Community Colleges of Ventura County
FUTURES FORUM
March 17, 2000
After coffee and snacks, the meeting began at 9:15 a.m. Elton Hall welcomed participants and thanked them for coming. Elton then reviewed the agenda, noting that the day divided into three major parts: (1) a Parker Palmer learning experience, (2) a presentation of the Baldrige criteria by Burt Peachy with an activity to see how they are applied to institutional performance, and (3) time for Task Force meetings and work.
Elton distributed a sheet with two quotations from Parker Palmer’s writings. One quotation dealt with organizations and the other with individuals. He then asked participants to take few minutes to reflect on the quotations and note how they individually connected the two thoughts. The sheet is reproduced here.
Parker Palmer
Parker
Palmer believes that institutional transformation is necessary for
institutional life and service. He
writes:
Organizations represent
the principle of order and conservation: they are the vessels in which a
society holds hard-won treasures from the past. Movements represent the principle of flux and change: they are
the processes through which a society changes its energies for renewal and transformation. A healthy society will encourage interplay
between the two. (The Courage to Teach, p. 164.)
But Palmer also believes that such transformation
cannot be separated from individual transformation, what he calls acting (and
teaching) from one's "identity and integrity" rather than from the
masks we don, the hurt and fear we feel, or the expectations and demands
imposed by others. In Let Your Life Speak, he calls acting
from our identity and integrity "listening to the voice of
vocation." He writes:
True self, when violated, will always
resist us, sometimes at great cost, holding our lives in check until we honor
its truth….Vocation does not mean a goal that I pursue. It means a calling that I hear. Before I can tell my life what I want to do
with it, I must listen to my life telling me who I am….there is a great gulf
between the way my ego wants to identify me, with its protective masks and
self-serving fictions, and my true self.
(Let Your Life Speak, pp. 4-5.)
Notice:
the first quotation about organizations could be applied to individuals; the
second quote about individuals could be applied to organizations.
Futures
Forum sees the vocation of CCVC as being a learning-centered institution--that,
Futures Forum has agreed, is the identity and integrity of CCVC. If so, we need to ask:
How do I
connect the transformation required of CCVC
with the
transformation required of me?
And how can
Futures Forum and CCVC help make this connection?
Provide a brief answer below:
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Burt then asked anyone who wished to share their thoughts to do so, and a number of people indicated what they wrote. Following are the ten comments people volunteered to share. Several others spoke to the point as well.
Burt provided a Power Point presentation on the Baldrige criteria, including the goals the criteria seek to achieve, the organizations involved in expanding use of the criteria, the criteria and what they mean, and the ways in which they are implemented. The following remarks come from that presentation.
Burt also indicated some resources individuals might use to gain more understanding of the Baldrige criteria, its use and future plans for making Baldrige an option in accreditation.
North Central: Baldrige Accreditation
This site will allow anyone interested to see what the northern Midwest’s community college accrediting agency is beginning to do. North Central has taken the lead nationally in developing Baldrige as an accreditation option.
Cuesta College/ Baldrige application
Cuesta College has experimented with the Baldrige approach, and their application is on line. As often happens with complex institutions, finding the application takes a little hunting. But try this: go to website, then go to Faculty & Staff; go to Institutional Services, go to the button on that screen, and, finally, go to Baldrige.
This is another site for seeing what is happening with Baldrige, as described in what follows.
Burt indicated that the National Quality Program give the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, and is governed by the National Institute for Standards and Technology. In addition, there is the CQIN Pacesetter Award, which operates on three levels of difficulty and is administered by educators. Several members of CCVC have gone through the Pacesetter program and are trained in it. The Pacesetter Award for Performance Excellence, open to all segments of society, is an annual recognition modeled after the Baldrige national process. Participants include manufacturing, service, small business, education, health care, and public sector organizations. Beginning with manufacturing and business, it now includes these other areas.
The key is that participation is not prescriptive in the way accreditation standards are. There are no “musts” in the Baldrige approach, as there are in the recommendations that come out of an accreditation site visit. Baldrige requires descriptions of what one does and substantial evidence that one is doing it. The current accreditation process used by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges does not require significant data over time, and many colleges have not been very good at developing and maintaining such data. Baldrige promotes awareness of performance excellence as an important element in competitiveness and provides a framework for continuous improvement. The award promotes awareness of performance excellence, provides a framework for continuous improvement, and sharing of information on successful strategies.
A WASC accreditation report will be 8-10 pages and prescriptive in its recommendations; a Baldrige report will be 100 pages and provide detailed analyses, without prescription. Rather than expecting an enormous self-study of the kind currently produced for accreditation, in Baldrige the description of what and who an institution is must be limited to 80 pages. This requirement is designed to compel critical thinking and simple clarity about what the institution is fundamentally.
The seven Baldrige criteria are: (1) leadership, (2) strategic planning, (3) student and stakeholder focus, (4) information and analysis, (5) faculty and staff focus, (6) educational and support process management, and (7) organization performance results. The first six are criteria, and the seventh is where you document the results of applying the criteria.
Applied to educational institutions, the focus is on what is happening to ensure student success.
The benefits of the process include assessment based on a national model for performance excellence and best practices; internal self-assessment, use of criteria as a guide to continuous improvement and performance excellence; outside assessment, peer review with complete confidentiality; feedback providing strengths and opportunities for improvement; training of examiners and other volunteers in performance excellence and best practices evaluation and assessment. A crucial element is the peer review, in which the external reviewers are anonymous, going only by first name, trained in a code of ethics that includes not taking advantage of any information learned. If, however, an institution wins an award, it is then obligated to share its best practices with all. At Mt. San Antonio College, this process was not entirely anonymous, but it worked toward that. At Cuesta College, it was far more so.
Stages of developing self-assessment capacity using the Baldrige criteria are: stage one: trailblazer. Self-assessment prioritized action plan. Stage two: Pacesetter Program Accreditation Self Study. Substantial progress validation and feedback. Stage three: Baldrige National Quality Award Program. In depth assessment level of excellence.
Key education themes include linkage of education and business criteria and school performance results: student performance, student success/satisfaction, stakeholder satisfaction, school performance relative to comparable schools, effective and efficient use of resources. The focus on a 1000 point scale is students; these sections are worth 450 points.
Currently community colleges do not have good comparative data telling us how each one is doing in relation to other community colleges. Cuesta College has entered into arrangement with other community colleges to share data for this purpose.
Core values include learner-centered education, leadership, continuous improvement and organizational learning, valuing faculty and staff, partnership development, design quality and prevention, management by fact, long-range view of the future, public responsibility and citizenship. The aim is to look for root causes of problems and to eliminate them forever (not just fix a problem whenever it manifests). It takes a long-term view. And there must be demonstration of being a good partner in the community.
A systems perspective involves approach, deployment, results. Such a perspective addresses the approach (policies, processes, organizational structure), then sees how the approach is deployed and then document results.
Burt then did a brief comparison of Baldrige and WASC:
Baldrige……………………………………….WASC
Customer/student focused Internally focused
Constrant improvement toward Minimum standards
Excellence Compliance and demonstra-
Management by fact tion of capability
Trended data Anecdotal outcomes info.
Integration and Alignment Functional autonomy
Constant value-added assessement Periodic assessment
Jim Walker noted that California community colleges are not organized for ongoing tracking. How is that handled? Peachy said that Richland College (one of seven colleges in the Dallas County Community College District) has hired a Baldrige-trained faculty member full-time to work with research and with faculty to learning how to build tracking into the process.
Dennis Cabral reminded us that business was driven to such tracking by global competition; colleges have ongoing tracking experience—from exams to budget. The phenomenon is not alien to us, so we should be able to make the shift to this kind of quality tracking. Burt indicated that faculty should design the tracking process because of their experience and because the aim is to serve students. An important bonus of the Baldrige is the need to talk with extreme clarity and simplicity about what we do. Lydia Cosentino noted that the methods of tracking themselves must be examined to see what they in fact reveal to us and what they do not. Steve Arvizu said that two items have emerged out of national discussion: collegiality and whether a structure is hierarchical or relatively flat? Do we sacrifice collegiality in the need for quick response? Burt responded that this is the conundrum in our institutions. Bill Thieman noted that, in current WASC assessment, if there is an identified lack at a community college, a shorter accreditation cycle can be invoked. What happens if weak performance is detected by Baldrige criteria. Burt responded that WASC is thinking in the Baldrige option of using minivisits where necessary, with briefer reports due.
Burt then distributed an exercise designed to illustrate the Baldrige criteria in action. He presented the criteria, the points allotted to each criterion, and a place for small groups to indicate gaps they found. An abbreviated form of the exercise follows:
Baldrige Criteria |
Point Values |
Your institution’s ‘GAP’ |
|
1. Leadership 1.1 Organizational Leadership 1.2 Public Responsibility/citizenship |
Total: 125 85 40 |
|
|
2. Strategic Planning 2.1 Strategy Development 2.2 Strategy Deployment |
Total: 85 40 45 |
|
|
3. Student and Stakeholder Focus 3.1 Knowledge of Student Needs and Expectations 3.2 Student and Stakeholder Satisfac- tion and Relationships |
Total: 85 40 45 |
|
|
4. Information and Analysis 4.1 Measurement of Organizational Performance 4.2 Analysis of Organizational Performance |
Total: 85 40 45 |
|
|
5. Faculty and Staff Focus 5.1 Work Systems 5.2 Faculty and Staff Education, Training and Development 5.3 Faculty and Staff Well-Being and Satisfaction |
Total: 85 35 25 25 |
|
|
6. Educational and Support Process Management 6.1 Education Design and Delivery 6.2 Education Support Processes 6.3 Partnering Processes |
Total: 85 55 15 15 |
|
|
7. Organizational Performance Results 7.1 Student Performance Results 7.2 Student and Stakeholder Focused Results 7.3 Budgetary and Financial Results 7.4 Faculty and Staff Results 7.5 Organizational Effectiveness Results |
Total: 450 200 70 40 70 70 |
|
The exercise showed that there are many potential gaps that CCVC has not traditionally be in a position to address, or in some cases, perhaps even identify clearly. The exercise gave a feel for the kind of focus and data collection and review that would be required to deal with criteria of this nature. It also showed why an institution might want to pursue this kind of approach, and illustrated weaknesses in the traditional methods of accreditation.
After lunch, Elton reported on questions about participation. Several individuals had privately spoken with him about their concerns regarding ongoing participation in Futures Forum—both in terms of levels of participation and in terms of the commitment involved. Elton invited responses from the floor, and a number of viewpoints were expressed. Although there was no agreement on either the response to these questions or what should be done in the coming months, it seemed clear that participants recognized the need to be as inclusive in membership as possible and to understand the conflicts such commitment involves.
Phil Westin reported on Innovations 2000 and Dallas visit. At Innovations 2000, a conference sponsored by the League for Innovation, consisting of twenty lead institutions and seven hundred affiliates (including CCVC), Phil and Elton joined the League leadership, Dallas County Community College District, the Fetzer Institute, and others in discussing possibilities of pursuing a large Fetzer grant for teacher renewal.
In Dallas, Phil, Elton and Mary Jones had the opportunity to meet Parker Palmer in several settings, including a meeting to discuss teacher renewal (including CCVC’s participation), a reunion of staff from the whole DCCCD for a celebration of success, a session with Parker Palmer and students interested in becoming teachers and a day with Palmer engaged in teacher renewal itself. Elton reflected on the significance of the Dallas meeting, stating his belief that a long-term partnership will benefit both districts.
Cheryl Shearer reported on Process Facilitator training, which has completed four of five training sessions. The training cycle will begin again soon for new process facilitators. The call will go out soon for expressions of interest. Burt expressed delight in the fact that faculty are going through the process as well as others. The materials being developed constitute pioneering work for a future leadership academy. Burt explained the importance of the work of the process facilitators, and Elton remarked on the sophisticated techniques process facilitators have to employ in any kind of problem-solving meeting.
Elton announced that the internal scans task force will meet elsewhere, because the flowchart as related to internal scans needs to be fleshed out. The other task forces will work in the Cowan Center.
Burt explained the CQIN project for team leaders and the Ausgust teams. He noted that CCVC would be the first district with all its colleges in CQIN. Phil Westin has joined CQIN for the District, and Larry Calderon for Ventura College. Jim Walker is processing an application for Moorpark, and Steve Arvizu indicated his intention to join. Elton and Cheryl will attend a CQIN training session at the end of March as representatives of the District, and Diane Moore will do so as a representative of Ventura College. Carmen Guerrero has been added for Oxnard. In this way, all four locations will be able to send teams to Orlando for the CQIN experience in August.
The Task Forces set about their work. At the end of the day, each Task Force gave an oral report to Futures Forum regarding their plans and achievements. Those reports follow.
The Website/Communications Task Force is continuing to work on
different ways of communicating Futures Forum values, ideas and commitment to
Futures Forum to and among ourselves.
We are exploring the creation of bulletin Boards at all four sites and
are sponsoring a "Logo" contest for a Futures Forum Logo. Anyone can submit a "Logo" idea to
P. Scott Corbett (Scorbett@vcccd.net) or can send it to the graphic artist at
your campus or site. We will be
soliciting the assistance of those people as well. Logos must be inclusive of our collective values and our
identities and be expressive of the essence of both. We have not yet determined the "prize" the winning
design will receive, but we will try to make it something really very nice.
Elton reported to the Resources and Grants Task Force about a meeting he and Marion Boenheim had with Dr. Carol Molinari from Washington State. Dr. Molinari is a grant expert and expressed a willingness to convene some other grant experts to meet with representatives from CCVC to discuss potential funding sources and strategies for Futures Forum. Our group decided that Cheryl Shearer and Pat Caldwell could best represent us on a short trip to Washington to receive this information.
Gary Van Meter also provided the group with excellent information on potential grant sources. He suggested investigating the policies of several major companies to determine if they would be interested in making donations. He also told group members that they could receive training in grant procedures from the Ventura Community Foundation.
Cheryl also brought information on grants available through the State Chancellor's office. Gary suggested applying as a consortium of the three colleges, applying in that manner for more than the $20,000 available for individual colleges.
This task force’s goal is not only to provide funds for next year's Future Forum, but also to fund the endeavor for perhaps up to five years. During that time we may be able to develop a program through Futures Forum which would provide training for members of other campuses and businesses. The fees charged for that program may eventually provide all the funding the Futures Forum will need to sustain itself.
The External Scan
Task Force has assigned tasks to
each of its members. Three meetings have been scheduled before the next
meeting, in April, of the Futures Forum. The goal of the task force is to
provide external scan data that can be used by the colleges and the district
office for planning. The agenda for the
April 27-28 Futures Forum retreat will be distributed well in advance of the
retreat, and the task force will meet on March 21 to work out agenda details.
The Learning Design/Summer Institute Design Task Force met to develop several plans already under discussion. These plans follow:
Update on District Flex Event: The District Staff Development Committee and each location’s individual Staff Development Committee have been communicating over e-mail about this possibility. The consensus was that the idea was supported, but that a “mandatory” event would undercut the spirit of Futures Forum, undermine each campus’ unique mandatory day activities, and be a logistical nightmare in terms of finding a location. Still, several speakers were being explored to see what the possibilities might be. By the end of our Task Force Meeting, it was decided that we would hold a voluntary event—that decision will be confirmed with the locations’ Staff Development Groups before implementation.
Parker Palmer Institute for Summer: At the last meeting the idea of bringing several trainers from Dallas County Community College District to offer a Summer Learning Renewal Seminar based on Parker Palmer’s ideas was confirmed. Particulars were being investigated, but we needed to hear back from those who had a chance to visit Dallas again in the last few weeks before finalizing our plans.
Phil Westin joined our group to share a few more details about the Seminar and other activities that were observed in Dallas. The consensus was that we definitely want to proceed with this event. Future opportunities that may surface (being able to bring Parker Palmer here, for example) will only be strengthened if we get this Summer Institute up and running right now, since it is an event geared for colleagues who are not necessarily already involved with Futures Forum.
Other possibilities are under discussion, and these events have been subjected to a cost analysis. Futures Forum will have to discuss the costs, possible resources and feasibility.
The Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) Task Force has developed a student perceptions survey that will soon be distributed to selected instructors. The survey will be conducted in such a way as to guarantee that all three colleges, all disciplines, and day and evening students, are included. Thanks to the work of faculty from Oxnard College, the survey is available in Spanish as well as English. And thanks to Carolyn Inouye, the survey will go out to the colleges in about two weeks. Faculty will receive notice of this survey shortly. The cost of the survey was explained to Futures Forum, and that body agreed to fund it.
Plus/Delta
At the end of the day, the participants did a traditional plus/delta review of the day. (Plus indicates something especially appreciated or well done; delta refers to something that needs to be done or be changed.) Among the pluses were:
Burt’s pace in the work was more effective; less hyper
Felt that there was time to register what was going on.
Morning’s tension was exercise in community building and was successful
Task forces made great progress this session
Morning exercise was focusing and valuable
Natural linking of task forces
Receptivity of groups to ideas
Deltas included:
Attendance remains a problem; requires more thought
Have group that does off-site activities of Futures Forum without compromising the large group
Go through ground rules every time we begin, esp. since we get new members
Futures Forum adjourned at 3:55 p.m.