View Document - ARC Institutional Governance Online Repository (IGOR)

Meeting Notes

NAME OF COUNCIL/TEAM: Institutional Effectiveness Council
OBJECTIVE OF MEETING: Monthly Institutional Effectiveness Council (IEC) meeting
DATE OF MEETING: 04/04/2025 TIME: 1:00pm		LOCATION/ROOM #: https://lrccd.zoom.us/j/87220889265 CALL-IN NUMBER: CALL-IN CODE:
FACILITATOR(S): Brenda Valles and Jeff Sacha
ASSISTANT:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
INVITED GUEST(S): Aaron Bradford (ARC Curriculum Committee Chair)
SUPPORTING RESOURCES (ITEMS READ IN PREPARATION FOR AND/OR BROUGHT TO MEETING):
Attached Files: 2022-25 Institutional Effectiveness Council Charter Updates on CCN, Cal-GETC, Local GE Spring 2025 (IEC) CCN Phases I-III (Cumulative Changes)
UPDATES AND BRIEF REPORTS:
Topic	Person(s) Responsible	Notes
Welcome and Introducitons	Jeff Sacha
Vision Aligned Reporting (VAR) Transition for ARC Preparations for the VAR transition will be discussed for student support service data collection/entry. Implications for accreditation will be discussed, as well.	Jeff Sacha/Diana Lopez	1. ARC has applied to be part of the VAR Academy (10 college learning community program) and will hear back on April 23rd 2. VAR is a State Chancellor’s Office initiative that focuses on these outcomes: i. making equity gains, ii. increasing degree and certificate attainment, iii. increasing transfers to four-year institutions, iv. reducing students’ excess unit accumulation and v. securing gainful employment. 3. Activity-level data needs to be collected by each program i. How many students are being served and in which ways (can be linked with demographic data) ii. Narrative portion, as well (due in Dec of 2025) iii. Not replacing any data collection, but is being done in addition to it iv. Challenges expected in the first year 4. Diana Garcia: most of the programs in this pilot stage is under her office i. Looking at what are we doing with current reporting and how/when can we use similar data in the VAR system ii. How do we utilize our SARs system (and reason codes) so that they match existing data reports and VAR? iii. Expanding to all campus offices is a potential direction (to go campus wide) iv. What are the actual services that are happening and what are the impacts?
Program Review Update Summary of area presentations from this week	Veronica Lopez	Wednesday, April 2nd, 1- 3pm and Thursday, 3rd, 1- 3pm: Presentations recorded - Need to figure out where to post videos ○ Feedback? Presentations: ○ Theatre Arts ○ ITC ○ Philosophy ○ ESL ○ Engineering ○ Political Science ○ Certified Nurse Assistant ○ Horticulture ● No submissions ○ Career and Pathways Support Center ○ Electrician Trainee Program ○ Horticulture ● Postponed* ○ Business and Computer Science Lab *Considering creating a process for requesting postponing (AUP & PR). Centralize access to information and provide documentation Annual Unit Plan ● More AUP’s being submitted ● Being edited: ○ Chemistry ○ Electrician Trainee Program ○ Language & Communication ● Pending submissions: ○ Automotive Collision & Diesel ○ Business ○ Business and Computer Science Lab ○ Business, Marketing, Real Estate, Management ○ Career and Pathways Support Center ○ Career Education & Workforce Development ○ Center for Leadership Development ○ Fitness ○ Gerontology ○ Healthcare Interpreting ○ Honors ○ Horticulture ○ Humanities (Religious Studies) ○ International Students Program ○ Kinesiology & Athletics ○ People, Culture & Society ○ Public Service ○ Respiratory Care ○ Social Justice Studies ○ STEM, Math ○ Theater Arts
ACTION ITEMS:
Question	Person(s) Responsible	Notes and Decision(s)	Next Steps
First Read Review of the Institutional Effectiveness Charter (see attachment in supporting materials: We are tasked, as a Council, to make recommended changes to the current IEC charter. This includes the membership, purview, and processes of our Council. Any and all recommendations will be considered from Council members. The intention is to recharter the IEC at the May 12th Executive Leadership Team (ELT) meeting. The plan is to run the new charter (along with any proposed changes) by the Academic Senate at its April 10th meeting.	Jeff Sacha	0	The first page looks good, no big need for change (Adam) i. Agreed (Jeff M) ii. Think about grouping/streamlining some of the 11 bullet-points Took a first-pass at reviewing/editing using broad categories/headers i. Agreed (Vero) and especially when it comes to student representation, need to clarify 9+1 (and 10+1) to students a. Clarify IEC purview Organizational piece: i. Specific duties and/or outcomes (specify the differences) 1. Members of the committee from constituency X are responsible for Y 2. What is the role of the chair you sit in? Help organize the membership list (20 feels like a lot to some folks) 1. Can we go line-by-line? 2. Organize it by terms and timelines (to make sure they are updated and clear); don’t want the whole Council transitioning at the same time. i. We seem to be short on a classified member, 2 faculty, and a management rep 1. Need to do better at recruiting 2. Is having a smaller team better? ii. Student rep also missing (Sumiah's point) 1. Need to push to have a student (at least one) iii. Clearly demarcate whose job it is to handle membership and recruitment iv. The list isn’t a mandate (“currently comprised” is not a mandate) 1. Can we go through and see which positions are no longer applicable? 2. We need a student on the committee a. ASB representative? b. Current student senator? c. There should be a process, but it should be their own process i. "assigned or appointed by their respective representative bodies (Management Team, Academic Senate, Classified Senate, and Associated Student Body)" 3. Jessica may leave IEC to move to SSC, which will necessitate a new Counselling rep i. Draft a Google Document ii. Clearly spell out who is here (including areas of representation) to get a better sense of who is not represented; Get a sense of who is not here/present 4. Need to review the links in the Charter (ARC Strategic Plan; Educational Master Plan; Institutional Equity Plan)

DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Question	Person(s) Responsible	Notes and Next Steps
Updates from the Academic Senate's Curriculum Committee: How to institutionalize/normalize curriculum review in the Program Review process. Common course numbering update CalGETC update Local GE changes College- and District-wide catalog review	Aaron Bradford (guest)	High-level take-aways: • Students might have trouble or confusion registering for Fall 2025 classes in the wake of the Common Course Numbering process • The Curriculum Committee has (or is considering??) removing all advisory classes from existing course descriptions?? • The Research Office, and other constituency groups like Counselling, Student Senate, and the Union, badly need to be looped into this update. There are massive implications for each of these groups. During the IEC meeting, co-chair Aaron Bradford and articulation officer Megan Bevins provided an in-depth overview of Common Course Numbering (CCN) implementation. They explained that the CCC Chancellor’s Office has mandated alignment of course numbers across the system for transfer-level courses, beginning with English, Math, and Communication, and now expanding into more disciplines in Phases 2B and 3. However, progress has slowed at the state level, with delays in receiving updated naming conventions and templates. Meanwhile, local colleges are being told to prepare proactively. A central concern raised was that Curriculum Committees are not receiving timely or clear communication about these changes. As a result, there is confusion about what to revise, when to revise it, and how to ensure that revised courses remain in compliance with both local standards and state-mandated CCN templates. Megan Bevins highlighted the risk of colleges implementing changes prematurely or inconsistently, leading to misalignment with catalog deadlines or with the DO (District Office) standards. There was also concern that overly restrictive or outdated advisories, like “eligibility for ENGRD 310,” create barriers to access and equity. Megan Bevins emphasized that these language-based advisories are not regulatory requirements and often do not reflect the real preparation students need. She encouraged the Council to consider supporting an institution-wide conversation on removing such advisories. Finally, the Council discussed the idea of formalizing a standing research request to validate whether these advisories correlate with student success—ensuring changes are data-driven and equitable. Potential Asks from from Curriculum and Articulation to the IEC Formalize a Standing Research Request Process There was discussion about establishing a consistent, standing protocol for Institutional Research to investigate high-impact curricular issues—like the actual impact of advisories (e.g., “eligibility for ENGRD 310”) on student success. Why? Because these advisories may be outdated and unequally enforced, and their role in gatekeeping access (especially for ESL and equity populations) hasn’t been systematically studied at ARC. Potential Ask to IEC: Help establish a recurring or requestable research framework that can be activated by groups like the Curriculum Committee or articulation officers when policy decisions need to be backed by institutional data—especially since the Curriculum Committee doesn’t have ready access to in-depth data analytics. Support and Accelerate Alignment Conversations With Common Course Numbering (CCN) in limbo statewide, Aaron was signaling the need for the IEC to convene or support structured local conversations about what ARC wants to do proactively. Potential Ask to IEC: Help host or support cross-campus conversations—especially with departments most impacted by Phase 2B/3—to ensure CCN is rolled out strategically rather than reactively. Clarify What Equity Means in Curricular Language Aaron also raised the example of “eligibility for ENGRD 310” as an equity barrier—but he stopped short of calling for a formal recommendation to eliminate it. Potential Ask to IEC: Consider whether the Council is the right body to make recommendations on retiring outdated advisories that act as gatekeepers and don’t reflect current placement or support structures.

ITEMS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION:
Topic		Contact Person
NA

Notes - Approved

Meeting Notes