the college with a diverse community of

learners representing the collective resources of humanity and engaging in a vibrant dialogue that

engenders an understanding of others.

Skyline College’s vision-mission-values and goals are reflected and implemented through

the Institutional (Student) Learning Outcomes (ILOs):

Institutional (Student) Learning Outcomes (ILOs)

Upon completing an A.A./A.S. Degree and/or transfer preparation, students will show

evidence of ability in the following core competency areas:

1. Critical Thinking – Demonstrate critical thinking skills in problem-solving across the

disciplines and in daily life.

2. Effective Communication – Communicate and comprehend effectively.

3. Citizenship – Use knowledge acquired from their experiences at this College to be

ethically responsible, culturally proficient citizens, informed and involved in civic affairs

locally, nationally, and globally.


4. Information Literacy – Demonstrate skills central to information literacy.

5. Lifelong Wellness – Demonstrate an understanding of lifelong wellness through physical

fitness and personal development.


Taskforce on Staffing for Student Success (T3S)

Purpose and Background

One of Skyline College’s goals is to provide human, physical, technological and financial

resources to ensure excellent educational programs and student services, and improve

institutional effectiveness in order to support students in attaining their educational goals. The

recruitment and retention of world-class faculty, staff and administrators is vital to achieving this

goal.

During the fall of 2007, a small Taskforce on Staffing for Student Success was formed

with the purpose of developing a staffing plan for the college. The Taskforce provided some

foundational work, and then disbanded. As Skyline College has continued to grow and

additional planning processes, communication practices, and nuances have evolved, the

Institutional Planning Committee (IPC) saw the need to convene a new taskforce to ensure that

the planning processes remain integrated, transparent, inclusive, and effective in advancing the

college’s mission-vision-values and goals. The IPC requested volunteers from both within the

IPC itself and the College Budget Committee (CBC) to serve on the new taskforce. Charged with

developing a staffing plan or needs document to:

• Link staffing decisions not only to the college vision-mission-values, but also to our goals and strategies, unit reviews, Educational and Facilities Master Plans, and program reviews;

• Integrate staffing with college initiatives;

• Inform the budget process;


• Inform staffing changes in the face of retirements; and

• Inform grant-seeking efforts.


Integrated Planning for Human Resources

The planning process at Skyline College is grounded in our vision-mission-values and

Institutional Learning Outcomes, and results in the development of the annual strategic priorities.

The college planning process is broad-based, utilizing participatory governance and planning

structures that are designed to engage the college community to maximize input opportunities

across constituencies while effectively centralizing and integrating a large number of individual

program plans into an overall all College Plan. Human resource needs are integrated throughout

multiple aspects of the planning process, such as the Comprehensive Program Review Process,

Administrative Leadership Unit Review (ALUR), FTEF (Full-Time Equivalent Faculty)

Allocation, Classified Hiring Priorities, budget allocation, enrollment management and goal

setting, Educational Master Plan, Educational Facilities Master Plan and Professional

Development.

The integrated planning process follows an annual planning cycle as illustrated in the

Annual Planning and Budget Calendar (Appendix A). The process incorporates the annual and

comprehensive planning processes of the President, administrative leadership, Deans and

academic departments, and student support units. Participatory governance committees,

including the Institutional Planning Committee (IPC), the College Budget Committee (CBC), the

Curriculum Committee, the Academic Senate, and the College Governance Council (CGC),

review the various plans for integration and resource allocation at several stages of the process.

In addition to human resources needs, the annual plans include needs for facilities, equipment,

and budget. Assessment tools, such as the Balanced Scorecard (Appendix B), as well as


constituent surveys, such as the Employee Voice Survey (Appendix C), and the Community

College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE, Appendix D), further inform the

recommendations.

Although they share many similarities and are aligned in the planning cycle, processes for

the prioritization and allocation vary across constituencies, as do procedures for recruitment,

hiring, evaluation and ongoing development. A brief overview follows, and links for detailed

resources can be found in Factors that Influence Staffing Needs (Appendix E).

Equity and Excellence in Hiring and Retention

Skyline College approaches excellence and equity from a “strengths” framework, going

beyond the “absence of discrimination” and the “removal of barriers” to create a proactively

inclusive, accessible, and embracing campus climate. The recruitment, hiring, and retention of

Skyline College’s faculty, staff, and administrators reflect this commitment and align with our

mission of transformative global education, and our ongoing work to promote student success.

One of the ways in which the college institutionalizes this commitment is through the work of

the SEEED/SE (Stewardship for Equity, Equal Employment, and Diversity/Student Equity)

Committee, and its Subcommittee on Equity in Hiring. The subcommittee is exploring the

question “how do our current hiring practices assist or exclude in the attracting, hiring, and

retaining of faculty, staff and administrators reflective of our student population?” The rich and

detailed work generated by SEEED throughout this process will form the foundation of a Skyline

College Comprehensive Diversity Framework, forthcoming in Academic Year 2013-14. The

Skyline College Comprehensive Diversity Framework will inform the ongoing enhancement of

all phases of the recruitment and hiring process, as well as providing a rich data source on how


campus policies and climate might be impacting retention of diverse personnel. Ensuring

diversity and equity at all levels of the college promotes Skyline’s mission and strategic

priorities, enriches curricular content and pedagogical approaches, deepens critical thinking,

enhances cultural fluency, strengthens campus community, and increases student success.

Broadening and deepening our candidate pools as new or retirement positions become available

is the first step in this process.

How the Staffing Plan Informs the Budget Process

FTES Goals – FTEF and Staffing Needs

Staffing needs are influenced by the Full-Time Equivalent Student (FTES) goals. The

FTES goals have historically influenced the amount of funding received when the college was

dependent upon state apportionment. SMCCCD recently became a basic aid district, which

means that the district no longer receives state apportionment because the revenues it receives

from local property taxes and student enrollment fees are sufficient to cover its state-determined

revenue limit. With the dissolution of redevelopment agencies and the recovery of the real estate

market, property tax revenues in San Mateo County continue to increase, providing a more stable

revenue source for SMCCCD. Additional funding sources include federal funds, lottery funds,

and local revenues (such as donations, special elections for parcel taxes, cafeteria sales and

interest on investments).1 Prior to becoming a basic aid district, the college funding was subject

to state revenue limits, or as translated at the local level, enrollment limits. While there are

1 Alvarez, V.L. School Funding in California and the Uniqueness and Vulnerability of Basic Aid Funding, May 2009


benefits to being basic aid, such as not being affected by declining enrollment, there are also

challenges associated with being a basic aid district. One of the challenges is the difficulty in

engaging in long-term funding projections because of possible fluctuations in the property tax

values, the health of the housing market, and the overall economy, or a change in legislation that

could eliminate or restructure funding for basic aid districts. The state determines the level of

FTES that it will fund. To ensure fiscal stability, the Board of Trustees has elected to maintain

enrollment goals that coincide with the state funded FTES, despite the non-dependence on state

apportionment. This will help mitigate a precipitous drop in revenues that would in turn trigger

dramatic and disruptive reductions in programs and services.

The Chancellor’s Office for the California Community Colleges hosts two yearly budget

workshops throughout the state. At these workshops, the Chief Business Officers (CBOs) from

the 72 districts receive the estimated base FTES that the state will fund for each district. Each

district submits their enrollment reports three times per year, and the estimated base FTES is

based on these 320 Enrollment Reports. The SMCCCD CBOs bring the information back to the

district and meet with the Vice Presidents of Instruction from the three colleges. The Vice

Presidents estimate the enrollment that can be generated at their respective colleges, taking into

consideration internal and external factors that may influence enrollment. For the Office of

Instruction, these enrollment goals are vital, since they become the basis for decision-making

with regard to the number of course sections to be offered during the summer, fall and spring

semesters. On the Finance side, the estimates, as approved by the College Presidents, are

provided to the Executive Vice Chancellor and the Chief Financial Officer, who then feeds these

enrollment (FTES) goals into the district allocation model for the General Unrestricted Fund


(Fund 1). After requesting and receiving feedback on the prorated goals, the Executive Vice

Chancellor releases the budget site allocations to the colleges.

The Skyline College Chief Business Officer then runs budget scenarios related to

FTES/FTEF/and load for review by Cabinet. Cabinet discusses the scenarios and agrees upon

the FTES and Load goal. That FTES goal is entered into the scenario modeling template along

with the number of existing full-time equivalent faculty (FTEF) to determine the number of

additional FTEF needed to achieve the FTES target, assuming the load goal. It then calculates

the amount of Fund 1 dollars needed for the hourly instruction (1310) budget. These scenarios

are provided to the budget committee for review and deliberation, resulting in the

recommendation of a balanced budget which incorporates the number of faculty, staff and

administrator positions that can be funded out of Fund 1 during the ensuing year. Because state

enrollment goals are not finalized until the state budget is finalized, the college often works with

a tentative set of goals and assumptions, which are adjusted and finalized once the state budget is

finalized. Despite becoming basic aid, the San Mateo Community College District continues to

engage in the goal setting process in order to remain close to the state funded FTES goals.

Another variable in this equation is the Faculty Obligation Number (FON), designed as an

arbitrary number used by the California Community Colleges Board of Governors to work

toward a goal of having 75% of CCC credit instruction taught by full-time faculty members. A

more detailed overview of the FON can be found in Appendix F.

Staffing Levels and the Allocation of Resources

San Mateo County Community College District developed and utilizes a resource

allocation model that mirrors the state funding model. It is primarily driven by FTES and the


state determines the level of FTES it will fund. The district allocation model funds FTES growth

using the 5 year-average FTES for each college. The District Committee on Budget and Finance

(DCBF) regularly reviews the effectiveness of the resource allocation model. During this

academic year, DCBF reviewed data that showed faculty, classified and administrator positions

at each of the campuses to determine a minimum level of staffing to operate a college. The goal

of the DCBF is to develop a recommendation to add a line adjustment in the resource allocation

model considering factors and measures such as: ratio of full-time to part-time faculty; load;

new/continuing students per counselor ratio; vocational programs; student headcount, and course

enrollments, among others (Staffing Levels and the Allocation of Resources, Appendix G). The

DCBF will continue its work in AY 13-14 and bring its recommendation through the district-

wide participatory governance process.

Position Allocation and Prioritization

Currently, the college utilizes two human resources planning processes: the Full-Time

Equivalent Faculty (FTEF) Allocation Process, conducted within each division to identify and

prioritize faculty hiring needs; and the Classified Staff Hiring Priorities Process, which follows a

similar trajectory, with recommendations being made by Cabinet. Both processes build “from

the ground, up” with extensive opportunities for input. A third planning process is currently

being finalized, to identify and prioritize hiring needs for Administrators. Once vetted by

Cabinet and approved by the President, the Taskforce will review options for effectively

integrating all three plans into the college planning and budget cycle in a manner that addresses


the unique needs of each while enhancing institutional cohesion and effectiveness for student

success.

Faculty Hiring Priorities Process

Skyline College is committed to continuing to meet the accreditation standards requiring

“a sufficient number of qualified faculty with full-time responsibilities.” In alignment with the

college’s “students first” philosophy, vision-mission-values, evidence-based decision-making,

and commitment to academic excellence; there is widespread consensus that it is necessary to

access sufficient data to inform a broader continuum of hiring needs, from minimum to ideal.

With more nuanced numbers, the participatory governance system will provide abundant

opportunities for discussing various scenarios that enable us to pursue a standard of excellence

while balancing competing needs within a set resource limitation

Each year, Skyline College engages in a two-part process to determine how many new

faculty will be sought and what priority the various disciplines will have when allocating these

positions. The College Budget Committee makes a recommendation of a balanced budget that

includes scenarios for hiring additional faculty, staff and administrators, identifying only the

recommended number of positions rather than where the positions should be allocated. The

recommended budget will include considerations for anticipated separations or retirements,

replacement cost, salary and benefits. Upon acceptance of the recommended annual budget, the

President consults with Cabinet and announces the number of new faculty hires that will be

sought.


A parallel process takes place within the FTEF Allocation Committee, which is made up

of faculty representatives from each of the divisions, an instructional and a student services

administrator, and the Vice President of Instruction. The College Business Officer serves as a

resource person to the committee. Proposals for new faculty positions are invited at this time, in

a process guided by a commitment to remain a comprehensive community college with high

quality programs and services offered to meet the instructional and support needs of the

community we serve. Input is solicited throughout the process from all constituencies, and each

division has the opportunity to generate a request. Requests may include new and/or replacement

positions.

The integrated planning process includes consideration of how the students, college

and unit will be affected if the requested position is not allocated. The proposals must address

the ways in which multiple aspects of the planning process influenced the request such as:

a) recommendations from the Educational/Facilities Master Plan;

b) recommendations from the Comprehensive Program Review Process;

c) the Administrative Leadership Unit Review (ALUR);

d) institutional and programmatic recommendations from accreditation;

e) district, college, division, and department goals;

f) demographics, community needs, job training needs, emerging trends, and other colleges offering similar programs; g) availability and expertise of Associate staff presently in the department;

h) number of full-time faculty in the program, anticipated retirements in the Department; FTES generated and load; i) recommendations by departmental Advisory Board;


j) impact on Student Learning Outcomes; and

k) impact on institutional effectiveness/student access and success (Balanced Scorecard).

Additional factors, such as the ratio of full-time to part-time faculty, program productivity,

efficiency measures and trends, licensing, certification and accreditation needs, are also taken

into consideration. All hiring processes align with the policies and goals of the San Mateo

Community College District, the Board of Trustees, and the collective bargaining agreements.

The faculty requests are first considered at the division level. For purposes of the

allocation process, Student Services is considered one division. The FTEF Allocation

Committee considers all division requests, places them in a priority ranking, and makes a

recommendation to forward to the Academic Senate. Faculty positions that are needed to fulfill

accreditation or regulation compliance are prioritized, as are positions paid through categorical

and grant funding. The Academic Senate considers the recommendation, consults with the

Instructional Leadership Team, and forwards their recommended priority ranking to the Vice

President of Instruction. The Vice President of Instruction consults with the Vice President of

Student Services and makes a recommendation to the President.

The President takes the recommendation into consideration as the decision for position

ranking is made. Faculty positions vacated in less than 24 months of hire are not included in the

allocation process. The college priorities are considered with each separation, unless the

separation is within the first few years (before tenure) of the hire. Faculty positions vacated


after 24 months of hire (separation, retirement, layoff, or termination) go through the FTEF

allocation process. Rehires/replacements are not automatic, but will be made as approved

through the process. Hiring processes for the allocated positions are initiated, and if successful,

result in the hiring of new full-time faculty. The Taskforce recommended that the process for

hiring replacements for retiring faculty be revised to mirror the process for replacing classified

employees, which is made upon recommendation of the dean and Vice President based on

department/program need. This will ensure that healthy robust programs will continue even

after faculty retire. This year, two faculty retired at the end of fall 2012. Based on the deans’

justification for program need and

the Vice President’s

recommendation, two replacement

hires will be added to the

new faculty positions that will be

filled for fall 2013.

As of fall 2012, Skyline

College has 112 full-time and 227 adjunct faculty members. Of the full-time faculty, more than

50% are over the age of fifty. Considering the age of 55 as a starting point, more than 40% of

them are likely to retire within ten years. Considering the age of 62 as a starting point, almost a

quarter of the faculty are likely to retire within the next five years.

21%

26%

8%

45%

Full-time Faculty

62 and above age 55 - 61 age 50 - 54 below 50


Classified Staff Hiring Priorities Process

A diverse, talented and dedicated classified staff enhance the effectiveness of the college

in meeting its mission, and maintain the integrity and quality of the programs and services. As

with faculty positions, the number of classified positions to be hired are initially recommended in

the budget model scenarios. Related planning processes, such as program review, Administrative

Leadership Unit Review (ALUR), the Educational Master Plan and the enrollment trends, may

also impact the numbers of classified staff needed.

The ALURs are developed in consultation with the faculty and staff at the department

and division level; and in developing the classified position priority list, resources identified

through the Comprehensive Program Review Process should be included. Based on the unit

plans and Program Review findings, classified staff positions are identified and prioritized at the

division level. The appropriate Vice President will compile and prioritize all division lists. Once

the budget committee recommends a balanced budget with position scenarios including the

number of classified positions to be hired, Cabinet considers the position requests submitted by

the respective administrative units.

The President consults with the Cabinet and considers the recommendations, identifies

classified positions approved for hiring, and communicates the results to the College Governance

Council. The President may automatically approve the replacement of existing positions that

are vacated due to separation or retirement. However, for newly created positions, if the need

arises to hire a staff position at a time during the year that is out of synchronicity with the budget


and planning process, managers are encouraged to use temporary staffing solutions until the

position goes through the planning and budget process or is otherwise allocated and approved.

To meet accreditation standards, the college “must maintain a sufficient number of

staff…with appropriate preparation and

experience to provide …services necessary to

support the institution’s mission and

purposes.”2

As of fall 2012, Skyline College

currently has 101 permanent classified staff

members and fifty-eight short-term hourly

employees. One third of the classified staff

is over the age of fifty, with about a quarter

of the staff likely to retire within ten years (age 55 or older). As the Administrative Leadership

Unit Reviews are completed, administrators are required to consider the staffing trend of the

recent four years and the upcoming three years. This data is considered in the position allocation

process.

Administrators Hiring Priorities Process

This human resource plan is intended to support the college in meeting the accreditation

standard that “the institution maintains a sufficient number of …administrators with appropriate

preparation and experience to provide the administrative services necessary to support the

institution’s mission and purposes.”3 The administration of the college is composed of

2 ACCJC (August 2012) Guide to Evaluating Institutions, p. 38. (Standard III.A.2). 3 ACCJC (August 2012) Guide to Evaluating Institutions, p. 38. (Standard III.A.2).

0% 1%

10%

23%

27%

28%

11%

Age Range 70 - 79 60 - 69 50 - 5940 - 49 30 - 39 20 - 29

Classified Staff


three major segments: 1) Instruction, 2) Student Services, and 3) Administrative Services.

Skyline College currently has seventeen

administrators. Eighteen percent of the

administrators (3 of 17) are grant funded

positions that are responsible for major

segments of instruction and integrated student

services. Eighteen percent of the

administration is responsible for student services. Forty-seven percent is responsible for

instruction, and the remaining seventeen percent is in the general administrative segment

(President, Chief Business Officer, and Dean of Planning Research and Institutional

Effectiveness). Almost two thirds of the seventeen administrators are age fifty or older and are

likely to retire within the next 10 to 12 years. A quarter of them are age sixty or more and likely

to retire within five years. Over the last fifteen to twenty years, there has not been a process in

place for considering the addition of administrative positions. The challenging fiscal condition of

the state led to budget reductions. For example, Skyline College has one dean position (Dean of

Instructional Technology) that it has allowed to remain vacant for the past decade. The

responsibilities were distributed among the existing instructional deans. With the submission of

Administrative Leadership Unit Reviews, the President will engage the college in a discussion on

the administrative organization of the college and consider administrative position needs. The

funding of the positions will be included in the participatory governance budget processes.

While the organizational structure is an Administrative prerogative, the College faculty and staff,

and the executive leadership of the district, will be consulted.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

30-39 40-49 50-59 60 +

Administration


Integrating Staffing with College Initiatives

On Opening Day, the President announces to the college the Strategic Priorities for the

academic year. These priorities are developed within the governance structure throughout the

year, through the ongoing evaluation of student needs and the effectiveness of programs and

services throughout the college in support of student learning. This year, the President

announced the six strategic priorities upon which Skyline College will focus over the next five

years:

1. Facilities and Technology – identify and scale technology-enabled approaches

and upgraded facilities to improve teaching and learning;

2. Student Services – expand and enhance Student Services programs through

innovation and the seamless delivery of services;

3. Equity and Excellence – develop and strengthen relationships to ensure

excellence in practice for an increasingly diverse student population, with a

strong focus on improving student outcomes;

4. Comprehensive Community Connection – engage in a comprehensive initiative

to strengthen connections with community, workforce/business and industry,

including the development of a middle college and expanding concurrent

enrollment;

5. Instruction – build on the strong educational foundations and college goals where

faculty and staff keep abreast of emerging fields of study and engage in

connecting academic programming with the needs of our community and prepare

students for their future;


6. Fiscal Stability and Resource Development – maintain fiscal stability through

strategic integrated planning and resource allocation and development to be able

to create permanent faculty, classified and administrator positions to meet student

and community needs.

These strategic priorities are embodied in the Skyline College Strategic Plan for 2012-

2017 (Appendix H), and are in concert with the Board of Trustees Goals, Skyline College’s

goals, and the District Strategic Priorities. On March 13, 2013, the Board of Trustees held a

study session on “Strategic Planning in a Basic Aid Environment” (Appendix I). The Executive

Vice Chancellor and the three College Presidents all shared presentations on district and college

priorities and initiatives.

The Strategic Plan informs the staff planning process at every stage. Cabinet reviewed

the Administrative Leadership Unit Reviews (ALURs) that were submitted to the Institutional

Planning Council. These unit reviews had been informed by the previously completed annual

and comprehensive instructional and student services planning and review processes, and framed

by the campus strategic priorities. ALURs contained projected staffing needs for each division

and program in addition to facilities and budget requirements. Cabinet evaluated the faculty,

staff and administrator positions identified in the ALURs and integrated these into the “Strategic

Priorities Staffing for Student Success for 2012-2017” (Appendix J) which was presented to the

Chancellor and Executive Team on April 24, 2013. This comprehensive planning document

depicts the vision for the implementation of each of the Strategic Priorities and will serve as a

blueprint for human resource planning for the college within the next 5 years. The Strategic

Revised7May2013 Page28

Priorities staffing plan will inform faculty, classified and administrative hiring decisions.

Positions identified in the plan, in combination with yearly staffing requests initiated at the

division level as part of the college’s annual planning process, will be evaluated, prioritized and

funded based on need and the availability of resources.

Another important component presented in the Strategic Plan is the institutionalization of

grant-funded positions. Three key programs on campus have relied on soft money since their

inception. These include the Center for International Trade Development (CITD), the Center for

Workforce Development, and SparkPoint at Skyline College. These programs are part of the

fabric of the college and the positions must be institutionalized in order to ensure that their

operations can continue even if their current funding source(s) expire. Notwithstanding, these

programs will continue to apply for grants and generate revenues that will enable the college to

further its vision-mission-values and help our students succeed. Lastly, there are several

classified positions that are currently funded out of Measure G funding, which is expiring at the

end of fiscal year 2013-2014. Decisions will need to be made on how these positions will be

funded should Measure G not be renewed. For now, the college has been setting aside fund 1

dollars when the budget committee recommends funding for classified positions, to build up

savings for these positions.

Skyline College uses a strategic management system called the Balanced Score Card

(BSC) as a way to enhance existing college-wide planning processes. (Appendix B). The BSC

translates the college’s vision-mission-values into meaningful and measurable indicators which


are directly linked to college-wide goals and strategies. It then measures, tracks, and

communicates the college’s performance in progressing toward each goal. The core indicators

and outcome measures include a balance of both financial and non-financial components to

measure institutional effectiveness. The Balanced Score Card provides a thorough and detailed

progress report by applying these core indicators and outcome measures using four distinct yet

overlapping perspectives:

Perspective A: External Stakeholders

Perspective B: Internal Stakeholders

Perspective C: Financial and Operational Performance; and

Perspective D: Growth and Innovation.

The results of the BSC are displayed in a dashboard for a quick and easy determination of

our effectiveness at a glance. Integrated in the BSC are outcome measures related to the use of

human resources including a) student to counselor ratio, b) overall employee satisfaction,

c) load-ratio of weekly student contact hours to full-time faculty equivalencies, and

d) professional development investment.


Conclusion and Next Steps

The Taskforce on Staffing for Student Success recognizes the dynamic nature of its

charge, and remains committed to the ongoing work of identifying emerging needs, engaging the

campus community in dialogue, and enhancing institutional effectiveness in the service of

student success. To that end, this document will be reviewed and updated regularly. The AY

2013-14 updates will incorporate data and recommendations from the forthcoming documents,

namely the Comprehensive Diversity Framework, Enrollment Management Plan, and Succession

and Planning: Retirements, Transfers, and Promotions. Additional areas that may be addressed/

expanded include Professional Development and the impact of new college initiatives,

productivity and technology.


Appendices

Appendix A Skyline College Annual Planning and Budgeting Calendar

Skyline College Annual Planning Budgeting Calendar for FY 2012- 2013

Perpetual Skyline Planning and Budget Calendar_final_post 11/16/2012

# Planning Activity Link Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

1 Announce current year Annual Strategic Priorities on Opening Day President2 Develop current year Annual ALUR Units3 Submit 2012-13 ALUR to IPC Units4 Review BSC to determine outcomes during previous year & report to College Council IPC5 Review collegewide plans for integration into strategic priorities process IPC6 Prioritize Strategic Priorities for next year (Initial draft) IPC7 Submit next year FTEF Priority Recommendations FTEFAC to AS

8 Develop Initial Budget Estimates for next year CBC

9 Review next year FTEF Priority Recs in consultation with ILT and recommend to VPI AS & ILT

10 Review next year FTEF Priority Recommendations fromAS & submit final rec to President VPI & VPSS11 Submit next year Classified & Administrative Hiring Priorities to Cabinet Units12 Begin Annual and Comprehensive Instruction and Student Service Program Planning Process Units13 Submit next year Tentative Budget Recommendation to College Council then to President CBC14 Reassess next year Budget Estimates after Governor's Proposal is announced CBC15 Prioritize Strategic Priorities for next year (2nd draft) IPC16 Perform Program Assessment Analysis VP's/Units17 Continue Annual and Comprehensive Instruction and Student Svc Program Planning Process Units18 Submit next year Annual Budget Requests to CBC Units19 Recommend next year Strategic Priorities to College Council IPC20 Review and Distribute Program Review Reports and next year Annual Budget Requests CC/CBC21 Recommend next year balanced budget to CGC --final recommendation to President CBC22 Submit next yeat Annual Budget to District President23 Submit list of suggested Annual Priorities for next year to President CGC24 Complete Outcomes Assessment Section of ALUR Units

Budget BSC: Balanced Scorecard ILT: Instructional Leadership TeamPlanning CBC: College Budget Committee IPC: Institutional Planning CommitteeEvaluation/Assessment CGC - College Governance Council Units - Programs and DivisionsALUR: Administrative Leadership Unit Review CC: Curriculum Committee VPI: Vice President, InstructionAS: Academic Senate FTEFAC: FTE Allocation Committee VPSS: Vice Pesident of Sudents

Legend


Appendix B Balanced Score Card

Overview of Balanced Scorecard & Planning Process

The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is a strategic management system adopted by the Skyline College Institutional Planning Committee (a participatory governance committee) as a way in which to enhance the existing college-wide planning process. The BSC translates the college Mission-Vision-Values into meaningful indicators which are directly linked to college goals and strategies. The BSC provides a vehicle for collaborative decision making by measuring, tracking and communicating performance of goals and strategies.

The BSC makes use of a set of core indicators that define and measure institutional effectiveness. It views the college’s effectiveness from four perspectives, each with a balance of financial and non-financial indicators and outcome measures: Perspective A - Internal Stakeholders, Perspective B - External Stakeholders, Perspective C - Financial & Operational Performance, and Perspective D - Growth & Innovation. The BSC also incorporates a balance of lead indicators which identify what the college puts into the system to drive performance, and lag indicators which identify the college’s outputs or explanations of performance. The outcomes are reported through a visual Scorecard providing a snapshot of how well the college is performing under each indicator and ultimately how well the college is implementing its strategies and moving toward its goals. The Scorecard uses measurable outcomes which were established through a collaborative process of research, analysis and negotiation among the various constituency groups across the college. These measurable outcomes provide the means for assessing and adjusting strategies for meeting the college-wide goals.

SKYLINE COLLEGE

1

Perspective D: Innovation & GrowthHow well does the college continuously improve and create value?

Strategies• Innovative Programs & Services Development• Innovative Programs & Services Delivery• Comprehensive Staff Development

Effectiveness Indicators• Program & Service Enhancements• Grant Procurement• Staff Development Opportunities

Perspective C: Financial & Business OperationsHow well does the college manage productivity,

efficiency and fiscal responsibilities? Strategies• Integrated & Evidence-Based Resource Planning• Updated Facilities

Effectiveness Indicators• Enrollment Productivity & Efficiency• Budget Efficiency• Facilities Planning

Perspective B: Internal StakeholdersHow well does the college respond to the needs of college leadership,

administration, staff, faculty and the Board of Trustees? Strategies• Integrated Planning/Institutional Performance Management• Effective Communication• Safe & Secure Campus

Effectiveness Indicators• Program & Service Quality• Employee Satisfaction• Safety

Perspective A: External StakeholdersHow well does the college respond to the needs of students, the community,

local business and industry, as well as the government and accrediting agencies? Strategies• Student Access, Success & Equity• Outreach & Responsiveness to Community Needs• Cultural Center for the Community• Marketing & Outreach• Assess Student Learning

Effectiveness Indicators• Retention & Persistence• Access & Success• Satisfaction & Perception• Employability• Marketing & Public Relations

BALANCED SCORECARD OVERVIEW

Skyline College Balanced Scorecard:Institutional Effectiveness from Four Perspectives

Using four perspectives to look at the key indicators, the Balanced Scorecard assesses how the institution effectively meets the goals of the Mission-Vision-Values.

FIGURE B

MIS

SIO

N-V

ISIO

N-V

ALU

ES

2

Skyline College Goals & Strategies •

GOAL 1: Develop the scope, quality, accessibility and accountability of instructional and student service offerings, programs and services.

Strategy 1.1 INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS, SERVICES & MODES OF DELIVERY: An innovative and comprehensive balance of programs, courses, services and modes of delivery that meet student and community needs.

Strategy 1.2 STUDENT ACCESS, SUCCESS & EQUITY IN OUTCOMES: Student access, success and equity in outcomes through availability, quality and assessment of support services and student learning outcomes, for all student populations.

Strategy 1.3 OUTREACH & RESPONSIVENESS TO COMMUNITY NEEDS: Broad outreach efforts that build partnerships and respond to educational community needs.

Strategy 1.4 ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING: Ensure Skyline College assesses student learning at the course, program and institutional levels, engages in shared reflection on the results of these assessments, and uses the results to sustain or improve student learning.

•GOAL 2: Enhance institutional effectiveness in the planning and decision-making processes through cooperative leadership, effective communication and participatory governance.

Strategy 2.1 INTEGRATED PLANNING & INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT: An integrated planning system responds to all stakeholders and tracks and measures college-wide performance indicators.

Strategy 2.2 EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION: Widespread, continuous and reliable communication informs decision-making processes and ensures institutional effectiveness.

Strategy 2.3 SAFE & SECURE CAMPUS: A safe and secure environment that includes staff trained in emergency procedures.

•GOAL 3: Fulfill the college’s role as a leading academic and cultural center for the community through partnerships with businesses, the community and non-profit organizations.

Strategy 3.1 CULTURAL CENTER FOR THE COMMUNITY: A position and presence in the community as a major cultural center.

Strategy 3.2 MARKETING, OUTREACH & CONNECTIONS TO ACADEMIC & BUSINESS COMMUNITIES: Broad outreach and marketing efforts incorporate continuous evaluation of community needs for comprehensive planning to build public awareness.

•GOAL 4: Provide adequate human, physical, technological and financial resources to successfully implement educational programs and student services in order to improve student learning outcomes.

Strategy 4.1 INTEGRATED & EVIDENCE-BASED RESOURCE PLANNING SYSTEM: A comprehensive, integrated and evidence-based resource planning system that responds to all stakeholders and is tied to budget, program and services decisions.

Strategy 4.2 UPDATED FACILITIES: Updated facilities including timely replacement of equipment.

2 3

(Goals & Strategies - Continued)

•GOAL 5: Offer faculty and staff opportunities for professional growth and advancement.

Strategy 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM: Unified and coordinated staff development programs are dynamic, comprehensive and rich.

•GOAL 6: Play a central role in the preparation of the region’s workforce and expand networks and partnerships with businesses, the community and non-profit organizations.

Strategy 6.1 OUTREACH & RESPONSIVENESS TO COMMUNITY NEEDS: Broad outreach efforts that build partnerships and respond to educational community needs.

Strategy 6.2 INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS, SERVICES & MODES OF DELIVERY: An innovative and comprehensive balance of programs, courses, services and modes of delivery that meet student and community needs.

Strategy 6.3 MARKETING, OUTREACH & CONNECTIONS TO ACADEMIC & BUSINESS COMMUNITIES: Broad outreach and marketing efforts incorporate continuous evaluation of community needs for comprehensive planning to build public awareness.

•GOAL 7: Establish and maintain fiscal stability and alignment of programs and services to the core Mission-Vision-Values of the college.

Strategy 7.1 INTEGRATED PLANNING & INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT: An integrated planning system responds to all stakeholders and tracks and measures college-wide performance indicators.

•GOAL 8: Internationalize the educational experience by enriching the college with a diverse community of learners representing the collective resources of humanity and engaging in a vibrant dialogue that engenders an understanding of others.

Strategy 8.1 CULTURAL CENTER FOR THE COMMUNITY: A position and presence in the community as a major cultural center.

Strategy 8.2 MARKETING, OUTREACH & CONNECTIONS TO ACADEMIC & BUSINESS COMMUNITIES: Broad outreach and marketing efforts that incorporate continuous evaluation of community needs for comprehensive planning to build public awareness.

Strategy 8.3 STUDENT ACCESS, SUCCESS & EQUITY IN OUTCOMES: Student access, success and equity in outcomes through availability, quality and assessment of support services and student learning outcomes, for all student populations.

Strategy 8.4 INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS, SERVICES & MODES OF DELIVERY: An innovative and comprehensive balance of programs, courses, services and modes of delivery to meet student and community needs.

4

Skyline College Strategy Map

Perspective A: External StakeholdersHow well does the college respond to the needs of students, the community, local businesses and industry, as well as the government and accrediting agencies?


Strategies: 1.2 Student Access, Success & Equity in Outcomes: Student access, success and equity in outcomes through availability, quality and assessment of support services and student learning outcomes, for all student populations.

1.3 Outreach & Responsiveness to Community Needs: Broad outreach efforts that build partnerships and respond to educational community needs. GOAL 3: Fulfill the college’s role as a leading academic and cultural center for the community through partnerships with businesses, the community and non-profit organizations.

Strategies: 3.1 Cultural Center for the Community: A position and presence in the community as a major cultural center.

3.2 Marketing, Outreach & Connections to Academic & Business Communities: Broad outreach and marketing efforts that incorporate continuous evaluation of community needs for comprehensive planning to build public awareness.

GOAL 6: Play a central role in the preparation of the region’s workforce and expand networks and partnerships with businesses, the community and non-profit organizations.

Strategies: 6.1 Outreach & Responsiveness to Community Needs: Broad outreach efforts that build partnerships and respond to educational community needs.


4 5

(Strategy Map, Perspective A - Continued)

GOAL 8: Internationalize the educational experience by enriching the college with a diverse community of learners representing the collective resources of humanity and engaging in a vibrant dialogue that engenders an understanding of others.

Strategies: 8.1 Cultural Center for the Community: A position and presence in the community as a major cultural center.


8.3 Student Access, Success & Equity in Outcomes: Student access, success and equity in outcomes through availability, quality and assessment of support services and student learning outcomes, for all student populations.

Indicators & Outcome Measures

Retention & Persistence 1.2, 1.4 & 8.3 – Retention rates 1.2, 1.4 & 8.3 – Term persistence rates

Success 1.2, 1.4 & 8.3 – All successful course completion rates 1.2 & 8.3 – Basic skills improvement rates 1.2 & 8.3 – Student Right-to-Know (SRTK) transfer prepared rate: Completion 1.2 & 8.3 – SRTK transfer rate

Access 1.2 & 8.3 – Counselor-to-student ratio 1.2 & 8.3 – Financial Aid recipient rate

Community & Student Satisfaction/Perception 1.2 & 8.3 – Student satisfaction overall ratings 1.3, 3.1, 6.1 & 8.1 – Community perception overall ratings

Employability 1.2 & 8.3 – Vocational & Technical Education Act (VTEA) Core Indicator: Retention

Marketing & Public Relations 3.2, 6.3 & 8.2 – Number of marketing and PR events

6

(Strategy Map - Continued)

Perspective B: Internal StakeholdersHow well does the college respond to the needs of college leadership, administration, staff, faculty and the Board of Trustees?

GOAL 2: Enhance institutional effectiveness in the planning and decision-making processes through cooperative leadership, effective communication and participatory governance.

Strategies: 2.1 Integrated Planning & Institutional Performance Measurement: An integrated planning system responds to all stakeholders and tracks and measures college-wide performance indicators.

2.2 Effective Communication: Widespread, continuous and reliable communication informs decision-making processes and ensures institutional effectiveness.

2.3 Safe & Secure Campus: A safe and secure environment including staff trained in emergency procedures.

GOAL 7: Establish and maintain fiscal stability and alignment of programs and services to the core Mission-Vision-Values of the college.

Strategy: 7.1 Integrated Planning & Institutional Performance Measurement: An integrated planning system responds to all stakeholders and tracks and measures college-wide performance indicators.


Program & Service Quality 1.4, 2.1 & 7.1 – Number of Program Reviews completed

Employee Satisfaction & Perception 2.2 – Employee overall satisfaction ratings 2.3 – Employee perception of governance process

Safety 2.3 – Student Right-to-Know (SRTK) crime statistics

6 7


Perspective C: Financial & Business OperationsHow well does the college manage our productivity, efficiency and fiscal responsibilities?

GOAL 4: Provide adequate human, physical, technological and financial resources to successfullyimplement educational programs and student services in order to improve student learning outcomes.

Strategies: 4.1 Integrated & Evidence-Based Resource Planning System: A comprehensive, integrated and evidence-based resource planning system responds to all stakeholders and is tied to budget, program and services decisions.

4.2 Updated Facilities: Updated facilities including timely replacement of equipment.

Indicator & Outcome Measures

Productivity4.1 – Full-Time Equivalent Students (FTES)4.1 – Weighted Student Credit Hours (WSCH)

Efficiency4.1 – Load4.1 – Fill rates

Budget Efficiency4.1 – Actual expenditures-to-total budget ratio

Facilities Planning4.2 – Capital improvement expenditures

8


Perspective D: Innovation & Growth How well does the college continuously improve and create value?


Strategy: 1.1 Innovative Programs, Services & Modes of Delivery: An innovative and comprehensive balance of programs, courses, services and modes of delivery that meet student and community needs. GOAL 5: Offer faculty and staff opportunities for professional growth and advancement.

Strategy: 5.1 Comprehensive Staff Development Program: Unified and coordinated staff development programs are dynamic, comprehensive and rich.

GOAL 6: Play a central role in the preparation of the region’s workforce and expand networks and partnerships with businesses, the community and non-profit organizations.

Strategy: 6.2 Innovative Programs, Services & Modes of Delivery: An innovative and comprehensive balance of programs, courses, services and modes of delivery that meet student and community needs.

GOAL 8: Internationalize the educational experience by enriching the college with a diverse community of learners representing the collective resources of humanity and engaging in a vibrant dialogue that engenders an understanding of others.

Strategy: 8.4 Innovative Programs, Services & Modes of Delivery: An innovative and comprehensive balance of programs, courses, services and modes of delivery to meet student and community needs.


Program & Service Enhancements 1.1, 6.2 & 8.4 – Number of new courses/programs approved 1.1, 6.2 & 8.4 – Percentage of technology-mediated instruction 1.1, 6.2 & 8.4 – Amount of President’s Innovation Fund (PIF) grants

Grant Procurement 1.1, 6.2 & 8.4 – Amount of grant-funded activities

Staff Development Opportunities 5.1 – Number of internal opportunities & participants 5.1 – Amount of professional development funds

For more information on the Skyline College Balanced Scorecard please visit our website at: http/://www.skylinecollege.edu/skypro/balancedscorecard

8 9

Balanced ScorecardOutcome Measures Trend Analysis & Benchmark

2011-2012 Academic Year

November 2012

Office of Planning, Research & Institutional Effectiveness

SKYLINE COLLEGE

Outcome Code Page

ES1 Retention Rates 3

ES2 Term Persistence Rates 4

ES3 All Successful Course Completion Rates 5

ES4 Basic Skills Successful Course Completion Rates 6

ES5 ARCC Achievement Rate 7

ES6 Student Right to Know (SRTK) Transfer Rate 8

ES7 Student to Counselor Rate 9

ES8 Financial Aid Recipient Rate 10

ES9 Student Satisfaction Overall Rating 11

ES10 Community Events 12

IS1 Percent of Program Reviews Scheduled 13

IS2 Employee Overall Satisfaction Rate 14

IS3 Student Right to Know (SRTK) Crime Statistics 15

FBO1 FTES-Trend All Courses 16

FBO2 Load 17

FBO3 Fill Rates 18

FBO4 Actual Expenditures to Total Budget Ratio 19

IG1 Number of New Courses Approved 20

IG2 Percentage of Technology-mediated Instruction 21

IG3 PIF Funding Granted 22

IG4 Amount of Grant Allocations 23

IG5 Amount of Professional Development Funds 24

Outcome Measure

Table of Contents

Strategy: 1.2, 8.3 Student Access, Success & Equity in Outcomes 1.4 Assessment of Student Learning

Retention Rates Goal Indicator Notes

2002/03 84% 84% ●2003/04 83% 84% ◒2004/05 85% 84% ●2005/06 84% 84% ●2006/07 83% 84% ◒2007/08 82% 84% ◒2008/09 84% 84% ● Goal initially set using 5-year average; kept at 84%

in 2008-09

2009/10 85% 84% ●2010/11 83% 84% ◒2011/12 84% 84% ●Updated 06/04/13

`

Effectiveness Indicator: Retention

Perspective: External Stakeholders (ES)Outcome Measure ES1: Retention Rate

Effectiveness Indicator: Persistence 1

Strategy: 1.2 Student Access, Success & Equity in Outcomes 1.4 Assessment of Student Learning

Persistence Rates Goal Indicator Notes

2002/03 46% 51% ◒2003/04 50% 51% ◒2004/05 53% 51% ●2005/06 48% 51% ◒2006/07 52% 51% ●2007/08 50% 51% ◒2008/09 54% 51% ● Goal set using 5-year average

2009/10 52% 51% ●2010/11 56% 51% ●2011/12 52% 51% ●1 Previous editions of the Balanced Scorecard included all students in the calculation of the term persistence rate. The definition on page 44 of the dictionary specifies that the calculation be based on first-time students only. Thus, a recalcualtion was performed for previous years as well as the goal value. Those values are included here.Updated 06/04/13

Perspective: External Stakeholders (ES)Outcome Measure ES2: Term Persistence Rate


All Success Course Completion Rates Goal Indicator Notes

2002/03 71% 70% ●2003/04 69% 70% ◒2004/05 68% 70% ◒2005/06 68% 70% ◒2006/07 68% 70% ◒2007/08 68% 70% ◒2008/09 69% 70% ◒ Goal initially set using 5-year average; kept at

70% in 2007-08

2009/10 70% 70% ●2010/11 68% 70% ◒2011/12 69% 70% ◒Updated 06/04/13

Effectiveness Indicator: Success

Perspective: External Stakeholders (ES)Outcome Measure ES3: All Course Success Rate


Basic Skills Successful Course Completion Rates

Goal Indicator Notes

2002/03 55% 55% ●2003/04 56% 55% ●2004/05 55% 55% ●2005/06 56% 55% ●2006/07 54% 55% ◒2007/08 57% 55% ● Goal initially set using 5-year average

2008/09 58% 55% ●2009/10 62% 55% ● Goal initially set using 5-year average

2010/11 62% 55% ●2011/12 64% 55% ●

Updated 06/04/13


Perspective: External Stakeholders (ES)Outcome Measure ES4: Basic Skills Course Success Rate


ARCC Achievement

RatesGoal Indicator Notes

2002/03 NA NA NA

2003/04 58% 53% ●2004/05 57% 53% ●2005/06 57% 53% ●2006/07 59% 53% ● Goal based on ARCC college peer group average;

established in 0607 for the first time

2007/08 58% 59% ◒2008/09 57% 60% ◒2009/10 54% 61% ◒2010/11 59% 53% ●2011/12 N/A*

Updated 06/04/13


Perspective: External Stakeholders (ES)Outcome Measure ES5: ARCC Achievement Rate


Transfer Rates Goal Indicator Notes

2002/03 32% 35% ◒ Fall 1999 Cohort through Spring 2002

2003/04 40% 34% ● Fall 2000 Cohort through Spring 2003







2010/11 31% 25% ● Fall 2007 cohort through Spring 2010

2011/12 20% 25% ◒ Fall 2008 cohort through Spring 2011

Updated 06/04/13


Perspective: External Stakeholders (ES)Outcome Measure ES6: Student Right to Know (SRTK) Completion Rate


Credit Student Count*

Counselor Count** Ratio Goal Indicator Notes

2002/03 NA NA NA NA NA


2004/05 12,349 13.48 916:1 900:1 ◒2005/06 12,247 14.48 846:1 900:1 ●2006/07 12,144 15.41 788:1 900:1 ●2007/08 12,920 15.24 848:1 900:1 ●

2008/09 14,171 17.41 814:1 900:1 ●Reworked counselor count to include all counseling FTE; as a result changed goal to 1,000:1

2009/10 14,945 14.35 1,041:1 900:1 ◒Reworked Credit Student Count to only include Fall/Spring (consistent with counseling; changed goal to 900:1

2010/11 14,286 15.37 929:1 900:1 ◒

2011/12 14,859 14.60 1018:1 900:1 ◒

* Student count= Fall and Spring unduplicated headcount

Updated 06/04/13

Effectiveness Indicator: Access

Perspective: External Stakeholders (ES)Outcome Measure ES7: Student to Counselor Ratio

** Counselor count= Total counseling activities= professional time (PRO) + counseling time


Financial Aid Recipient

Count*Student

Headcount**

Financial Aid

Recipient Rate





2005/06 4,143 13,957 30% 28% ● Data w/improved methodology available starting in 2005/06

2006/07 4,211 14,511 29% 28% ●2007/08 4,535 15,490 29% 28% ●2008/09 4,944 16,847 29% 28% ● Goal at 28.0% in 2008-09 with new

methodology

2009/10 6,132 18,020 34% 28% ●2010/11 6,909 17,307 40% 28% ●2011/12 6,275 17,833 35% 28% ●

*Student Headcount = Skyline College unduplicated headcount (Summer, Fall & Spring)

Updated 06/04/13

Effectiveness Indicator: Access

Perspective: External Stakeholders (ES)Outcome Measure ES8: Financial Aid Recipient Rate

*Financial Aid Recipient Count = Summer, Fall and Spring (unduplicated) Students who receive financial aid including: BOG fee waivers, Pell Grants, TRIO, EOPS, CARE, CalWorks (Scholarship data not included in all five years because data were not available)

Effectiveness Indicator: Satisfaction/Perception Strategy: 1.2 Student Access, Success & Equity in Outcomes

Satisfaction Overall Rating Goal Indicator Notes

2002/03 NA 79% NA

2003/04 NA 79% NA

2004/05 NA 79% NA

2005/06 70% 79% ◒2006/07 NA 79% NA

2007/08 NA 79% NA

2008/09 NA 79% NA

2009/10 74% 79% ◒2010/11 NA 79% NA

2011/12 NA 79% NA

Updated 06/04/13

Perspective: External Stakeholders (ES)Outcome Measure ES9: Student Satisfaction Overall Rating

Strategy: 3.2,6.3,8.2 Marketing, Outreach, and Connections to Academic & Business Communities

# of Events Goal Indicator Notes

2002/03 NA NA NA

2003/04 26 22 ●2004/05 34 22 ●2005/06 52 22 ●2006/07 60 37 ●2007/08 61 60 ● Goal set by Cabinet on 8/21/08 to reflect

performance from previous years

2008/09 45 60 ○2009/10 60 60 ●2010/11 50 60 ○2011/12 71 60 ●Updated 06/04/13

Perspective: External Stakeholders (ES)Outcome Measure ES10: Community Events

Effectiveness Indicator: Marketing & Public Relations

# of Program Reviews

Completed

# of Program Reviews

ScheduledPercent Goal Indicator Notes

2002/03 3 3 100% 75% ●2003/04 11 11 100% 75% ●2004/05 9 12 75% 75% ●2005/06 9 11 82% 75% ●2006/07 7 12 58% 75% ◒2007/08 9 13 69% 75% ◒ Goal set on 9/10/2008 at

the IPC meeting

2008/09 11 16 69% 75% ◒2009/10 10 12 83% 75% ●

2010/11 7 8 88% 75% ●

2011/12 8 10 80% 75% ●Updated 06/04/13

Perspective: Internal Stakeholders (IS)Outcome Measure IS1: Percentage of Program Reviews Completed

Effectiveness Indicator: Program and Service QualityStrategy: 2.1 Assessment of Student Learning 2.1, 7.1 Integrated Planning & Institutional Performance Measurement

Overall Satisfaction Goal Indicator Notes

2002/03 NA NA NA

2003/04 NA NA NA

2004/05 NA NA NA

2005/06 NA NA NA

2006/07 74% 70% ● Employee Voice Survey Implemented

2007/08 NA NA NA

2008/09 NA NA NA

2009/10 NA NA NA

2010/11 NA NA NA

2011/12 82% 70% ● Employee Voice Survey Implemented

Updated 06/04/13

Perspective: Internal Stakeholders (IS)Outcome Measure IS2: Employee Overall Satisfaction Rating

Effectiveness Indicator: Employee SatisfactionStrategy: 2.2 Effective Communication

Strategy: 2.3 Safety and Secure Campus

Number of Offenses Goal Indicator Notes

2002/03 NA 10 NA

2003/04 NA 10 NA

2004/05 NA 10 ●2005/06 10 10 ●2006/07 11 10 ◒ Goal set in 2006/07

2007/08 7 10 ●2008/09 4 10 ●2009/10 8 10 ●2010/11 3 10 ●2011/12 6 10 ●Updated 06/04/13

Effectiveness Indicator: Campus Safety

Perspective: Internal Stakeholders (IS)Outcome Measure IS3: Student Right to Know (SRTK) Crime Statistics (Number of

Offenses)

Strategy: 4.1 Integrated and Evidence-Based Resource Planning System

FTES Trend-All Courses Goal Indicator Notes

2002/03 NA NA NA

2003/04 -7.8% 0% ○ Goal was to be flat for year

2004/05 -2.0% 0% ◒ Goal was to be flat for year

2005/06 -1.6% 0% ◒ Goal was to be flat for year

2006/07 -8.0% 4.5% (06/07 College goal) ○ Goal of 4.5% established for year

2007/08 7.7% 2.0% (07/08 College goal) ● Goal of 2.0% established for year



2010/11 -4.8% 0.0% (09/10 College goal) ○

2011/12 1.5% 0.0% (09/10 College goal) ●

Updated 06/04/13

Effectiveness Indicator: Productivity

Perspective: Financial and Business Operations (FBO)Outcome Measure FBO1: FTES Trend - All Courses


Load Goal Indicator Notes

2002/03 577 525 ●2003/04 623 525 ●2004/05 590 525 ●2005/06 545 525 ●2006/07 534 525 ●2007/08 559 525 ● Goal set at state-defined level of 525

2008/09 589 525 ●2009/10 647 525 ●2010/11 636 525 ●2011/12 603 525 ●Updated 06/04/13

Effectiveness Indicator: Efficiency

Perspective: Financial and Business Operations (FBO)Outcome Measure FBO2: Load


Fill Rates Goal Indicator Notes

2002/03 84% 83% ●2003/04 89% 83% ●2004/05 85% 83% ●2005/06 77% 83% ◒2006/07 77% 83% ◒2007/08 82% 83% ◒ Goal initially set using 5-year

average; kept at 83% in 2007-08

2008/09 87% 83% ●2009/10 94% 83% ● Goal initially set using 5-year

average; kept at 83% in 2007-08

2010/11 95% 83% ●2011/12 90% 83% ●Updated 06/04/13

Effectiveness Indicator: Efficiency

Perspective: Financial and Business Operations (FBO)Outcome Measure FBO3: Fill Rates

Effectiveness Indicator: Budget EfficiencyStrategy: 4.1 Integrated and Evidence-Based Resource Planning System

Actual Expenditures to Total Budget Ratio Goal Indicator Notes

2002/03 3.0% 2.0% ●2003/04 3.0% 2.0% ●2004/05 2.0% 2.0% ●2005/06 1.0% 2.0% ◒2006/07 0.0% 2.0% ◒ Goal set for 2% reserve in ending

balance

2007/08 3.0% 2.5% ● Goal increased to 2.5% reserve in ending balance

2008/09 5.1% 2.5% ● Goal continued at 2.5%

2009/10 7.3% 2.5% ●2010/11 6.3% 2.5% ● Goal continued at 2.5%

2011/12 5.0% 2.5% ●Updated 06/04/13

Perspective: Financial and Business Operations (FBO)Outcome Measure FBO4: Ending Balance

Effectiveness Indicator: Program and Services EnhancementsStrategy: 1.1 Innovative Programs, Services & Modes of Delivery

# of New Courses Approved Goal Indicator Notes

2002/03 40 37 ●2003/04 16 37 ○2004/05 14 37 ○2005/06 64 37 ●2006/07 92 37 ●2007/08 50 37 ● Goal initially set using 5-year average;

kept at 37 in 2007-08

2008/09 49 37 ●2009/10 9 37 ○2010/11 17 37 ○2011/12 31 37 ○Updated 06/04/13

Perspective: Innovation and Growth (IG)Outcome Measure IG1: Number of New Courses Approved

Effectiveness Indicator: Programs and Service EnhancementsStrategy: 1.1 Innovative Programs, Services & Modes of Delivery

# of Tech-mediated

Instruction Sections

# of Total Sections

Percentage of Technology-

mediated Instruction


2002/03 37 2,429 1.5% 4.0% ○2003/04 55 1,962 2.8% 4.0% ◒2004/05 73 2,014 3.6% 4.0% ◒2005/06 87 2,165 4.0% 4.0% ●2006/07 96 2,194 4.4% 4.0% ●2007/08 131 2,291 5.7% 4.0% ● Goal initially set through

strategic planning

2008/09 162 2,452 6.6% 4.0% ●2009/10 183 2,403 7.6% 4.0% ● Goal initially set through

strategic planning

2010/11 182 2243 8.1% 4.0% ●2011/12 183 2135 8.5% 4.0% ●Updated 06/04/13

Perspective: Innovation and Growth (IG)Outcome Measure IG2: Percentage of Technology-mediate Instruction

Effectiveness Indicator: Program and Service EnhancementsStrategy: 1.1 Innovative Programs, Services & Modes of Delivery

PIF Funding Granted Goal Indicator Notes

2002/03 $20,000 $50,000 ○2003/04 $23,600 $50,000 ○2004/05 $47,700 $50,000 ◒2005/06 $47,575 $50,000 ◒2006/07 $43,378 $50,000 ◒2007/08 $46,440 $75,000 ○ Goal set by Cabinet on 8/21/2008

2008/09 $71,000 $75,000 ◒2009/10 $69,704 $75,000 ◒ Goal set by Cabinet on 8/21/2008

2010/11 $61,380 $75,000 ○2011/12 $79,840 $75,000 ●Updated 06/04/13

Perspective: Innovation and Growth (IG)Outcome Measure IG3: President's Innovation Funds Granted

Effectiveness Indicator: Grant ProcurementStrategy: 1.1 Innovative Programs, Services & Modes of Delivery

Amount of Grant Allocations Goal Indicator Notes

2002/03 $3,794,632 $4,244,133 ◒2003/04 $3,762,633 $4,244,133 ◒2004/05 $4,401,343 $4,244,133 ●2005/06 $5,266,034 $4,244,133 ●2006/07 $5,329,066 $4,244,133 ●2007/08 $7,124,075 $4,244,133 ● Goal initially set using 5-year average;

kept at $4,244,133 in 2007-08

2008/09 $7,610,234 $4,244,133 ●2009/10 $7,054,041 $4,244,133 ●2010/11 $11,971,807 $4,244,133 ●2011/12 $6,166,883 $4,244,133 ●Updated 06/04/13

Perspective: Innovation and Growth (IG)Outcome Measure IG4: Amount of Grant Allocations

Effectiveness Indicator: Staff and Development OpportunitiesStrategy: 5.1 Comprehensive Staff Development Program

Amount of Professional Development Funds Goal Indicator Notes

2002/03 $74,493 $74,493 ●2003/04 $73,813 $73,813 ●2004/05 $77,118 $77,118 ●2005/06 $82,468 $82,468 ●2006/07 $76,053 $76,053 ●2007/08 $78,475 $78,475 ● Goal is a mandated 1% of annual faculty

salaries

2008/09 $77,367 $77,367 ●2009/10 $78,475 $78,475 ●2010/11 $86,272 $78,745 ●2011/12 $83,766 $78,475 ●Updated 06/04/13

Perspective: Innovation and Growth (IG)Outcome Measure IG5: Amount of Professional Development Funds


Appendix C

Employee Voice Survey

Employee Voice Survey Executive Summary Spring 2012

Prepared by: Office of Planning, Research & Institutional Effectiveness Skyline College


2

Table of Contents

Page Introduction 3 Overview 3 Purpose 3 Survey Population 3 Instrumentation 3 Methodology 4 Implementation 4 Respondent Profile 4 Interpreting the Results 4 The Findings 5

Conclusions 15

Recommendations 16

Appendix 17

A. Data Table 17 B. Survey Instrument 37


3

Introduction Overview

Skyline College is scheduled for an accreditation site visit in Fall 2013 using the accreditation standards required by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). The self-study process requires an examination of college-wide performance and effectiveness using evidence that might demonstrate existing and future trends. One source of evidence is an employee perception study in which all full-time and part-time employees (i.e., faculty, staff and administrators) are asked to provide feedback on work-related issues and the campus environment.

Purpose

The purpose of this survey study was to measure employee perception and satisfaction with the Skyline College work environment as they related to the following six dimensions: 1) Institutional Commitment, 2) Dialogue, 3) Evaluation, Planning and Improvement, 4) Institutional Integrity, 5) Organization, and 6) Student Learning Outcomes. The results from the survey will be used to inform responses to the accreditation standards and for other college-wide planning and improvement efforts. The survey will also be useful for establishing benchmarks for future studies and for evaluating the college’s mission, goals and strategies.

Survey Population

The survey sample was a census in which all employees were invited to participate, including full-time and part-time classified staff, faculty and administrators. Of a total of 495 employees invited to take the survey, 169 responded. The final response rate was 34 percent.

Instrumentation The employee voice survey used was first developed and validated by the Accreditation Steering Committee and the Institutional Planning Committee in Spring 2006 and tested for reliability during Summer 2006. Some of the items were newly created, while others were drawn from previous surveys. In order to compare some of the results of the survey, a number of questions were taken from the Skyline College Classified Staff Institutional Survey in 2000, and a few others were taken from the College of San Mateo’s Classified Staff Survey and Faculty and Administration Survey in 2005. The survey included 79 items rated on a five-point Likert scale, with five indicating complete agreement with the item, and one indicating complete disagreement. In addition, there were five demographic questions and two open-ended comments.


4

Methodology In order to maintain confidentiality and ensure easy access to the survey, Zoomerang was used to create an online version of the survey. Data was collected through Zoomerang, downloaded and analyzed using Microsoft Excel. Throughout the process, the Office of Planning, Research, and Institutional Effectiveness had sole access to the data.

Implementation Communications. All of the shared governance groups, the college leadership, and management were informed and connected to the process through continuous communication as follows:

1. Electronic pre-notifications to employees. 2. Discussion of the survey in committee meetings. 3. Executive summary report of results and oral briefings.

Administration. The surveys were made available online to all employees in May 2012. The Office of Planning, Research and Institutional Effectiveness (PRIE) emailed all Skyline College Employees a message concerning the administration of the survey and provided them all with a URL for the survey. In addition, reminders of the survey were included in the weekly editions of Skyline Shines—a publication produced by the Office of the President.

Respondent Profile The majority of survey respondents were female (63%) and/or white (60%). Fifty-three percent have worked at Skyline College for more than ten years. Most respondents worked in instruction (64%) or student services (23%), and were full-time faculty (39%), part-time faculty (26%) or full-time classified (23%).

Interpreting the Results Findings are reported by survey dimension: Institutional Commitment; Dialogue; Evaluation, Planning and Improvement; Institutional Integrity; Organization; and Student Learning Outcomes. Items with the most and least favorable ratings in a dimension are reported as a way to distinguish the most salient perceptions. A summary of related comments for each dimension is also provided.

When interpreting the data, it is important to maintain two perspectives. One, it is important to understand the scale to which respondents gave an item a favorable or unfavorable rating. For instance, a least favorable rating with a value of seven percent indicates that while this is the least favorable item within that dimension, few gave it an unfavorable rating. Second, because the five-point Likert scale provided a “neutral” option of somewhat agree/disagree, it cannot be assumed that those who did not indicate a favorable rating did so because they indicated an unfavorable rating. For example, seven percent of respondents giving an unfavorable rating to a specific item does not translate to 93 percent indicating a favorable rating—as many may have indicated somewhat agree/disagree.


5

The Findings

Overall Ratings

Institutional Commitment

The items that comprised the Institutional Commitment dimension examined the commitment of the district and college to Skyline College’s mission. The items regarding the district asked respondents to rate the district’s support of the college’s mission (e.g. policies provided effective management of programs and services, fair distribution of resources and necessary services). The items regarding the college asked how well Skyline College worked toward fulfilling its vision and mission and whether the college was supportive of individual employee efforts (e.g. encouraged high quality work and creativity, acknowledged extra effort and excellent service to students, valued opinions of classified staff, and evaluated classified employees effectively).

Results. The item regarding Skyline College’s work toward fulfilling its vision and mission received the most favorable rating (90 percent agreed/completely agreed). This represents an eight percentage point increase from 2006. Also rated favorable were the items regarding supervisory encouragement to employees to do high quality work (88 percent) and employees overall satisfaction with their current assignment (79 percent). Both of these represent increases from the 2006 Employee Voice survey.

The item within this dimension receiving the most unfavorable rating compared to the other ten Institutional Commitment items was the one relative to recognizing extra effort by employees (20 percent disagreed/completely disagreed). Also with relatively high unfavorable ratings within this dimension were items specific to the weight given to the opinions of classified staff (15 percent), and the effectiveness of classified employee evaluations (11 percent). However, for each of these items, the percent of respondents giving an unfavorable rating is less than their 2006 values.

Related Comments. Many survey respondents commented about Skyline College’s commitment to its students and their success. Respondents frequently mentioned the students-first mentality of the college and the strong commitment to meeting students’ needs. Additional comments were made regarding the overall feeling of community in the college and some strong relationships that exist among colleagues. The fact that item #7 in this dimension was given a favorable rating by only 60 percent of respondents may indicate extra work by staff and/or faculty to help students often goes without recognition.


6

Dialogue

The items that comprised the Dialogue dimension examined the effectiveness of communication on campus. These items covered communication between employees and supervisors (e.g. comfort with bringing up problems, being informed of matters that affect them) as well as among coworkers. Questions also inquired on the extent to which campus communications reached employees (e.g. results of college goals are shared with constituents, awareness of student support services, materials in campus media) as well as the extent to which employee opinions were shared with management (e.g. opportunities to participate on college councils and committees).

Results. As with the 2006 survey, the item asking whether the employee would recommend Skyline College as a good place to work received the most favorable rating (87 percent agreed/completely agreed). Employees feeling comfortable bringing up problems to their supervisor and feeling their supervisor keeps them informed also received high ratings (80 and 75 percent, respectively). Again, both percentages represent increases from 2006.

In terms of unfavorable ratings, item #15 which relates to communication between coworkers being encouraged received the most unfavorable rating in this dimension. Of all respondents, 12 percent disagreed/completely disagreed with this item. Similarly, 11 percent of respondents disagreed/completely disagreed with feeling comfortable bringing up problems to their


7

supervisor. Although both of these items also received the highest unfavorable ratings in 2006, these 2012 ratings are at least three percentage points less than the previous findings.

Related Comments. Many survey respondents commented on the collegiality and can-do attitude among staff and faculty at Skyline College. There was widespread agreement in the comments that Skyline College was a friendly and supportive environment and one in which colleagues helped and respected one another. Many comments discussed how there was good communication regarding college goals, decisions and plans. However, some mentioned the need for greater collaboration across multiple levels. For instance, collaboration between divisions and departments, administration and faculty, and among adjunct faculty could help fully identify student needs and promote more effective strategies.

Evaluation, Planning and Improvement

The items that comprised the Evaluation, Planning and Improvement dimension examined the efficacy of the process at Skyline College. Items asked about the involvement of all constituency groups in the decision-making process (e.g. identifying areas of improvement, developing financial plans, making budget decisions, collaborating to achieve college goals, taking employee ideas seriously, participating in college-wide planning). Items also asked about the effectiveness of program review and opportunities for individual professional growth (e.g. training in technology, staff development).


8

Results. Sufficient opportunities for staff development (70 percent), ideas to improve unit are taken seriously (69 percent), and satisfied with opportunities to participate in college planning (69 percent) are the three items receiving the highest favorable rating in this dimension. Program review promoting positive change also received a high favorable rating with 67 percent of respondent answering agree/completely agree. Each of these outcomes represents an increase from 2006.

Among the nine items in this dimension, the item with the highest unfavorable rating illustrates that 18 percent of respondents disagree/completely disagree with there being adequate opportunities for training in technology. College budget decisions being based on all constituents’ input receive the next highest unfavorable rating at 16 percent. Although the latter represents a four percentage point decrease from 2006, the former represents a four percentage point increase from 2006 findings.

Related Comments. Many comments on the survey described the environment at Skyline College as collegial and dedicated to improving the work of faculty and staff. Although the shared governance process was mentioned as a strength and that it helps promote a feeling of inclusiveness, some comments suggested the ideas/opinions of all constituencies were not given consideration. In addition, respondents suggested the college be more selective in the initiatives it chooses to pursue as well as provide more flex-time for committee work.


9

Institutional Integrity

The items that comprised the Institutional Integrity dimension examined the integrity of the shared governance process, hiring practices, and diversity. Items asked about the role of staff in institutional governance (e.g. role is clearly stated and publicized, role is substantive and defined, participation in the decision-making process is encouraged), the hiring procedures and policies (e.g. clearly stated and fair procedures, commitment to employee equity and diversity, sufficient opportunities for promotion), and the promotion of diversity on campus (e.g. equal support for all genders, racial/ethnic groups, and lifestyles, campus climate appreciative of differences).

Results. Five of the 18 items in this dimension had over 80 percent of respondents agreeing or completely agreeing with the statement. The highest was campus equally supporting men and women—87 percent of respondents gave it a favorable rating. The next highest was diversity is actively promoted (86%) and then campus equally supportive of all lifestyles (85 percent).

Receiving the largest unfavorable rating within this dimension is the item relative to Skyline College providing opportunities for promotion. Here, 18 percent of respondents disagreed or completely disagreed with this statement. The next highest items were “hiring procedures and policies are fair” and “there is high respect for all in my area”. In both cases, 15 percent of respondents disagreed or completely disagreed with the respective statement.

Related Comments. As mentioned previously, many commented on shared governance being a positive aspect of the college and that the faculty and staff were supportive of each other. Supporting this is the fact that respondents commented on the diversity of the campus and the overall culture and environment of tolerance and inclusivity being a strength of the college. Nevertheless, some comments discussed the need for additional faculty and staff to be hired in order to be more effective in their work.


10


11

Organization

The items that comprised the Organization dimension examined the adequacy of campus facilities and safety. The items asked respondents to rate their satisfaction with campus facilities (e.g. classrooms, assigned workspace, staff parking, handicapped access, maintenance). The items also asked respondents to rate their access to safety information (e.g. crime and accident prevention, disaster preparedness) and their confidence in the abilities of security personnel (e.g. answer questions about safety and security, conduct criminal investigations).

Results. Feeling safe on campus received the highest favorable rating in this dimension with 83 percent of respondents agreeing or completely agreeing with this statement. The next highest item (with 79 percent of respondents agreeing or completely agreeing) states that security offices conduct criminal investigations professionally. With 74 percent of respondents giving a favorable rating, the next highest items are security officers answer safety and security questions, and there is adequate campus parking for staff.

The item with the most unfavorable rating among the 12 items here shows 27 percent of respondents disagreeing or completely disagreeing with campus facilities being adequately maintained. This is followed by facilities meeting the needs of respondents (17 percent gave an


12

unfavorable rating) and satisfaction with handicapped access on campus (16 percent gave an unfavorable rating).

Related Comments. While some respondents made positive comments regarding the campus, its facilities, and its location, many suggested areas of improvement. Specifically, the cleanliness of the facilities was often mentioned. Cleaner bathrooms, classrooms, stairwells, and overall building maintenance were mentioned in multiple instances. Supporting this sentiment is the fact that only 49 percent of respondents felt campus facilities were adequately maintained (item #51). In terms of possible new facilities, multiple comments mentioned the need for a new Arts complex.

Student Learning Outcomes

The items that comprised the Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) dimension examined their role on campus. Items asked about the attitude of the campus toward SLOs (e.g. making SLOs a focus, taking a positive approach toward their implementation), sufficient time and resources for the SLOs (e.g. sufficient training, opportunity to participate, clear guidelines for assessment), and how SLO assessment is used to inform decisions (e.g. engage faculty about assessment results, use results to inform resource requests).


13

Results. With 92 percent of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with knowing where to refer students to support services, this item received the highest favorable rating in this dimension. Skyline College having quality learning experiences for students was next with 91 percent of respondents giving it a favorable rating. The item with the third highest favorable rating is SLOs being a focus for the college with 89 percent of respondents agreeing or completely agreeing with this statement.

Finding TracDat helpful to manage the assessment process received the highest unfavorable Student Learning Outcome rating as 29 percent of respondents disagreed or completely disagreed with this statement. The items with the next two highest unfavorable ratings spoke to respondents feeling the Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Cycle (SLOAC) is worthwhile and/or meaningful, and that they have adequate time for their SLOs. In each case, 21 percent of respondents gave the item an unfavorable rating.

Related Comments. Many respondents noted that Skyline College was committed to student success. The comments stated repeatedly that Skyline College believed and practiced its students first philosophy. Respondents also commented that the faculty and staff demonstrated enthusiasm in working with students and sincere concern for their success. Respondents, however, felt the practice of assessing SLOs was a bit overwhelming. Some felt it too structured and that it took away from the work they do in the classroom.


14


15

Conclusions 1. Overall, survey respondents repeatedly commented on the sense of community,

collegiality, and students first philosophy of Skyline College. They felt the focus and purpose of all who work at the college revolved around the needs of the students and thus were dedicated to improving the educational experiences of its students.

2. In addition to 64 percent of respondents believing that the shared governance process worked well overall, many commented that the shared governance process helped promote inclusivity. While some respondents questioned the degree to which their voices were heard in the governance process, nearly 70 percent were satisfied with the opportunities given to participate in college planning (item #25).

3. Many felt there were opportunities for staff development and ideas to improve the work

environment were taken seriously. However, a number of respondents (18 percent) disagreed with the idea that the college provides opportunities for promotion.

4. Improving the cleanliness of campus facilities was a need expressed by respondents

through their own comments as well as answers to the survey questions.

5. Items #32 through #37 reinforce comments made by respondents that the Skyline College not only supports its diverse staff, faculty, and student body, but also promotes a diverse working and learning environment. Item # 39 shows some respondents questioned the fairness of the hiring procedures and policies (15 percent) but item #41 reinforces the college’s commitment to employee equity and diversity.

6. There was high consensus throughout the survey that Skyline College is focused on the

academic success of its students. For instance, 91 percent of respondents agreed that the college has quality learning experiences for students while 89 percent agreed that student learning outcomes (SLOs) were a focus for the college. However, many found the process of SLO assessment cumbersome. Whether it is because many felt SLO guidelines were not clear (items #70-#73) or that less than half of faculty engage colleagues in discussions about how to use assessment results (item #75), there seems to be a disconnect between SLOs and the institutional focus on improving the learning experiences of students.

7. As all items in the Dialogue dimension have a favorable rating of 68 percent or above,

participants are, on average, satisfied with communication on the Skyline College campus. Some individual comments did suggest improving collaboration across all levels of the college would positively impact the effectiveness of their work.

8. Overall, Skyline College continues to be a place where staff and faculty feel safe to work,

embrace diversity, recommend as a good place to work, and are focused on fulfilling its mission and vision.


16

Recommendations 1. Continue the students first philosophy that permeates the culture and work of staff,

faculty, and administrators at Skyline College through increased opportunities for communication and collaboration within and across departments, across divisions, and between staff, faculty, and administration.

2. Continue to promote the shared governance process. In particular, continue efforts to promote equity in committee participation and ensure that the ideas and opinions of all constituency groups are heard and given importance.

3. Evaluate the staffing needs of the college and how they are meeting the needs of students. Many respondents felt additional staff and faculty were needed to help support their work.

4. Find ways in which to improve the cleanliness of the college facilities, including better maintenance of the buildings, classrooms, bathrooms and grounds.

5. Many respondents in the Employee Voice Survey commented on the way in which Skyline College embraces diversity and is inclusive, welcoming and supportive of its faculty and staff. This is another unique strength for the college that should be celebrated and recognized as a value-added benefit of working and studying at Skyline College.

6. Maintaining high standards of student learning is a strong sentiment shared by all at Skyline College. However, many did not understand the guidelines of SLOs nor use SLO assessments to improve the academic experiences of students. Efforts are needed to increase individuals’ knowledge of SLOs—why they are important and how the process can improve the learning experiences of students.

7. Multiple survey items suggest respondents enjoy working at Skyline College and are encouraged to be creative and innovative in addressing the variety of students’ academic needs. However, many feel the college does not acknowledge extra effort and opportunities for promotion could be increased. Therefore, a recommendation is to examine how the college recognizes the work of its faculty and staff and how it policies promote opportunities for career advancement.

8. As a way to build on the college’s dedication to its students, some respondents

commented on specific student resources that could improve students’ academic experiences. For instance, some mentioned were articulated educational pathways, improving online registration, and additional tutors.

9. Maintain the college culture that is focused on fulfilling the college mission and vision, fosters a sense of safety, promotes diversity, and underlies the sentiment of Skyline College being a good place to work.


17

Appendix A Data Tables

Question 1: Skyline actively works toward fulfilling its vision and mission.

Count Percent

Completely Disagree 1 1% Disagree 1 1% Somewhat Agree/Disagree 15 9% Agree 76 47% Completely Agree 70 43% Total 163 100% Missing 6

Question 2: District policies provide effective management of campus programs and services.

Count Percent


Question 3: The Board of Trustees, the District Office, and the College function as mutually supporting yet independent self-governing units.

Count Percent



18

Question 4: The District Office provides necessary services that support Skyline’s mission.

Count Percent


Question 5: I believe that classified employee evaluation is an effective process.

Count Percent


Question 6: My supervisor(s) encourages me to do high quality work.

Count Percent


Question 7: I feel that extra effort on my part would be acknowledged.

Count Percent



19

Question 8: Providing excellent service to students is acknowledged in my area.

Count Percent


Question 9: I believe that the opinions of classified staff are given appropriate weight in matters of institutional importance.

Count Percent


Question 10: I am encouraged to be creative and come up with new ideas and improvements.

Count Percent


Question 11: All in all, I am satisfied with my current assignment.

Count Percent



20

Question 12: Results of college goals are regularly shared with campus constituencies.

Count Percent


Question 13: I am comfortable in bringing up problems with my direct supervisor.

Count Percent


Question 14: My supervisor keeps me informed of matters that affect me.

Count Percent


Question 15: Effective communication between co-workers is encouraged in my area.

Count Percent



21

Question 16: Classified staff is aware of the support services available for students.

Count Percent


Question 17: I have seen materials in campus media that increased my understanding of diverse groups.

Count Percent


Question 18: I feel that classified staff is provided adequate opportunities to participate on important college councils and committees.

Count Percent


Question 19: I would recommend Skyline College as a good place to work.

Count Percent



22

Question 20: A consultative planning process is used to identify needed areas of improvement.

Count Percent


Question 21: Staff has adequate opportunities to participate in the development of financial plans and budgets.

Count Percent


Question 22: All constituency groups work collaboratively towards the achievement of college goals.

Count Percent


Question 23: College budget decisions are based upon input from all college constituencies.

Count Percent



23

Question 24: My ideas for improving my unit are taken seriously.

Count Percent


Question 25: I am satisfied with the amount of opportunity I have to participate in college-wide planning.

Count Percent


Question 26: The program review process helps to promote positive change on campus.

Count Percent


Question 27: Skyline provides adequate opportunities for training in technology related to my area of responsibility.

Count Percent



24

Question 28: The college provides sufficient opportunities for continued professional staff development.

Count Percent


Question 29: The role of staff in shared governance is clearly stated and publicized.

Count Percent


Question 30: The procedures for hiring employees are clearly stated.

Count Percent


Question 31: The District Office acts in a manner consistent with Board policies, statutes, and regulations.

Count Percent



25

Question 32: The college deals with students in a fair and ethical way.

Count Percent


Question 33: The campus is equally supportive of men and women.

Count Percent


Question 34: The campus is equally supportive of all racial/ethnic groups.

Count Percent


Question 35: The campus is equally supportive of all lifestyles.

Count Percent



26

Question 36: Diversity (in regard to gender, ethnicity and age) is actively promoted on campus.

Count Percent


Question 37: I believe that the climate at Skyline is one of appreciation of differences.

Count Percent


Question 38: Skyline provides sufficient opportunities for promotion.

Count Percent


Question 39: Procedures and policies for hiring personnel are fair.

Count Percent



27

Question 40: There is high respect for all in my area.

Count Percent


Question 41: Policies and practices of the college clearly demonstrate commitment to issues of employee equity and diversity.

Count Percent


Question 42: Skyline encourages staff and faculty participation in the decision-making process.

Count Percent


Question 43: Staff has a substantive and clearly defined role in institutional governance.

Count Percent



28

Question 44: The technical support services for my technology issues are adequate.

Count Percent


Question 45: I believe there is sufficient data and information available to assess the quality and effectiveness of my program or area.

Count Percent


Question 46: Overall, the shared governance process is working well at Skyline.

Count Percent


Question 47: District Office adheres to clearly defined policies consistent with the mission of the district.

Count Percent



29

Question 48: The facilities (i.e., classroom and office space) adequately meet my needs.

Count Percent


Question 49: My assigned workspace is adequate for me to carry out my job.

Count Percent


Question 50: I am satisfied with the handicapped access on campus for employees.

Count Percent


Question 51: Campus facilities (i.e. classrooms, washrooms and offices) are adequately maintained.

Count Percent



30

Question 52: There is adequate parking on campus for staff.

Count Percent


Question 53: There are clear divisions of authority and responsibility between and among the District Office, Governing Board and Skyline.

Count Percent


Question 54: I have access to enough information about crime and accident prevention.

Count Percent


Question 55: I have access to enough information about disaster preparedness.

Count Percent



31

Question 56: The security officers are able to answer my questions about safety and security issues at the college.

Count Percent


Question 57: I am confident that the security officers conduct criminal investigations in a professional manner.

Count Percent


Question 58: Overall, I feel safe on campus.

Count Percent


Question 59: If necessary, I know where to refer students to various support services on campus (e.g. Financial Aid and DSPS).

Count Percent



32

Question 60: I have been given adequate opportunity to participate in the student learning outcomes and assessment process at Skyline College.

Count Percent


Question 61: Skyline College has provided sufficient training in student learning outcomes and assessment.

Count Percent


Question 62: I believe that Skyline has made student learning outcomes and assessment a focus for the college.

Count Percent


Question 63: I have been given sufficient information on the purpose and value of student learning outcomes and assessment at Skyline College.

Count Percent



33

Question 64: I believe that Skyline is taking a positive approach toward implementing student learning outcomes and assessment.

Count Percent


Question 65: Overall, Skyline College provides a high quality learning experience for students.

Count Percent


Question 66: I feel that the Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Cycle (SLOAC) is worthwhile/meaningful.

Count Percent


Question 67: I have been given adequate time to work on my SLOs.

Count Percent



34

Question 68: I feel that it would be helpful to have an established day each semester to work on assessment.

Count Percent


Question 69: I have been given adequate resources to work on my SLOs.

Count Percent


Question 70: The SLO guidelines have been clear enough to guide me in my course level assessment.

Count Percent


Question 71: The SLO guidelines have been clear enough to guide me in my program level assessment.

Count Percent

Completely Disagree 7 5% Disagree 14 11% Somewhat Agree/Disagree 32 25% Agree 34 27% Completely Agree 15 12% N/A 26 20% Total 128 100% Missing 41


35

Question 72: The SLO guidelines have been clear enough to guide me in my institutional level assessment.

Count Percent


Question 73: I am familiar with the ISLOs and their purpose.

Count Percent


Question 74: I am familiar with multiple means to assess.

Count Percent


Question 75: I engage other faculty in my department in dialogues about assessment results and subsequent action plans.

Count Percent

Completely Disagree 10 8% Disagree 16 12% Somewhat Agree/Disagree 24 19% Agree 35 27% Completely Agree 24 19% N/A 20 16% Total 129 100% Missing 40


36

Question 76: I use assessment results to inform subsequent plans.

Count Percent


Question 77: I use assessment results to inform subsequent resource requests.

Count Percent


Question 78: I see how assessment can inform decisions about curriculum, resource allocation, etc.

Count Percent


Question 79: I find TracDat helpful to manage the assessment process.

Count Percent



37

Appendix B Survey Instrument

Employee Voice SurveySpring 2012

Page 1 - Heading

Institutional Commitment Description

Page 1 - Question 1 - Rating Scale - Matrix

Skyline actively works toward fulfilling its vision and mission.

Completely Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree/Disagree Agree Completely Agree

1 2 3 4 5


District policies provide effective management of campus programs and services.


1 2 3 4 5


The Board of Trustees, the District Office, and the College function as mutually supporting yet independent self-governing units.


1 2 3 4 5


The District Office provides necessary services that support Skyline's mission.


1 2 3 4 5


I believe that classified employee evaluation is an effective process.


1 2 3 4 5


My supervisor(s) encourages me to do high quality work.


1 2 3 4 5


I feel that extra effort on my part would be acknowledged.


1 2 3 4 5


38


Providing excellent service to students is acknowledged in my area.


1 2 3 4 5


I believe that the opinions of classified staff are given appropriate weight in matters of institutional importance.


1 2 3 4 5


I am encouraged to be creative and come up with new ideas and improvements.


1 2 3 4 5


All in all, I am satisfied with my current assignment.


1 2 3 4 5

Page 2 - Heading

Dialogue Description


Results of college goals are regularly shared with campus constituencies.


1 2 3 4 5


I am comfortable in bringing up problems with my direct supervisor.


1 2 3 4 5


My supervisor keeps me informed of matters that affect me.


1 2 3 4 5


Effective communication between co-workers is encouraged in my area.


1 2 3 4 5


39


Classified staff is aware of the support services available for students.


1 2 3 4 5


I have seen materials in campus media that increased my understanding of diverse groups.


1 2 3 4 5


I feel that classified staff is provided adequate opportunities to participate on important college councils and committees.


1 2 3 4 5


I would recommend Skyline College as a good place to work.


1 2 3 4 5

Page 3 - Heading

Evaluation, Planning and Improvement Description


A consultative planning process is used to identify needed areas of improvement.


1 2 3 4 5


Staff has adequate opportunities to participate in the development of financial plans and budgets.


1 2 3 4 5


All constituency groups work collaboratively towards the achievement of college goals.


1 2 3 4 5


College budget decisions are based upon input from all college constituencies.


1 2 3 4 5


40


My ideas for improving my unit are taken seriously.


1 2 3 4 5


I am satisfied with the amount of opportunity I have to participate in college-wide planning.


1 2 3 4 5


The program review process helps to promote positive change on campus.


1 2 3 4 5


Skyline provides adequate opportunities for training in technology related to my area of responsibility.


1 2 3 4 5


The college provides sufficient opportunities for continued professional staff development.


1 2 3 4 5

Page 4 - Heading

Institutional Integrity (Part 1 of 2) Description


The role of staff in shared governance is clearly stated and publicized.


1 2 3 4 5


The procedures for hiring employees are clearly stated.


1 2 3 4 5


The District Office acts in a manner consistent with Board policies, statutes, and regulations.


1 2 3 4 5


41


The college deals with students in a fair and ethical way.


1 2 3 4 5


The campus is equally supportive of men and women.


1 2 3 4 5


The campus is equally supportive of all racial/ethnic groups.


1 2 3 4 5


The campus is equally supportive of all lifestyles.


1 2 3 4 5

Page 5 - Heading

Institutional Integrity (Part 2 of 2) Description


Diversity (in regard to gender, ethnicity and age) is actively promoted on campus.


1 2 3 4 5


I believe that the climate at Skyline is one of appreciation of differences.


1 2 3 4 5


Skyline provides sufficient opportunities for promotion.


1 2 3 4 5


Procedures and policies for hiring personnel are fair.


1 2 3 4 5


42


There is high respect for all in my area.


1 2 3 4 5


Policies and practices of the college clearly demonstrate commitment to issues of employee equity and diversity.


1 2 3 4 5


Skyline encourages staff and faculty participation in the decision-making process.


1 2 3 4 5


Staff has a substantive and clearly defined role in institutional governance.


1 2 3 4 5


The technical support services for my technology issues are adequate.


1 2 3 4 5


I believe there is sufficient data and information available to assess the quality and effectiveness of my program or area.


1 2 3 4 5


Overall, the shared governance process is working well at Skyline.


1 2 3 4 5

Page 6 - Heading

Organization Description


District Office adheres to clearly defined policies consistent with the mission of the district.


1 2 3 4 5


43


The facilities (i.e., classroom and office space) adequately meet my needs.


1 2 3 4 5


My assigned workspace is adequate for me to carry out my job.


1 2 3 4 5


I am satisfied with the handicapped access on campus for employees.


1 2 3 4 5


Campus facilities (i.e. classrooms, washrooms and offices) are adequately maintained.


1 2 3 4 5


There is adequate parking on campus for staff.


1 2 3 4 5


There are clear divisions of authority and responsibility between and among the District Office, Governing Board and Skyline.


1 2 3 4 5


I have access to enough information about crime and accident prevention.


1 2 3 4 5


I have access to enough information about disaster preparedness.


1 2 3 4 5


44


The security officers are able to answer my questions about safety and security issues at the college.


1 2 3 4 5


I am confident that the security officers conduct criminal investigations in a professional manner.


1 2 3 4 5


Overall, I feel safe on campus.


1 2 3 4 5

Page 7 - Heading

Student Learning Outcomes (Part 1 of 2) Description


If necessary, I know where to refer students to various support services on campus (e.g. Financial Aid and DSPS).


1 2 3 4 5


I have been given adequate opportunity to participate in the student learning outcomes and assessment process at Skyline College.


1 2 3 4 5


Skyline College has provided sufficient training in student learning outcomes and assessment.


1 2 3 4 5


I believe that Skyline has made student learning outcomes and assessment a focus for the college.


1 2 3 4 5


45


I have been given sufficient information on the purpose and value of student learning outcomes and assessment at Skyline College.


1 2 3 4 5


I believe that Skyline is taking a positive approach toward implementing student learning outcomes and assessment.


1 2 3 4 5


Overall, Skyline College provides a high quality learning experience for students.


1 2 3 4 5

Page 8 - Heading

Student Learning Outcomes (Part 2 of 2) Description


I feel that the Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Cycle (SLOAC) is worthwhile/meaningful.


1 2 3 4 5


I have been given adequate time to work on my SLOs.


1 2 3 4 5


I feel that it would be helpful to have an established day each semester to work on assessment.


1 2 3 4 5


I have been given adequate resources to work on my SLOs.


1 2 3 4 5


46


The SLO guidelines have been clear enough to guide me in my course level assessment.


1 2 3 4 5


The SLO guidelines have been clear enough to guide me in my program level assessment.

Completely Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree/Disagree Agree Completely Agree N/A

1 2 3 4 5 6


The SLO guidelines have been clear enough to guide me in my institutional level assessment.


1 2 3 4 5


I am familiar with the ISLOs and their purpose.


1 2 3 4 5


I am familiar with multiple means to assess.


1 2 3 4 5


I engage other faculty in my department in dialogues about assessment results and subsequent action plans.

Completely Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree/Disagree Agree Completely Agree N/A

1 2 3 4 5 6


I use assessment results to inform subsequent plans.


1 2 3 4 5


I use assessment results to inform subsequent resource requests.


1 2 3 4 5


47


I see how assessment can inform decisions about curriculum, resource allocation, etc.


1 2 3 4 5


I find TracDat helpful to manage the assessment process.


1 2 3 4 5

Page 9 - Heading

Tell us about you... Description

Page 9 - Question 80 - Choice - One Answer (Drop Down)

What is your gender? Male Female


Which best describes the area of the college where you work? Instruction - faculty and classified Student Services - faculty and classified Administration/Management Other


How many years have you worked at Skyline College Less than one year 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years More than 10 years


What is your employment status Full-time classified Part-time classified Full-time faculty Part-time faculty Administrator


48


Which ethnic group do you most identify with? African American Asian Filipino Hispanic White Other

Page 10 - Heading

Comments Description

Page 10 - Question 85 - Open Ended - Comments Box

Please comment on one or two things that you like most about working at Skyline College.

Page 10 - Question 86 - Open Ended - Comments Box

Please comment on one or two things that you would like to see changed or improved at Skyline College.

Page 10 - Heading

Thank You! Thank you for taking the time to fill out the employee voice survey. Please click the "Submit" button below to submit your responses.


Appendix D Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE)

Community College Survey of Student Engagement Executive Summary

Spring 2012

Prepared by:

Office of Planning, Research & Institutional Effectiveness

Skyline College

CCSSE Executive Summary

Table of Contents

Page

Introduction 3 Overview 3 Purpose 3 Instrumentation 3 Methodology 3 Respondent Profile 3 Interpreting the Results 4 Findings 5 Recommendations 13 Appendix A (Characteristics of respondents) 14 Appendix B (Item-level results) 15

2


Introduction Overview

A student engagement survey was administered to a representative sample of Skyline College students during the spring 2012 semester. The survey, in conjunction with other institutional surveys such as the student satisfaction survey conducted in 2010, provides information to inform institutional practice as well as the accreditation self-study process that concludes in the spring of 2013. The self-study process requires an assessment of institutional performance in terms of student engagement and one source of evidence is a campus engagement study in which students provide feedback on questions assessing institutional practices and student behaviors that are correlated highly with student learning and student retention. This survey provided evidence needed for the self-study.

Purpose

The purpose of this survey study was to measure current student levels of engagement by asking them about their college experiences. The results from the survey will be used to inform responses to the accreditation standards and will be used for planning and improvement efforts. The survey will also be useful for establishing benchmarks for future studies and for evaluating the college’s mission, goals and strategies.

Instrumentation

The Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) was used to measure levels of engagement for Skyline College students. Questions on the survey ask students about such things as: how they spend their time; what they feel they have gained from their classes; how they assess their relationships and interactions with faculty, counselors, and peers; what kinds of work they are challenged to do; and how the college supports their learning. Findings are categorized into five benchmark areas: active and collaborative learning; student effort; academic challenge; student-faculty interaction; and support for learners.

Methodology

The survey was administered to students in randomly selected classes at Skyline College. The required number of course sections to be surveyed was determined by the total sample size needed to reduce sampling error and to ensure valid results. Findings are based on over 800 respondents.

Respondent Profile

Respondents included in the findings of the survey were, on average, more likely to be male, age 18-24, and full-time (See Appendix A for full breakdown). By race/ethnicity, 41 percent of respondents were Asian/Pacific Islander, two percent were Black, 18 percent were White/Non-Hispanic, 19 percent were Hispanic/Latino/Spanish, nine

3


percent were other, and seven percent were international students or foreign nationals. For Asian/Pacific Islander and other student groups, these percentages are on par with those of Skyline College. For Black, White, and Hispanic, these represent an underrepresentation by up to five percentage points while for international students it represents an overrepresentation of six percentage points.

Interpreting the Results

Survey items are grouped into five benchmark areas: active and collaborative learning; student effort; academic challenge; student-faculty interaction; and support for learners. A Likert scale was used for many survey items while answers for other items had dichotomous options (yes/no or enrolled/not enrolled). Means and frequencies for each item were calculated as well as for each benchmark area. Means report the average response to an item while frequencies give student counts to each response item. In the CCSSE report, findings for Skyline College were compared to other large colleges (i.e. colleges with 8,000-14,999 students) and to the 2012 CCSSE Cohort. The 2012 CCSSE Cohort is comprised of participating colleges over the previous three years (2010 through 2012). This includes 710 institutions from 48 states and the District of Columbia, four Canadian provinces, plus Bermuda and the Northern Marianas. Three hundred fourteen colleges are classified as small (<4,500 students), 187 as medium (4,500-7,999 students), 134 as large (8,000-14,999 students), and 75 as extra-large institutions (15,000+ students). One hundred forty-five of the colleges are classified as urban-serving, 155 as suburban-serving, and 410 as rural-serving. Although comparing findings to those of other colleges is of value, it is important to understand how valuable is the comparison. In this instance, comparing Skyline College to those of similar size and to those in the 2012 CCSSE Cohort does not allow for direct comparison to colleges of similar characteristics (e.g. race/ethnicity, gender, geographic location). Therefore, interpretations should focus on how the institution feels about the outcome itself (e.g. is the college satisfied with 47 percent of students having a positive outcome?) in addition to how the outcome compares to the other two groups (e.g. what does it mean for the average response for Skyline College students to be less than that of students in other large colleges and/or all students in the 2012 CCSSE Cohort?).

4


The Findings Overall The narratives below provide an overall summary for each benchmark category and highlight some of the highest and lowest performing items within the category. Outcome results for individual items can be seen in Appendix B. Figure 1 shows scores for Skyline College Students are less than 50 (the standardized mean) for each benchmark category except for Support for Learners. This indicates that when compared to students from large colleges or students in the 2012 CCSSE Cohort, Skyline College students, on average, are less likely to report:

1. They are actively involved in their education and collaborate with others to problem solve or master content.

2. They engage in behavior that significantly contributes to their learning. 3. They engaged in practices exemplifying academic challenging work. 4. They interact with instructors and/or advisors.

The Support for Learners score indicates that Skyline College students are more likely to report they are satisfied with the level of support given to them by the college to be successful in the education. The finding for the Support for Learners benchmark category is the only one greater than those from the two comparison groups.

5


Active and Collaborative Learning

CCSSE Benchmark Description: Students learn more when they are actively involved in their education and have opportunities to think about and apply what they are learning in different settings. Through collaborating with others to solve problems or master challenging content, students develop valuable skills that prepare them to deal with real-life situations and problems.

Results: As seen in Figure 2, Skyline College’s average score for this benchmark category was 46.6, which was less than large colleges by 2.8 and less than the 2012 Cohort mean by 3.4 points. This implies that Skyline College students are less actively involved in their education and collaborate with others to a lesser degree than students in other large colleges and all students in the 2012 Cohort. When looking at individual survey items, there is evidence of a majority of Skyline College students demonstrating behavior exemplifying active and collaborative learning. Specifically, approximately 51 percent stated they “asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions” either often or very often. Also, 52 percent responded they “worked with other students on projects during class” often or very often. The two items in which Skyline College students had the lowest rating were those specific to tutoring or teaching other students and participating in a community-based project as part of a regular course. For each of those two items, eight percent of respondents said they engaged in the activity often or very often while over 70 percent said they never engaged in those activities.

6


Implications: Findings from this benchmark indicate that, on average, Skyline College students are engaged in their education while in class by participating in class discussions and/or working with students on projects during class. However, when students leave the structure of the classroom, they become less engaged. Although the two metrics used here to measure engagement outside the classroom do not capture other forms of active and collaborative learning (e.g. working with study groups, participating in non- community-based projects), the implication is that students are less active or collaborative in their learning when they leave the classroom environment. Student Effort CCSSE Benchmark Description: Students’ own behaviors contribute significantly to their learning and the likelihood that they will successfully attain their educational goals.

Results: Figure 3 shows the Skyline College students’ score of 40.9 in this category is 8.3 points below large colleges and 9.1 points below the 2012 Cohort. This difference is greater than that found in the Active and Collaborative Learning category and suggests that Skyline College students are less likely to engage in efforts positively contributing to their educational experience than students in the two comparison groups. Of the students included in the survey, 85 percent indicated they never or sometimes come to class without having completed assigned tasks. Over 50 percent responded that in a typical 7-day week they spend 6 or more hours a week preparing for class. Together these findings demonstrate students dedicating time and effort outside of class to be prepared for their academic work.

7


The items in this benchmark category measuring how often a student uses certain college services indicates Skyline College students are less likely to use peer tutoring, skill labs, and/or the computer lab. Because there is no description about the characteristics of students indicating they do not use the respective college service(s), it is difficult to interpret these findings. It is possible, for instance, that students do not go to a skill lab or use peer tutoring because they use an instructor’s office hours for academic assistance. Nevertheless, it is important for the college to understand the degree to which students are engaging with some of its academic support services. Implications: Findings here combined with those of the previous benchmark category suggest Skyline College students engage in work outside of class to prepare themselves academically, but that this work is more likely done individually and not in collaboration. The finding that students prefer to work on their own may also contribute to their not using services such as skill labs or peer tutoring. Academic Challenge CCSSE Benchmark Description: Challenging intellectual and creative work is central to student learning and collegiate quality. These survey items address the nature and amount of assigned academic work, the complexity of cognitive tasks presented to students, and the rigor of examinations used to evaluate student performance.

Results: As in the previous two benchmark categories, Skyline College students’ score was below students at other large college and those in the 2012 CCSSE Cohort. Specifically, the score of 44.6 was five and 5.4 points below the two comparison groups, respectfully, suggesting

8


fewer Skyline College students felt they were academically challenged than those at large colleges and those in the 2012 CCSSE Cohort. For this benchmark category, over 60 percent of students indicated they participated in academically challenging work “quite a bit” or “very much” on multiple survey items. Specifically, 67 percent responded they analyze the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory; 62 percent reported using information they read or heard to perform a new skill; and 69 percent indicated they were encouraged to spend significant amounts of time studying. In addition to these findings, 60 percent of students felt their examinations challenged them to do their best work. The one survey item in which less than 50 percent of students responded positively was with respect to a student feeling they worked harder than they thought they could to meet the instructor’s standards or expectations. For this item, 54 percent of students indicated this “sometimes” or “never” was the case. The two survey items with the greatest percent of students selecting the lowest rating as their response dealt with 1) making judgments about the value or soundness of information, arguments, or methods, and 2) applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations. Here, 15 and 14 percent of students, respectfully, indicated they engaged in these practices very little. Implications: Overall, findings from this category indicate Skyline College students are engaged in behaviors demonstrating they are challenged academically. If the goal of the institution is to increase the levels of engagement for this category, there already exists a strong foundation from which to build and numerous examples of best practices within the college that can be used as models. Student-Faculty Interaction CCSSE Benchmark Description: In general, the more contact students have with their teachers, the more likely they are to learn effectively and to persist toward achievement of their educational goals. Through such interactions, faculty members become role models, mentors, and guides for continuous, lifelong learning.

9


Results: With respect to the degree to which Skyline College students interact with college faculty, the score of 47 is 3 or nearly 3 points less than that of the two comparison groups. Therefore, Skyline College students are less likely to interact with faculty than students at other large colleges or those in the 2012 CCSSE Cohort. Despite Skyline College students saying they interact with faculty less than those in the two comparison groups, this does not mean they do not engage with faculty. In fact, over 57 percent indicate they use email to communicate with their instructor. Also, evidence demonstrates that in terms of their academic work, instructors provide prompt feedback to students. Specifically, 52 percent of students responded that such feedback is given to them “often” or “very often” indicating interaction on academic work, on average, happens in a timely manner. Results indicate students discussing ideas with instructors outside of class never happens for 47 percent of them, and that nearly two-thirds (64 percent) have never worked with instructors on activities other than coursework. The latter may not be surprising if students do not perceive their instructors as resources for guidance in areas other than academic coursework. Implications: Skyline College students continue to indicate that outside of class they are more likely to work by themselves than with others (i.e. instructors or other students). One exception to this is their communication with instructors via email. However, as many indicate that outside of class they do not discuss ideas from their readings or classes with instructors, the implication is that email communication is more likely to be regarding logistical items (e.g. when an assignment is due or what are the requirements of an assignment).

10


Support for Learners CCSSE Benchmark Description: Students perform better and are more satisfied at colleges that provide important support services, cultivate positive relationships among groups on campus, and demonstrate commitment to their success.

Results: Figure 6 shows the score for Skyline College students is greater than students in other large colleges as well as those in the 2012 CCSSE Cohort. The score of 52.1 is 2.3 points greater than for large colleges and 2.1 points greater than for the 2012 CCSSE Cohort. Therefore, not only are Skyline College students more likely to feel the college supports their educational experiences than not, they are also more likely to feel this than students in the two comparison groups. There are three items in which over 50 percent of respondents say there is a great deal of support from the college. First, 51 percent of students say they use academic advising “sometimes” or “often”. Second, 58 percent of students feel encouraged to interact with students from different backgrounds (economic, social, racial, or ethnic). Last, 72 percent say the college provides “quite a bit” or “very much” support to help them succeed at the institution. Of the seven items included in this benchmark, the three receiving the lowest levels of positive feedback were related to support for non-academic responsibilities, social support, and career counseling. Of the 782 respondents who answered the item discussing support for non-academic responsibilities (e.g. work, family), 34 percent responded that the college places “very little” emphasis on this. In terms of providing support needed to thrive socially, 28 percent felt the

11


college places “very little” emphasis. Last, 42 percent of respondents said they “rarely” or “never” use career-counseling services. Implications: Although there are areas for improvement, Skyline College students feel the college is committed to supporting them in their educational experiences. The fact that over 70 percent of students feel there is a strong emphasis by the college to provide them with the support they need to succeed is a strong indicator of how students feel with respect to their learning environment. A possible next step for the college is to ensure a high level of support is felt in all parts of the college.

12


Recommendations

1. Continue to promote and foster high levels of engagement in the classroom environment through increased opportunities for students to engage in dialogue regarding their academic work as well as work collaboratively on projects involving applications of ideas/concepts they learned.

2. Facilitate collaborative work outside of class through task completion or class projects that begin in the classroom but require time outside of class for their completion. If students already belong to a college club and/or organization, coordinate a project with these groups to help students engage in learning experiences outside the classroom.

3. Embed the use of peer tutoring, skill labs, and computer labs into curricula to improve and enrich the academic experiences of students. Such services are not only intended to help students who are struggling academically but also to help those doing well academically to perform at higher levels.

4. Build on the college’s strengths in terms of providing students with academic challenging educational experiences. Help students develop and use the skills of judging the value of information, arguments, or methods as well as the applications of theories or concepts to new situations.

5. Through email, engage students in dialogue regarding their academic coursework. Students report emailing their instructors often but it does not seem this communication is related to ideas discussed in class.

6. Develop new and innovative strategies for students to communicate with instructors as well as work collaboratively on coursework outside of class. Social media, virtual classroom environments, and internet discussion boards are a few examples of ways to facilitate experiences outside the classroom that engage students in a collaborative environment promoting an exchange of ideas.

7. Promote mentoring types of relationships between students and instructors. Currently, students do not often engage their instructors in conversations not related to their academic coursework. Instructors can provide students with guidance on a range of issues such as academic skill building, career information, and time management.

8. Maintain the high level of student support embedded throughout the institution. Students feel the college is committed to their success and it is important to not only sustain this effort but to work to ensure it is felt in all aspects of the college.

13

Respondents include only data used in the nationalCCSSE analysis. Some data wereexcluded in accordance with CCSSE data exclusion rules.

20JUN12

All population data are those reported by institutions for the most recent IPEDS enrollment report.

Percentages may not add up to 100% in each category due to missing data and/or rounding.

Notes:

Community College Survey of Student Engagement - Skyline College

2012 Appendix Table 1

Respondents to Underlying Population Comparisons:

Comparison Group and the 2012 CCSSE Cohort

YourRespondents

Count

YourRespondentsPercentage

YourPopulation

Size GroupComparisonPopulation

2012 CohortColleges

Population

Sex

Male 423 52% 46% 43% 41%

Female 378 46% 54% 57% 59%

Race or Ethnicity

American Indian or Native American 0 0% 0% 1% 2%

Asian, Asian American or Pacific Islander 331 41% 40% 5% 3%

Black or African American, Non-Hispanic 18 2% 4% 14% 13%

White, Non-Hispanic 150 18% 21% 53% 61%

Hispanic, Latino, Spanish 154 19% 24% 16% 11%

Other 76 9% 9% 10% 8%

International Student or Foreign National 55 7% 1% 1% 1%

Age

18 to 19 181 22% 20% 22% 22%

20 to 21 200 25% 20% 18% 16%

22 to 24 170 21% 17% 14% 12%

25 to 29 96 12% 14% 14% 13%

30 to 39 79 10% 11% 14% 14%

40 to 49 43 5% 7% 8% 8%

50 to 64 25 3% 6% 4% 4%

65+ 3 0% 1% 1% 1%

Enrollment Status

Less than full-time 310 38% 72% 58% 55%

Full-time 504 62% 28% 42% 45%

14

ulated

Typewritten Text

Appendix A

ulated

Typewritten Text

ulated

Typewritten Text

besnyib

Cross-Out

page 1 - 11JUN12

* The comparison group and cohort columns on this page INCLUDE your college.


2012 Benchmark Scores Report - Main Survey

Comparison Group: Large Colleges*

[Weighted]

Your College Large Colleges 2012 Cohort

Benchmark Score Score Difference Score Difference

Active and Collaborative Learning 46.6 49.4 -2.8 50.0 -3.4

Student Effort 40.9 49.2 -8.3 50.0 -9.1

Academic Challenge 44.6 49.6 -5.0 50.0 -5.4

Student-Faculty Interaction 47.0 49.1 -2.1 50.0 -3.0

Support for Learners 52.1 48.8 3.3 50.0 2.1

15

ulated

Typewritten Text

ulated

Typewritten Text

ulated

Typewritten Text

ulated

Typewritten Text

ulated

Typewritten Text

ulated

Typewritten Text

ulated

Typewritten Text

Appendix B

ulated

Typewritten Text

ulated

Typewritten Text

ulated

Typewritten Text

ulated

Typewritten Text

Community College Survey of Student EngagementSkyline College

2012 Benchmark Bar Chart - Main SurveyComparison Group: Large Colleges*

[Weighted]Active and Collaborative Learning (ACTCOLL)

11JUN12

* The comparison group and cohort bars on this page INCLUDE your college.

Your College

Large Colleges

2012 Cohort

46.6 49.4 50.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

16

If a row contains less than 50 respondents (please see Frequency Distribution that follows), interpret the comparison results cautiously.

** T-test: 2-tailed page 3 - 11JUN12

* The comparison group and cohort columns on this page EXCLUDE your college.


2012 Benchmark Means Report - Main Survey


[Weighted]

Active and Collaborative Learning (ACTCOLL)

YourCollege Large Colleges 2012 Cohort

Item Variable Mean MeanEffectSize** Mean

EffectSize**

Item 4: In your experiences at this college during the current school year, about how often have you done each of the following?

1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Very often

4a. Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions [ACTCOLL] CLQUEST 2.65 2.91 -0.30** 2.94 -0.34**

4b. Made a class presentation [ACTCOLL] CLPRESEN 1.91 2.12 -0.22** 2.11 -0.22**

4f. Worked with other students on projects during class [ACTCOLL] CLASSGRP 2.57 2.50 2.51

4g. Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments[ACTCOLL]

OCCGRP 1.90 1.91 1.92

4h. Tutored or taught other students (paid or voluntary) [ACTCOLL] TUTOR 1.40 1.38 1.39

4i. Participated in a community-based project as a part of a regular course[ACTCOLL]

COMMPROJ 1.38 1.32 1.33

4r. Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class(students, family members, co-workers, etc.) [ACTCOLL]

OOCIDEAS 2.45 2.56 2.57

17

page 4 - 11JUN12



2012 Benchmark Frequency Distributions - Main Survey


[Weighted]

Active and Collaborative Learning (ACTCOLL)


Item Variable Responses Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent


4a. Asked questions in class or contributedto class discussions [ACTCOLL]

CLQUEST Never 45 5.5 3,158 2.9 11,326 2.5

Sometimes 357 44.0 36,554 33.0 143,268 31.7

Often 250 30.8 38,532 34.8 159,458 35.3

Very often 160 19.7 32,396 29.3 137,541 30.5

Total 812 100.0 110,640 100.0 451,593 100.0

4b. Made a class presentation [ACTCOLL] CLPRESEN Never 287 35.7 30,595 27.8 126,047 28.0

Sometimes 342 42.5 45,690 41.5 185,851 41.3

Often 132 16.4 24,159 21.9 97,860 21.8

Very often 44 5.4 9,761 8.9 39,912 8.9

Total 805 100.0 110,205 100.0 449,669 100.0

4f. Worked with other students on projectsduring class [ACTCOLL]

CLASSGRP Never 109 13.6 13,700 12.5 54,446 12.2

Sometimes 272 34.0 43,675 39.9 176,704 39.6

Often 271 33.9 36,216 33.1 148,916 33.3

Very often 148 18.5 15,857 14.5 66,671 14.9

Total 800 100.0 109,448 100.0 446,738 100.0

4g. Worked with classmates outside of classto prepare class assignments [ACTCOLL]

OCCGRP Never 318 39.6 42,571 38.8 171,679 38.3

Sometimes 299 37.3 42,000 38.3 170,772 38.1

Often 136 16.9 17,858 16.3 74,493 16.6

Very often 49 6.1 7,305 6.7 31,125 6.9

Total 802 100.0 109,733 100.0 448,069 100.0

4h. Tutored or taught other students (paid orvoluntary) [ACTCOLL]

TUTOR Never 566 70.3 79,877 72.6 324,367 72.2

Sometimes 171 21.3 21,330 19.4 88,365 19.7

Often 50 6.2 5,854 5.3 23,976 5.3

Very often 18 2.2 2,980 2.7 12,350 2.8

Total 806 100.0 110,041 100.0 449,058 100.0

4i. Participated in a community-based projectas a part of a regular course [ACTCOLL]

COMMPROJ Never 580 73.2 84,647 77.3 341,875 76.5

Sometimes 145 18.3 17,323 15.8 73,263 16.4

Often 46 5.8 5,160 4.7 21,919 4.9

Very often 21 2.6 2,318 2.1 9,785 2.2

Total 792 100.0 109,448 100.0 446,843 100.0

4r. Discussed ideas from your readings orclasses with others outside of class(students, family members, co-workers, etc.)[ACTCOLL]

OOCIDEAS Never 127 15.8 14,203 12.9 56,113 12.5

Sometimes 317 39.4 41,515 37.8 167,997 37.4

Often 231 28.8 33,015 30.0 136,910 30.5

Very often 129 16.0 21,171 19.3 87,749 19.6

Total 803 100.0 109,905 100.0 448,769 100.0

18



[Weighted]Student Effort (STUEFF)

11JUN12


Your College

Large Colleges

2012 Cohort

40.949.2 50.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

19







[Weighted]

Student Effort (STUEFF)



EffectSize**



4c. Prepared two or more drafts of a paper or assignment before turning it in[STUEFF]

REWROPAP 2.30 2.51 -0.20** 2.52 -0.21**

4d. Worked on a paper or project that required integrating ideas or informationfrom various sources [STUEFF]

INTEGRAT 2.56 2.79 -0.25** 2.79 -0.25**

4e. Came to class without completing readings or assignments [STUEFF] CLUNPREP 1.89 1.84 1.82

Item 6: During the current school year, about how much reading and writing have you done at this college?

1 = None, 2 = Between 1 and 4, 3 = Between 5 and 10, 4 = Between 11 and 20, 5 = More than 20

6b. Number of books read on your own (not assigned) for personal enjoyment oracademic enrichment [STUEFF]

READOWN 2.06 2.10 2.10

Item 10: About how many hours do you spend in a typical 7-day week doing each of the following?

0 = None, 1 = 1-5 hours, 2 = 6-10 hours, 3 = 11-20 hours, 4 = 21-30 hours, 5 = More than 30 hours

10a. Preparing for class (studying, reading, writing, rehearsing, doing homework,or other activites related to your program) [STUEFF]

ACADPR01 1.82 2.01 2.02

Item 13.1: How often do you use the following services at this college?

1 = Rarely/Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often (Don't know/N.A. category not included in means calculations)

13.1d. Peer or other tutoring [STUEFF] USETUTOR 1.41 1.48 1.49

13.1e. Skill labs (writing, math, etc.) [STUEFF] USELAB 1.57 1.71 1.74 -0.22**

13.1h. Computer lab [STUEFF] USECOMLB 1.78 2.07 -0.36** 2.09 -0.38**

20

page 7 - 11JUN12





[Weighted]





4c. Prepared two or more drafts of a paperor assignment before turning it in [STUEFF]

REWROPAP Never 226 28.3 21,915 20.0 87,840 19.6

Sometimes 232 28.9 32,430 29.6 132,001 29.5

Often 219 27.4 32,972 30.1 135,464 30.2

Very often 124 15.5 22,392 20.4 92,642 20.7

Total 801 100.0 109,709 100.0 447,947 100.0

4d. Worked on a paper or project thatrequired integrating ideas or informationfrom various sources [STUEFF]

INTEGRAT Never 151 18.8 10,777 9.8 43,814 9.8

Sometimes 208 25.9 29,451 26.8 121,924 27.2

Often 290 36.1 41,448 37.8 168,233 37.5

Very often 154 19.2 28,117 25.6 114,317 25.5

Total 803 100.0 109,793 100.0 448,288 100.0

4e. Came to class without completingreadings or assignments [STUEFF]

CLUNPREP Never 239 29.7 35,809 32.7 152,690 34.1

Sometimes 444 55.3 59,198 54.0 238,656 53.3

Often 89 11.1 10,493 9.6 40,515 9.1

Very often 32 4.0 4,076 3.7 15,504 3.5

Total 803 100.0 109,576 100.0 447,365 100.0


6b. Number of books read on your own (notassigned) for personal enjoyment oracademic enrichment [STUEFF]

READOWN None 221 27.8 30,684 28.1 129,241 29.0

1 to 4 404 50.8 52,357 47.9 210,097 47.1

5 to 10 97 12.3 15,414 14.1 61,965 13.9

11 to 20 44 5.6 5,643 5.2 23,167 5.2

More than 20 28 3.6 5,115 4.7 21,355 4.8

Total 794 100.0 109,213 100.0 445,826 100.0

Item 10: About how many hours do you spend in a typical 7-day week doing each of the following?

10a. Preparing for class (studying, reading,writing, rehearsing, doing homework, orother activites related to your program)[STUEFF]

ACADPR01 None 19 2.4 1,670 1.5 6,919 1.6

1-5 hours 370 46.7 42,999 39.5 174,078 39.1

6-10 hours 211 26.7 32,837 30.1 133,463 30.0

11-20 hours 144 18.2 19,966 18.3 82,302 18.5

21-30 hours 23 2.8 7,428 6.8 30,967 7.0

More than 30 hours 25 3.2 4,040 3.7 17,023 3.8

Total 792 100.0 108,941 100.0 444,751 100.0


13.1d. Peer or other tutoring [STUEFF] USETUTOR Don't know/N.A. 214 28.4 26,350 25.1 108,077 25.2

Rarely/Never 365 48.6 49,065 46.8 198,717 46.4

Sometimes 126 16.7 20,892 19.9 85,558 20.0

Often 48 6.3 8,583 8.2 36,265 8.5

Total 752 100.0 104,890 100.0 428,617 100.0

21

page 8 - 11JUN12





[Weighted]





13.1e. Skill labs (writing, math, etc.)[STUEFF]

USELAB Don't know/N.A. 208 27.5 22,883 21.9 92,624 21.7

Rarely/Never 314 41.6 40,290 38.5 157,798 36.9

Sometimes 156 20.6 25,208 24.1 105,881 24.8

Often 78 10.3 16,232 15.5 71,253 16.7

Total 755 100.0 104,613 100.0 427,555 100.0

13.1h. Computer lab [STUEFF] USECOMLB Don't know/N.A. 165 21.7 13,605 13.0 53,503 12.5

Rarely/Never 265 34.9 26,638 25.4 106,044 24.7

Sometimes 194 25.5 31,822 30.4 130,854 30.5

Often 136 17.9 32,779 31.3 138,170 32.2

Total 761 100.0 104,844 100.0 428,571 100.0

22



[Weighted]Academic Challenge (ACCHALL)

11JUN12


Your College

Large Colleges

2012 Cohort

44.649.6 50.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

23







[Weighted]

Academic Challenge (ACCHALL)



EffectSize**



4p. Worked harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor's standardsor expectations [ACCHALL]

WORKHARD 2.46 2.60 2.61

Item 5: During the current school year, how much has your coursework at this college emphasized the following mental activities?

1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much

5b. Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory [ACCHALL] ANALYZE 2.88 2.91 2.90

5c. Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences in new ways[ACCHALL]

SYNTHESZ 2.69 2.78 2.78

5d. Making judgments about the value or soundness of information, arguments,or methods [ACCHALL]

EVALUATE 2.54 2.61 2.61

5e. Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations[ACCHALL]

APPLYING 2.61 2.71 2.71

5f. Using information you have read or heard to perform a new skill [ACCHALL] PERFORM 2.80 2.81 2.83


1 = None, 2 = Between 1 and 4, 3 = Between 5 and 10, 4 = Between 11 and 20, 5 = More than 20

6a. Number of assigned textbooks, manuals, books, or book-length packs ofcourse readings [ACCHALL]

READASGN 2.69 2.89 2.91 -0.22**

6c. Number of written papers or reports of any length [ACCHALL] WRITEANY 2.59 2.90 -0.27** 2.90 -0.28**

Item 7

1 = Extremely easy ... 7 = Extremely challenging

7. Mark the response that best represents the extent to which your examinationsduring the current school year have challenged you to do your best work at thiscollege [ACCHALL]

EXAMS 4.75 4.96 4.99 -0.20**

Item 9: How much does this college emphasize each of the following?


9a. Encouraging you to spend significant amounts of time studying [ACCHALL] ENVSCHOL 2.91 3.00 3.02

24

page 11 - 11JUN12





[Weighted]





4p. Worked harder than you thought youcould to meet an instructor's standards orexpectations [ACCHALL]

WORKHARD Never 118 14.8 10,858 9.9 43,023 9.6

Sometimes 308 38.7 41,080 37.5 166,419 37.2

Often 259 32.6 39,113 35.7 161,184 36.0

Very often 110 13.9 18,532 16.9 76,996 17.2

Total 794 100.0 109,582 100.0 447,622 100.0

Item 5: During the current school year, how much has your coursework at this college emphasized the following mental activities?

5b. Analyzing the basic elements of an idea,experience, or theory [ACCHALL]

ANALYZE Very little 54 6.7 4,724 4.3 19,902 4.4

Some 209 26.0 28,538 26.0 118,659 26.5

Quite a bit 318 39.6 47,937 43.7 194,691 43.4

Very much 222 27.7 28,600 26.0 115,086 25.7

Total 804 100.0 109,800 100.0 448,339 100.0

5c. Synthesizing and organizing ideas,information, or experiences in new ways[ACCHALL]

SYNTHESZ Very little 76 9.5 7,316 6.7 29,928 6.7

Some 261 32.6 34,594 31.7 140,855 31.6

Quite a bit 300 37.5 42,720 39.1 175,050 39.2

Very much 164 20.5 24,669 22.6 100,477 22.5

Total 800 100.0 109,298 100.0 446,310 100.0

5d. Making judgments about the value orsoundness of information, arguments, ormethods [ACCHALL]

EVALUATE Very little 121 15.1 12,896 11.8 52,461 11.7

Some 265 33.0 37,682 34.4 155,158 34.7

Quite a bit 282 35.1 38,277 35.0 155,002 34.7

Very much 135 16.8 20,543 18.8 84,145 18.8

Total 803 100.0 109,398 100.0 446,766 100.0

5e. Applying theories or concepts to practicalproblems or in new situations [ACCHALL]

APPLYING Very little 115 14.2 10,129 9.2 41,174 9.2

Some 251 31.1 35,627 32.5 145,982 32.6

Quite a bit 276 34.2 39,829 36.3 162,655 36.3

Very much 167 20.6 24,035 21.9 97,837 21.9

Total 809 100.0 109,620 100.0 447,648 100.0

5f. Using information you have read or heardto perform a new skill [ACCHALL]

PERFORM Very little 74 9.2 9,175 8.3 35,831 8.0

Some 236 29.2 31,725 28.8 128,142 28.5

Quite a bit 276 34.1 39,863 36.2 163,746 36.4

Very much 223 27.6 29,303 26.6 121,574 27.1

Total 809 100.0 110,066 100.0 449,292 100.0

25

page 12 - 11JUN12





[Weighted]





6a. Number of assigned textbooks, manuals,books, or book-length packs of coursereadings [ACCHALL]

READASGN None 49 6.2 3,240 3.0 12,244 2.7

1 to 4 381 48.0 44,939 41.1 180,774 40.5

5 to 10 200 25.2 33,492 30.7 137,234 30.8

11 to 20 99 12.5 15,768 14.4 65,125 14.6

More than 20 65 8.2 11,781 10.8 50,471 11.3

Total 795 100.0 109,221 100.0 445,848 100.0

6c. Number of written papers or reports ofany length [ACCHALL]

WRITEANY None 147 18.6 9,900 9.1 40,075 9.0

1 to 4 267 33.9 33,461 30.7 137,108 30.8

5 to 10 201 25.5 34,804 31.9 140,838 31.6

11 to 20 108 13.7 19,940 18.3 81,883 18.4

More than 20 66 8.3 11,004 10.1 45,616 10.2

Total 789 100.0 109,110 100.0 445,519 100.0

Item 7

7. Mark the response that best representsthe extent to which your examinations duringthe current school year have challenged youto do your best work at this college[ACCHALL]

EXAMS (1) Extremely easy 14 1.8 1,111 1.1 4,092 1.0

(2) 17 2.2 2,130 2.0 8,340 1.9

(3) 62 8.1 6,515 6.2 25,035 5.8

(4) 215 28.3 25,060 23.9 100,943 23.6

(5) 244 32.1 35,885 34.3 146,580 34.3

(6) 166 21.8 23,700 22.6 98,191 22.9

(7) Extremely challenging 43 5.6 10,314 9.8 44,771 10.5

Total 759 100.0 104,715 100.0 427,952 100.0


9a. Encouraging you to spend significantamounts of time studying [ACCHALL]

ENVSCHOL Very little 55 7.0 4,757 4.4 18,099 4.1

Some 189 23.8 24,248 22.2 95,767 21.5

Quite a bit 325 40.9 46,588 42.7 189,056 42.4

Very much 226 28.4 33,537 30.7 142,609 32.0

Total 795 100.0 109,130 100.0 445,531 100.0

26



[Weighted]Student-Faculty Interaction (STUFAC)

11JUN12


Your College

Large Colleges

2012 Cohort

47.0 49.1 50.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

27







[Weighted]

Student-Faculty Interaction (STUFAC)



EffectSize**



4k. Used e-mail to communicate with an instructor [STUFAC] EMAIL 2.71 2.82 2.81

4l. Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor [STUFAC] FACGRADE 2.41 2.56 2.59 -0.20**

4m. Talked about career plans with an instructor or advisor [STUFAC] FACPLANS 2.01 2.03 2.08

4n. Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with instructors outside ofclass [STUFAC]

FACIDEAS 1.77 1.75 1.77

4o. Received prompt feedback (written or oral) from instructors on yourperformance [STUFAC]

FACFEED 2.56 2.69 2.70

4q. Worked with instructors on activities other than coursework [STUFAC] FACOTH 1.51 1.41 1.43

28

page 15 - 11JUN12





[Weighted]

Student-Faculty Interaction (STUFAC)




4k. Used e-mail to communicate with aninstructor [STUFAC]

EMAIL Never 102 12.7 8,582 7.8 37,894 8.5

Sometimes 242 30.2 34,184 31.2 138,027 30.8

Often 249 30.9 35,153 32.1 141,214 31.5

Very often 211 26.2 31,717 28.9 130,558 29.2

Total 804 100.0 109,636 100.0 447,692 100.0

4l. Discussed grades or assignments with aninstructor [STUFAC]

FACGRADE Never 126 15.6 10,298 9.4 38,620 8.6

Sometimes 338 41.8 46,702 42.5 187,440 41.8

Often 231 28.5 33,790 30.8 141,305 31.5

Very often 114 14.1 18,997 17.3 80,767 18.0

Total 809 100.0 109,787 100.0 448,131 100.0

4m. Talked about career plans with aninstructor or advisor [STUFAC]

FACPLANS Never 272 33.9 33,581 30.7 126,816 28.4

Sometimes 315 39.3 47,974 43.8 197,628 44.2

Often 145 18.0 19,089 17.4 83,470 18.7

Very often 70 8.7 8,901 8.1 39,320 8.8

Total 801 100.0 109,545 100.0 447,234 100.0

4n. Discussed ideas from your readings orclasses with instructors outside of class[STUFAC]

FACIDEAS Never 374 46.9 50,999 46.6 202,057 45.3

Sometimes 282 35.3 39,983 36.6 167,233 37.5

Often 96 12.0 13,000 11.9 54,735 12.3

Very often 47 5.8 5,360 4.9 22,380 5.0

Total 799 100.0 109,342 100.0 446,405 100.0

4o. Received prompt feedback (written ororal) from instructors on your performance[STUFAC]

FACFEED Never 94 11.8 8,401 7.7 33,769 7.5

Sometimes 288 35.9 37,819 34.5 153,505 34.3

Often 295 36.8 42,600 38.9 174,546 39.0

Very often 126 15.6 20,704 18.9 85,527 19.1

Total 803 100.0 109,524 100.0 447,347 100.0

4q. Worked with instructors on activitiesother than coursework [STUFAC]

FACOTH Never 506 63.9 76,439 70.3 306,729 69.1

Sometimes 196 24.8 22,234 20.5 93,443 21.1

Often 64 8.1 7,336 6.7 31,607 7.1

Very often 26 3.3 2,706 2.5 12,080 2.7

Total 792 100.0 108,714 100.0 443,860 100.0

29



[Weighted]Support for Learners (SUPPORT)

11JUN12


Your College

Large Colleges

2012 Cohort

52.1 48.8 50.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

30







[Weighted]

Support for Learners (SUPPORT)



EffectSize**



9b. Providing the support you need to help you succeed at this college[SUPPORT]

ENVSUPRT 3.00 2.97 3.00

9c. Encouraging contact among students from different economic, social, andracial or ethnic backgrounds [SUPPORT]

ENVDIVRS 2.67 2.56 2.55

9d. Helping you cope with your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.)[SUPPORT]

ENVNACAD 2.15 1.95 0.21** 1.97

9e. Providing the support you need to thrive socially [SUPPORT] ENVSOCAL 2.23 2.16 2.19

9f. Providing the financial support you need to afford your education [SUPPORT] FINSUPP 2.46 2.50 2.56


1 = Rarely/Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often (Don't know/N.A. category not included in means calculations)

13.1a. Academic advising/planning [SUPPORT] USEACAD 1.78 1.75 1.79

13.1b. Career counseling [SUPPORT] USECACOU 1.60 1.42 0.30** 1.44 0.26**

31

page 18 - 11JUN12





[Weighted]

Support for Learners (SUPPORT)




9b. Providing the support you need to helpyou succeed at this college [SUPPORT]

ENVSUPRT Very little 58 7.4 5,817 5.3 22,332 5.0

Some 160 20.3 25,004 23.0 98,124 22.1

Quite a bit 293 37.4 44,794 41.1 182,274 41.0

Very much 274 34.9 33,269 30.6 142,022 31.9

Total 785 100.0 108,885 100.0 444,752 100.0

9c. Encouraging contact among studentsfrom different economic, social, and racial orethnic backgrounds [SUPPORT]

ENVDIVRS Very little 134 17.1 18,673 17.2 77,020 17.4

Some 198 25.3 33,771 31.2 139,177 31.4

Quite a bit 241 30.8 32,723 30.2 131,440 29.7

Very much 209 26.8 23,239 21.4 95,188 21.5

Total 783 100.0 108,405 100.0 442,824 100.0

9d. Helping you cope with yournon-academic responsibilities (work, family,etc.) [SUPPORT]

ENVNACAD Very little 268 34.3 43,832 40.4 174,218 39.3

Some 250 31.9 36,191 33.4 148,901 33.6

Quite a bit 146 18.7 18,561 17.1 77,046 17.4

Very much 118 15.1 9,820 9.1 42,602 9.6

Total 782 100.0 108,404 100.0 442,767 100.0

9e. Providing the support you need to thrivesocially [SUPPORT]

ENVSOCAL Very little 222 28.2 30,226 28.0 118,235 26.8

Some 272 34.4 41,644 38.6 170,235 38.6

Quite a bit 183 23.2 24,538 22.7 102,348 23.2

Very much 112 14.2 11,483 10.6 49,696 11.3

Total 790 100.0 107,892 100.0 440,515 100.0

9f. Providing the financial support you needto afford your education [SUPPORT]

FINSUPP Very little 201 25.8 26,147 24.2 97,946 22.2

Some 202 25.9 28,382 26.3 112,476 25.5

Quite a bit 196 25.1 26,953 25.0 114,833 26.0

Very much 181 23.2 26,529 24.6 116,194 26.3

Total 780 100.0 108,011 100.0 441,450 100.0


13.1a. Academic advising/planning[SUPPORT]

USEACAD Don't know/N.A. 122 15.7 8,345 7.8 33,929 7.8

Rarely/Never 259 33.4 38,150 35.8 146,208 33.6

Sometimes 279 36.0 46,132 43.3 192,330 44.2

Often 115 14.9 13,892 13.0 62,490 14.4

Total 775 100.0 106,519 100.0 434,957 100.0

13.1b. Career counseling [SUPPORT] USECACOU Don't know/N.A. 163 21.1 21,618 20.4 87,836 20.3

Rarely/Never 321 41.7 55,019 51.9 220,437 50.9

Sometimes 209 27.2 23,460 22.1 98,846 22.8

Often 77 10.0 5,839 5.5 25,634 5.9

Total 770 100.0 105,937 100.0 432,753 100.0

32


Appendix E

Factors that Influence Staffing Needs

Factors1

1. Changing demands in State and Federal reporting

2. Changing demands of Accreditation (i.e., proficiency and Sustainable Continuous Quality Improvement)

3. Basic aid/ Community Supported Status

4. Allocation model

5. Measure G

6. Increase in student headcount (Skyline College now has largest enrollment in SMCCCD)

7. District changes (i.e., Payment Plan, Credential Solutions)

8. Contracts are restrictive – precludes flexibility

9. Education Code restrictions on hiring short-term hourly on a regular basis

10. Demographic changes in the Student population

11. Changes to CSU & UC requirements

12. Impact of rising cost of education on composition of student population

13. Completion by Design, Federal Financial Aid, SB 1440 requiring AATs by 2014

14. Level of commitment to participatory governance

15. Contractual issues

1 List of internal and external factors generated at T3S Meeting, 11.15.12

Resources

CHAPTER 2: Administration ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE NO. 2.10.1 (AP 7120)

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE San Mateo County Community College District

Subject: 2.10.1 Selection Procedures Revision Date: 11/12 References: Education Code Sections 70901.2, 70901(b)(7), 70901(d), 87100 et seq., 87360,

87400 and 88003; Accreditation Standard III.A The District has established selection procedures for the various categories of employment, as follows:

1. Chancellor Selection Procedures:

https://sharepoint.smccd.edu/SiteDir ectory/portal/Human%20Resources/Selection%20Procedures/Ch ancellor%20Selection%20Procedures%20Draft%207-05.pdf

2. College Presidents Selection Procedures:

https://sharepoint.smccd.edu/SiteDirectory/portal/Human%20Resources/Selection%20Procedures/Col lege%20President%20Selection%20Procedures%203-2010.pdf

3. Faculty Selection Procedures:

https://sharepoint.smccd.edu/SiteDirectory/portal/Human%20Resources/Selection%20Procedures/Fac ulty_Selection_Procedures_5-04.pdf

4. Administrative and Classified Staff Selection Procedures:

https://sharepoint.smccd.edu/SiteDirectory/portal/Human%20Resources/Selection%20Procedures/Cla ssif%20Mgmt%20Selection%20Procedures%2009-07.pdf

5. For further information, also see Procedure 2.20, Equal Employment Opportunity.

https://sharepoint.smccd.edu/SiteDirectory/portal/Human%20Resources/Selection%20Procedures/Chancellor%20Selection%20Procedures%20Draft%207-05.pdf



https://sharepoint.smccd.edu/SiteDirectory/portal/Human%20Resources/Selection%20Procedures/College%20President%20Selection%20Procedures%203-2010.pdf



https://sharepoint.smccd.edu/SiteDirectory/portal/Human%20Resources/Selection%20Procedures/Faculty_Selection_Procedures_5-04.pdf



https://sharepoint.smccd.edu/SiteDirectory/portal/Human%20Resources/Selection%20Procedures/Classif%20Mgmt%20Selection%20Procedures%2009-07.pdf




Appendix F Overview of the Faculty Obligation Number (FON)

.

When AB1725 passed in 1989, it included the intent of the legislature to have the

community college system reach the goal of having 75% of its credit instruction taught by full-

time faculty members. (Title 5, California Code of Regulations). To accomplish this, the

legislation directed the California Community Colleges Board of Governors (BOG) to adopt a

process to meet the intent. The BOG instead adopted regulations that set a formula for

determining the full-time “Faculty Obligation Number” (FON). In doing so, it did not preclude

colleges from hiring more part-time faculty. Consequently, while the number of full-time faculty

may increase, the actual percentage of credit instruction taught by full-time faculty may decrease

if colleges hire more part-time faculty while also hiring more full-time faculty. None-the-less,

each year districts are required to meet their FON if the BOG suspends the growth obligation

because it has determined that adequate growth fund, cost of living adjustment funds, and/ or

funds for other core programs have been provided to allow for full or partial implementation of

the full-time faculty hiring obligations specified for districts in section 51025 of title 5,

California Code of Regulations.4 The growth obligation for the FON has been suspended in

2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.

Districts are required to identify their FON using the formula that takes into

consideration the Full-time Equivalent Faculty in instruction. Districts may comply with the

4 Troy, D. Consultation Digest, Chancellors Office of California Community Colleges, October 20, 2011


FON obligation by either maintaining the quantity of full-time faculty in the previous years,

reduced for any enrollment decline; or maintaining the percentage of full-time faculty in the

previous year. Full-time faculty overload is excluded from the calculation. Full-time faculty

sabbatical is included and part-time replacements are excluded. Full-time faculty unpaid leave is

included and part-time replacements are excluded.5 Over the recent decade, the San Mateo

County Community College District FON has fluctuated between 67% and 72.5%. This number

is not calculated for individual colleges.

If the district does not meet the FON, a replacement cost is assessed. This amount is

approximately $60,289 per full-time faculty member below the obligation. It is not known how

basic aid districts are impacted by failure to meet the FON because there is no apportionment

from which to deduct the assessment. Shadow FON numbers are maintained in order to consider

possible staffing implications should the BOG fail to suspend the FON each year and should

SMCCD fall out of basic aid.

Fall 2012 (Potential) District Frozen FON Shadow FON

(Recal 1/09) FT Faculty Actual 11/11

Calculated Advance

Info only P-1

Compliance Potential

SMCCD 338.8 359.8 324.4 387.8 369.8 338.8

For planning purposes, we can see that the SMCCCD may be in the position of having to

hire approximately 64 new full-time faculty positions in order to comply. Despite the suspension

of the FON, Skyline College has maintained a commitment to achieving and maintaining a full-

time faculty corps. The gradual introduction of new faculty each year not only minimized a 5 Walton, I, Academic Senate for California Community Colleges Rostrum, March 2004


dramatic impact on the FON; but more so, introduces new talent and ideas into the academy. It

maintains a corps of faculty that can engage in faculty leadership activities, curriculum activities,

curriculum vitalization, teaching, interdisciplinary collaboration, engagement in student

activities, and engagement in professional activities that support the integrity of the instruction

and services.


Appendix G

Staff Levels and the Allocation of Resources

Discussion/Draft Proposal for New Resource Allocation3/1/2013 0:00

Canada CSM Skyline Total

2012/13 Allocation Current Model 16,286,933$ 27,927,242$ 28,019,676$ 72,233,851$

Minimum Staffing

Admin & Non-instructional 2,955,539$ 3,056,771$ 2,873,200$ 8,885,510$

FT Faculty Instructional 74,377$ 94,782$ 71,580$ 240,739$

1310 3,430,853$ 5,526,040$ 7,755,366$ 16,712,259$

New FT Faculty Instructional -$ -$ 471,179$ 471,179$

Release/Reassigned Time 521,239$ 803,817$ 721,011$ 2,046,067$

Library/Learning Resource Center 96,342$ 141,041$ 206,172$ 443,556$

Vocational Programs 78,738$ 96,142$ 238,006$ 412,887$

Counseling 372,108$ 805,723$ 732,946$ 1,910,777$

New Counseling 52,741$ 41,796$ 94,536$

Staffing Allocations 43% 7,581,938$ 10,524,316$ 13,111,257$ 31,217,511$

Remaining available to allocate 57% 41,016,340$

FTES Goals 4,237 7,299 7,985

Percentage 22% 37% 41%

FTES-Based allocation 8,901,364$ 15,336,757$ 16,778,219$ 41,016,340$

Total Revised Allocation 16,483,302$ 25,861,073$ 29,889,476$ 72,233,851$

Change from Current Proposed Alloc 196,369$ (2,066,169)$ 1,869,800$ 0$


Appendix H Skyline College Strategic Plan for 2012-2017

SKYLINE COLLEGE

S

STRATEGIC PLAN2012-2017

Skyline College Mission:To emplower and transform a global community of learners.

STRATEGIC PLANEmpowering and transforming the lives of a global community of learners calls for a strategic focus and priority setting. Skyline College has put forth its best thinking as we translate the mission, goals and strategic directions of San Mateo Community College District and Skyline College into meaningful programs and services that meet the community’s needs for social, cultural, economic and educational fulfillment. The six strategic priorities upon which Skyline College will focus over the next five years follow.

1 FACILITIES & TECHNOLOGYSkyline College will identify and scale technology-enabled approaches and upgraded facilities to improve teach-ing and learning. This strategic priority will extend our reach and multiply the benefit of interactive digital research and learning support through expanding our technological capacity. We will have the ability to focus on digital and web services and support for students, faculty and staff (eBooks, eAudio, eMagazines, online services for tutoring and supporting learning) shift our focus to web enhanced services across the college. Examples include:

• Online Learning Center (BG-3, BG-4, DSP-2.3c, SCG-4)• Library/Learning Resource Center• Technology Enhanced Classrooms• Electronic Signboard• Building 2• Building 1• Building 5

2 STUDENT SERVICESSkyline College will expand and enhance Student Services programs through innovation and the seamless delivery of services. This strategic priority includes intentional and systematic approaches that build strong collaborations with K-12 and four-year partners using the cohort model, non-traditional strategies to support veterans, military personnel and their families, and seamless linkages between instructional programs, job placement services and, business and industry. Examples include:

• Job Placement and Follow up (SCG-6)• Transfer (SCG-1)• The Skyline College Promise (BG-3, SCG-1)• Veterans Resource Center (pathway for vets) (BG-3, SCG-1)• Student Success Initiatives (BG-4, SCG-1)

3 EQUITY & EXCELLENCESkyline College will develop and strengthen relationships both domestic and international to ensure excellence in practice for an increasingly diverse student population. This strategic priority will increase the number of international students through innovative outreach and increased capacity initiatives (e.g. residential agreements). Additionally, there will be a strong focus on improving student outcomes through a dedicated professional development center inquiry center, where research

will serve as the foundation for improving institutional practice. Examples include:

• International Students/Study Abroad (BG-8, DSP-3.1f, SCG-8)• Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning (Professional Development) (BG-7, DSP-4.5a, DSP-4.5b)• Center for Transformative Inquiry (research) (BG-7, DSP-5.1c, SCG-2)• Sustainability Initiative (BG-6, SCG-6)

4 COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY CONNECTIONSkyline College will engage in a comprehensive initiative to strengthen the community connections. This initiative will include an overarching outreach strategy that includes the development of a middle college and expanding concurrent enrollment. Finally, we will begin the discussions on the feasibility and benefits of a Vista Creative Arts Complex. Examples include:

a. Community on Campus (BG-1, SCG-3)b. Comprehensive Outreach (BG-3, DSP-2.1b, SCG-1, SCG-3)c. Concurrent Enrollment (BG-3, DSP-5.2a, SCG-1, SCG-3)d. The Skyline College Promisee. Middle College (DSP-2.2b, DSP-2.2c, SCG-1, SCG-3)f. Workforce/Business & Industry Connections (BG-1, SCG-4, SCG-4)g. Vista Creative Arts Complex (initial conversations) (DSP-12.a, SCG-3)

5 INSTRUCTIONSkyline College will build on the strong educational foundations and college goals by enhancing accessibility, leading in workforce programs supporting the region, and providing learning opportunities that prepare students for their future. Skyline College faculty and staff keep abreast of emerging fields of study and engage in connecting academic programming with the needs of our students and community. Examples include:

• College for Working Adults (BG-3, SCG-6)• Service Learning (BG-3, SCG-3)• Acceleration Project (BG-3, SCG-1, SCG-3)• New Programs (BG-1, SCG-1, SCG-3, SCG-4) a. ASL Interpreter Training b. Urban Music Academy c. Anesthesiology Certificate d. Journalism e. Art/Digital Imagery f. Digital Photography g. Teacher Prep Institute

6 FISCAL STABILITY / RESOURCE DEVELOPMENTSkyline College will maintain fiscal stability through strategic integrated planning and resource allocation and development. This strategic priority strives to maintain the sound fiscal health of the institution through a balanced general fund budget with a built-in reserve, ongoing resource

development and revenue generation. The college aims to provide stable funding to be able to create permanent classified and administrator positions as well as develop initiatives to meet student and community needs. Examples include:

• Reserve for Contingency (BG-1, SCG-5, SCG-7)• Alternative Revenue Streams a. Grants Infrastructure (BG-1, DSP-4.1c, SCG-4) b. Facilities Rental (BG-1, DSP-4.1c, SCG-5) c. International Students Program (BG-1, BG-8, DSP-3.1f, SCG-8)

BG = BOARD GOAL

DSP = DISTRICT STRATEGIC PLAN RECOMMENDATION

SCG = SKYLINE COLLEGE GOAL

LEGEND:


Appendix I

Strategic Planning in a Basic Aid Environment

Board Study Session

March 13, 2013

Basic Aid ◦ Opportunities/Risks

Strategic Initiatives ◦ District Wide

◦ College of San Mateo

◦ Cañada College

◦ Skyline College

Next Steps

Being Basic Aid does not mean we are wealthy

SMCCCD receives less per student than every school district in the county, even revenue limit districts

$ per FTES or ADA

SMCCCD $5,242

Lowest School $5,509

Highest School $12,637

SMCCCD receives less per credit FTES than West Kern CCD – a revenue limit district.

Revenue per credit

FTES

SMCCCD $5,242

West Kern

$6,399

Difference $976 or 18% less

Opportunities ◦ Support our definition of student success

◦ Mix of community ed/credit classes

◦ More supportive services

◦ Can have smaller classes

◦ Not “chasing WSCH”

◦ Our own program mix

◦ No penalties for certain issues

Risks ◦ Can we “fall out” of Basic Aid?

State revenues increase bucket gets bigger

Legislation attacks basic aid districts

Consolidation of categorical programs into revenue limit

◦ Keep FTES at or above state-funded level

◦ Be vigilant about legislation

While we still need to complete reports and follow rules, we can in the most part define who we are and how we operate:

KEEP THE COMMUNITY IN COMMUNITY COLLEGE!

Accreditation Community Needs Survey ◦ Survey complete, now doing focus groups with

businesses; high schools still to come

International Students ◦ Recruitment and marketing ◦ Development of infrastructure

Additional funding ◦ Renewal of Parcel Tax ◦ Capital Outlay Bond ◦ Certificates of Participation

Develop a highly integrated and coordinated structure for student success: ◦ Execute the High School Transition Initiative ◦ Further develop and institutionalize programs to address

the achievement gap ◦ Build professional development capacity – SOTL Center.

Revitalize CTE

Develop a comprehensive community connection: ◦ Address lifelong learning needs ◦ “Bring the gown to the town”

Build distance education capacity

Globalize the curriculum

Build grant and development capacity

Four strategic directions ◦ Teaching and Learning

◦ Completion

◦ Community Connections

◦ Global and Sustainable

Initiatives ◦ University Center

◦ International Students

◦ Student/Community Classes

Facilities and Technology ◦ Online Learning Center

Equity and Excellence ◦ Center for Transformative

Teaching & Learning (CTTL) ◦ International Students/Study

Abroad

Instruction ◦ Digital Art, Teacher Prep

Academy, Urban Music Academy, ASL Trainer

Student Services ◦ The Skyline Promise

◦ Veterans Center

Community Connection ◦ Middle College

◦ Concurrent Enrollment

Resource Development ◦ Grants Infrastructure

◦ Facilities Rental Program

Transition to Basic Aid and from a legacy resource allocation model

Community Needs Survey Results and Discussion

Accreditation Discussions

Define Student Success locally

Set Priorities and Goals

Revise District Strategic Plan accordingly


Appendix J

Strategic Priorities Staffing for Student Success for 2012-2017

Strategic Priorities Staffing for Student Success

Presented to Chancellor Galatolo

& the Executive Team

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Strategic Priorities Facilities & Technology

Student Services

Equity & Excellence

Community Connections

Instructional Programming

Resource Development

CTTL

Distance Education

Learning

Commons

Student Success and Completion

Initiative

Accreditation

Global Learning Initiative

Visual Comm

Web

Skyline Promise

CTE

Work Force Development

Facilities

Grants

Development

CTTL - Online Education Learning Commons Vision

Hub of innovation and professional development and for online education • Learning Room • Talking wall • Instructional

Designers/Technologist

Library of the Future: • digital repositories • digital support, with • open work space, • computers • media stations • online research

support and tutoring

Technology CTTL

Learning Commons

Year 1-2 Year 3-4 Dean, Learning Technology

Instructional Technologist

Director – Learning Commons

Coordinator, The Learning Center (yr 2)

CTTL Coordinator

DE Coordinator/Instructional Designer

OAII – TLC OAII - CTTL

Division Assistant

IAII – Learning Center

Career & Technical Education Workforce Education Vision

Build on existing infrastructure Recognized as leader in Career Technology Strong Infrastructure built with grants • Energy and sustainability • Tourism – Sector Navigator for the state • Allied health • Biotechnology/ Bioinformatics • Automotive Hybrid Technology

InstructionCareer/Technical EducationWorkforce Development

Year 1‐2 Year 3‐4CWD Dir 50% (I) CWD Dir 100% (I)

Faculty Coordinator (WIB, Int. Business, Energy) 50% (I)

Faculty Coordinator (WIB, Int. Business, Energy) 100% (I)

Asst Proj Director PSC – CWD (I)

OAII ‐ CWD

PSC –CTEPSC ‐ LA

PSC‐Biotech/Allied HealthPSC ‐ CAA

Faculty Faculty

International Programs Vision

Integrating administration of program development and implementation allowing the college to seamlessly support students, faculty, and the college community. • International Students (recruitment, retention, completion, campus

programming) • Center for International Trade Development • Global Learning Initiative

• Faculty and student exchange • Study and Travel Abroad (revenue generation model) • International University & Business Partners

• African Diaspora

InternationalInternational

Programming VisionYear 1‐2 Year 3‐4

Dean‐ Global Learning/International Programs (I)

Global Learning Initiative Program Services Coordinator

Study Abroad Director

Division Assistant Program Services Coordinator

OA – II Int’l Program

A&R Assistant II

Program ServicesCoordinator, English Learning Institute

OA‐II Lang. Arts

Community Connections Visual Communications

• Community support for the college • Effective marketing and outreach • Technological connections and resources / accurate and

technologically advanced Web presence • Building and rebuilding awareness of the college

Community Connections Middle College & Skyline College Promise

Increase College Completion Addresses Assessment and Placement Issues Provides Defined Pathway to Completion Focus on Historically Underrepresented

Students Increases College Going Rates

Community Connection

Visual Communications Middle College & Skyline Promise

Year 1-2 Year 3-4 VCC – Graphic Artist

Staff Assistant

Content Coordinator

SP/MC Project Director

Student Success & Completion Initiative • An intentional response to the Skyline College’s student access, affordability, success and

completion agenda.

• To broaden student achievement and engagement as a result of data collected from Balanced Scorecard, CCSSE, Noel-Levitz and ARC. These positions will support the following:

• Skyline College Promise • Middle College • Transfer Initiative • Job Placement and Follow-up Services • The Global Institute • Student Success Initiatives • Veterans Resource Services • Comprehensive Outreach Services

Student SupportYear 1‐2 Year 3‐4

Dean, Student Support Services

Division Assistant

Director of SparkPoint (I)

Director of SparkPoint (I)

Program Services Coordinator,‐SparkPoint (I)

Program Services Coordinators,‐SparkPoint (I), Outreach (I), Veterans(I)

Office Assistant II, SparkPoint (I)

Office Assistant II, SparkPoint (I)

Director, Student Support Services

Program Services Coordinator, StudentSupport Services

Office Assistant II, ESCProgram Services Coordinator‐Outreach

Meas. G Positions (I)

Fiscal Infrastructure Vision Fiscal Stability • Increased complexity – compliance with Ed Code, GAAP,

accreditation • Expanded areas of responsibility • Accounting oversight Grants development • Positive image & reputation through partnerships with

college districts, industry, funders including foundations Facilities Rentals and Events Coordination • Tap revenue generating opportunities while establishing

strategic relationships with business, industry & community

Fiscal Stability & Resource

Development Resource Development:

Grants and Facilities

Year 1-2 Year 3-4

Vice President, Administrative Affairs

Administrative Assistant

Accountant

Grant Writer

Facilities – Event Coordinator

Accreditation Infrastructure Vision

Develop the Office of Planning, Research & Institutional Effectiveness to serve as the central office for accreditation. • Develop, maintain, and integrate all planning,

assessment, and research requirements. • Document, publish, and communicate institutional

processes and practices. • Inform and coordinate institutional efforts to meet

accreditation standards.

Excellence Accreditation

Year 1-2 Year 3-4

Planning Specialist

Staff Assistant

Institutional Effectiveness Coordinator

Additional • Electronic

signs

• Instructional Equipment

Thank You

Date post:	07-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Skyline College Human Resource Plan: Staffing for Student ... · E. Factors that Influence Staffing...

Documents