| Compliance Document > Core Requirements > 2.5 Institutional Effectiveness |
|
The institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that incorporate a systematic review of mission and goals that (a) results continuing improvement and (b) demonstrates that the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission.
X
Compliance
___Partial Compliance
___Non-Compliance Narrative
St. Petersburg College is in compliance with this requirement because it has an ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation system that results in continuous improvement and effective mission accomplishment. The following narrative will describe the research-based planning and evaluation processes at the College that support continuous improvement and demonstrate that the College effectively accomplishes its mission.
The SPC Institutional Effectiveness Processes
At St. Petersburg College (SPC), Institutional Effectiveness is defined as the integrated, systematic, explicit, and documented processes of measuring performance against the SPC mission for purposes of continuous improvement of academic programs, administrative services, and educational services offered by the College.
The SPC institutional effectiveness processes are systematic, ongoing, integrated, and research-based. These processes are designed to result in continuous improvement and comprise the following: (a) the mission statement process; (b) the evaluation and assessment processes for academic programs, student services, and administrative services; (c) the Strategic Directions and Institutional Objectives process; (d) the unit / budget planning process, (e) the Collegewide operating budget development process, and (f) budget approval, implementation, and annual operating results.
The above diagram summarizes the SPC Institutional Effectiveness Processes, and how the individual processes are integrated. Each of these processes is further described below. In addition, a more detailed diagram depicting the integration and linkages among these processes, and how they are actually performed, is also available. For a complete description of all the SPC Institutional Effectiveness Processes as well as the most recent aggregated results, please see the 2006-2007 Institutional Effectiveness Plan document.
(a) The Mission Statement Process
The Mission is formally revised at least every five years with the latest formal revision completed in the 2004-2005 academic year by a committee representing Faculty, administrators, students, community leaders and members of the Board of Trustees and was approved by the Board of Trustees in May, 2005. The Mission also is reviewed annually by President’s Cabinet before the new strategic planning cycle begins. In the most recent review in January 2007, the President’s Cabinet recommended minor changes to the Board of Trustees Rule on the College’s mission and goals, including inserting the term “globally” in place of “in the State of Florida and other areas,” scheduled for consideration by the Board of Trustees on March 20, 2007. This change is included the latest revision to Board of Trustees Rule to incorporate the changes adopted by the Board, placed on the SPC Web site upon adoption, and revised in the printed College Catalog for 2007-2008. The prior revision in 2002 added the baccalaureate degrees, published in the 2002-2003 College Catalog.
St. Petersburg College’s Mission is published and distributed widely in the College Catalog; Board of Trustees’ Rules and Procedures Manual; St. Petersburg College Faculty Manual; and the Student Handbook. It is also directly accessible on the College Web site from the Prospective Student page, Interested Visitor page, and Potential Employee page, as well as through the College Catalog and Student Handbook links on the Current Student page and the Institutional Effectiveness pages on the employees’ Staff Central.
(b) The Evaluation & Assessment Processes - Academic Programs, Student Services, and Administrative Services Evaluation and Assessment processes at SPC are centered on mission-driven outcomes in the following program and service areas: (i) 26 organizational units comprising 37 academic programs (lower division); (ii) 18 organizational units comprising 18 academic programs (upper division), and (iii) key administrative and educational support services. Analysis of outcome results is on-going and captured in various assessment reports. Institutional effectiveness at SPC assesses all degree programs and courses, regardless of mode of delivery. SPC also evaluates all student services to ensure students are provided the best support possible to ensure student success. The following are the key assessments used in the evaluation & assessment processes of SPC’s Institutional Effectiveness.
SPC IE Program Evaluations & Assessments - Content
Academic and College services outcome results, as documented in the above evaluation and assessment reports, are widely published on the College’s IE Web site. Hardcopies are retained in a central repository by the College’s Institutional Effectiveness (IE) staff. These various Collegewide assessment results are then aggregated and presented to one of the four domain-specific oversight groups at the start of the planning year. They are used by the College’s IE Team, oversight groups, President’s Cabinet, and Unit / Budget Managers to design and drive the College’s Strategic Directions and Institutional Objectives (SD-IOs), individual unit plans, and College’s Annual Operating Budget
The College’s Institutional Effectiveness (IE) Team and the four domain-specific assessment oversight groups organize and conduct a series of meetings which occur annually prior to kick-off of the College’s Planning and Budgeting Processes (described below). The assessment oversight groups are charged with the following key tasks: (i) evaluate whether the institution successfully achieved its desired outcomes from the previous institutional effectiveness and planning cycle, (ii) identify key areas requiring improvement that were identified in the assessment analysis, and (iii) develop strategies and recommendations for quality improvement initiatives for the next institutional effectiveness and planning cycle.
The four oversight groups along with their charge are listed below:
The next table shows the linkages between the College Mission Statement components, the evaluation and assessment reports, College staff responsible for the evaluations and assessments, and the recurring cycles.
(c) The Strategic Directions and Institutional Objectives Process
The College’s Strategic Directions and Institutional Objectives (SD-IOs) are comprised of longer-term directional statements and shorter-term, annually measurable objectives. The Strategic Directions, represented by the all-caps, alphabetized statements, are updated on a three-year cycle and are based on achieving the college’s mission. The Strategic Directions are developed with improvements in learning outcomes, quality, productivity, and other environmental-scan considerations, as well as inputs from IE Team, members of the President’s Cabinet, Faculty and student representatives, the Board of Trustees, and external/community stakeholders.
The College’s Institutional Objectives, represented by the numeric statements in the SD-IOs document, are reviewed and updated annually, with key on-going initiatives updated based on progress made during the prior year and carried forward, where appropriate. Each institutional objective is designed for the purpose of achieving the corresponding longer-term strategic direction. The 2006-2009 Strategic Directions and 2007-2008 Institutional Objectives are the most recent version, and they were approved by the Board of Trustees at their January 22, 2007 meeting. Earlier approved versions of the SD-IOs, under which the College’s continuous improvement initiatives and operations were conducted, are available dating back prior to 1999-2000.
(d) The Unit / Budget Planning Processes
The College’s Unit / Budgeting Processes are centered on: (a) more than 150 Unit / Budget Managers, (b) development of departmental unit plans and budget requests, and (c) use of the national award winning Strategic Planning Online (SPOL) centralized computing system.
In developing their unit plans and budget requests, the Unit / Budget Managers are urged and encouraged to access, review, and make use of all available assessment outcome data, as published on the College’s IE Web site, and as documented in the oversight group reports described above. In addition, budget guidelines are prepared by the Collegewide Budget Committee, which provides information about the College’s expectations for State appropriations, the Collegewide budgetary outlook, and salary package and other key strategic expectations. The budget guidelines also provide details on how capital expenditure requests are to be entered into the SPOL central computing system.
The following screen shot gives an example of unit /budget requests entered into the SPOL system.
The SPOL system requires the unit / budget managers to select one of the College’s Strategic Directions / Institutional Objectives for each of the unit plan objectives entered. In addition, supporting tasks, expected outcomes, and related budget funding are also captured in the SPOL system. After all unit /budget manager unit plans and budget requests are entered, they undergo three levels of management reviews in which refinements and adjustments may be made based on funding availability and overall College priorities. Unit plans and budget requests that are approved by department heads, vice presidents, and other leadership positions that report directly to the College President, are then aggregated and submitted for further review and evaluation by the Collegewide Budget Committee.
(e) The Collegewide Operating Budget Development Process
Each year, the College President confirms the membership of a Collegewide Budget Committee comprised of Senior Presidents, Vice Presidents, Campus Provosts, and other key functional leaders. Certain members of the Collegewide Budget Committee are rotated on an annual basis for cross-training purposes. The charge of the Collegewide Budget Committee includes the following major activities: (i) develop budget guidelines, (ii) review of all budget requests approved by department heads, vice presidents, and senior vice presidents, (iii) ensure that the SD-IOs are funded according to their priorities and funding availability, and (iv) develop the College’s Operating Budget.
The Collegewide Budget Committee meets several times per month during the budget development process, with meeting schedules listed on the Annual Planning Event Calendar and integrated with other key College meetings (e.g. President’s Cabinet, Board of Trustees, etc.). The first of the initial meetings occurs immediately after the College’s Strategic Directions and Institutional Objectives are approved by the Board of Trustees and, typically, well before the State of Florida’s legislative process begins in March of each year. The Collegewide Budget Committee meetings include frequent updates with the College President, as well as several meetings with the President’s Cabinet including Faculty senate and student government association representation, review, feedback, and input. In particular, the Annual Student Activities Budget is closely reviewed by the College’s Student Government Association.
(f) Budget Approval, Implementation, and Annual Operating Results
The Operating Budget is approved by the President’s Cabinet, and recommended to the Board of Trustees in the form of a Board Agenda Item, Board Memorandum, and attachments. Once approved by the Board, the approved budget amounts are communicated to the College and uploaded into the College’s central financial system. College financials and operating results are monitored on a monthly basis and reported quarterly to the Board of Trustees. Operating performance and results are centered on executing the approved Strategic Directions and Institutional Objectives (SD-IOs), the supporting unit plans and quality improvement initiatives, and the operating budget. Operating performance and results are accomplished through the following key steps:
Sustained Documented History of Planning Evaluation Cycles
Development of the Strategic Directions and Institutional Objectives and Unit Plans are long-standing practices within the College’s Institutional Effectiveness (IE) Processes dating back prior to 1999-2000. In particular, SPC unit planning has evolved over the past decade from a paper-and-pencil system to an email based system to a planning online system and now to a hosted version (.Net) of the Strategic Planning Online (SPOL) system, which was developed by Indian River Community College as part of a FIPSE grant. This evolutionary journey has resulted in a more integrated and accountable process while streamlining the planning system for unit managers.
The Institutional Effectiveness Processes are yearly processes that consist of three distinct phases; the evaluation/assessment phase, the strategic/budget planning phase, and the implementation/operation phase. The evaluation/assessment phase is a reflective look back at the prior year’s assessment and evaluation results. This phase includes educational outcomes, institutional surveys, and departmental-specific assessments. Individual assessments results are reviewed by the respective oversight group which in turn aggregates the information and presents recommendations to the President’s Cabinet. These recommendations are evaluated and are routinely summarized in the form of the Institutional Objectives (IOs).
The strategic/budget planning phase is the transition from assessment/evaluation results to planning for the upcoming operational year. This phase includes assessment-driven unit planning where unit managers state their intent for the upcoming year in measurable objectives, and ensure alignment with the institution’s mission and goals, Strategic Directions, and Institutional Objectives (SD-IOs).
The last phase, the
implementation/operation phase, is the execution of the developed unit
plans. To ensure the fidelity and stability of these unit plans,
unit managers are required to provide periodic reports of their
progress. These reports are in the form of a mid-year status
report and an end-of-year final results report. The end-of-year
report includes assessment results in addition to the unit’s use of
these results in improving their unit. The following planning
calendar, presented in the order of the College’s fiscal year, displays
the key elements in each phase. Institutional Effectiveness Calendar with Key Events per Phase
Institutional Research and Budgetary Support
SPC’s Core Institutional Effectiveness Team: St. Petersburg College provides significant personnel support for institutional effectiveness and research. The SPC Institutional Effectiveness department includes ten full-time staff members that are responsible for planning, assessment, research, and state reporting requirements. There is also budgetary support for external ETS testing and the state of Florida is funding the 2007 Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) for all 28 colleges in the system.
The following chart and operating budget table provide the organizational context of the SPC IE and institutional research staffing and budgetary support.
Organizational chart for Institutional Effectiveness
2006-2007 SPC Institutional Effectiveness Operating Budget
SPC Faculty and Staff Support of Institutional Effectiveness: St. Petersburg College Faculty are responsible for the development and revision of all degree programs and courses as a result of analysis of data in the course and program review process. Program Directors and Deans recommend approval of proposed course changes and forward them through the Provosts to the Curriculum and Instruction Committee, comprised of Faculty and administrators from all campuses and sites. Faculty and Program Directors/Deans develop and implement institutional assessments of programs with the approval of the appropriate senior vice president (e.g., Senior Vice President, Baccalaureate Programs and University Partnerships and Senior Vice President, Educational and Student Services). Oversight groups consisting of senior staff and staff responsible for implementing changes (e.g., the Administrative Oversight Group includes representatives from Facilities, Business, and campuses/sites) review Collegewide data and other information on effectiveness gathered by departments and make recommendations for the Strategic Planning process. The President’s Cabinet approves all changes to the institutional effectiveness process. Board of Trustees Support of Institutional Effectiveness: The Board of Trustees (BOT) sets the policy for institutional review of processes, and approves all changes to policies and programs resulting from institutional effectiveness reviews. In addition, the BOT is briefed on Institutional effectiveness processes. Improvement of Programs & Services – Evidence Data
There is broad-based participation of Faculty, program directors, and deans in all assessment activities. Each program’s director or dean works closely with Institutional Effectiveness staff and the program’s full-time Faculty to develop assessments that provide meaningful data on student learning. In addition, nationally normed assessments, such as the ETS’s MAPP test for General Education, state licensure exams, and CCSSE are used during educational outcomes reviews as outside benchmarks for measuring student learning.
Other departments, such as the Library, Counseling services, Technology, Budget, and Institutional Effectiveness, have developed internal surveys that provide more detailed information on satisfaction with the services provided to students, Faculty, and staff than can be gained from the more general Enrolled Student Survey, which measures student satisfaction with student services. These data are gathered continuously (or annually) and are analyzed and reported to the College during the Strategic Planning Process. Data such as State Accountability Measures that include retention, graduation, and transfer rates are reviewed at the same time by the appropriate groups.
Educational Assessments: Educational programs use a variety of assessment methods to improve their effectiveness. Assessment and evaluation measures are used at various levels throughout the institution to provide Provosts, Deans, Program Managers and Faculty vital information on the success of recent efforts. While the focus of a particular educational assessment area may change, the assessment strategies remain consistent and are integrated to the fullest extent possible. The focus for the Associate of Arts degrees is targeted on students continuing on to four-year degree programs as opposed to the Associate of Applied Science and Associate of Science and Baccalaureate programs which target students seeking employable skills. The General Education-based assessments focus on the general learning outcomes from all degree programs, while the Program Review process looks at the viability of the specific programs. The College has developed an Educational Assessment Web site to serve as repository for all SPC’s educational outcomes reports and to systematically manage the College’s assessment efforts.
Educational outcomes should be broad based to ensure an expansive coverage of student learning. Thus in some learning areas, outcomes should not be limited to the cognitive domain, but should also address the affective domain and skill areas.
In 2004-2005, St. Petersburg College took a new look at its general educational outcomes assessment program and convened an ad-hoc committee of General Education program directors for this review. The General Education committee’s goal was to identify methodologies for assessing the general education outcomes defined in the College’s “Mission and Goal Statement” as follows:
At the end of the collaboration, the General Education committee was able to identify methodologies for assessing all the aforementioned educational outcomes. Program directors and Faculty members worked with the General Education committee to establish assessment procedures that (1) match the objective(s) of the educational outcomes and (2) yield information useful to the Faculty in changing teaching and learning strategies, improving course content, and revising curricula. The individual reports, unique by their individual nature, are nevertheless written to address how the assessments and their associated action plans have improved learning in their program. All reports reside at the Educational Assessment Web site.
Educational Assessment results are continually used by SPC staff to improve educational outcomes. One example of this data-driven process is the development of the topic for the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP). Two assessments provided significant attention to the need for improving critical thinking skills at the College. In 2003-2004, an assessment used to evaluate the critical thinking in general education competency as defined in the College Mission and Goals. The summary of the assessment findings is as follows:
Excerpt from 2003-2004 General Education Outcomes Assessment Report
The second assessment was the Academic Profile General Education Assessment from the 2005-2006 academic years. The Academic Profile is a test of general academic knowledge and skills. It is intended for use by colleges and universities in assessing the outcomes of their general education programs in order to improve the quality of instruction and learning. The test focuses on the academic skills developed through general education courses rather than on the knowledge acquired about the subjects taught in these courses. It does this by testing college-level reading, writing, critical thinking, and mathematics in the context of humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences.
The ETS Academic Profile was administered to samples of SPC students, including first time in college (FTIC) and students who had completed their general education requirements. Data was provided on criterion-referenced proficiency levels for three skill areas; Writing, Mathematics, and Reading/Critical Thinking. Focusing on the students who have completed their general education requirements, SPC students were compared to all students at the sophomore level from two-year granting schools. The proficiency of SPC students was comparable to that of the comparison students. When the categories of proficient and marginal are combined, SPC students were superior to the comparison group in all categories. For the SPC results, the critical thinking area was identified as an area of weakness.
The results of both of these assessments highlighted the need for improving the critical thinking skills of the students at the College.
Educational Support Services Assessment: Student surveys are an essential part of the evaluation process. Many of the survey instruments (with updated questions) have been used by the College for years. Students are surveyed at different points in their educational career to determine changes or improvements that could be implemented to enhance the institutional and learning experience. Unit managers review survey reports annually and determine whether intervention based on survey findings is required. The following institutional and departmental specific surveys were used by the Educational Support Services to assess their performance:
§ Annual Library Survey § Enrolled Student Survey § Commons/Learning Support Center Survey § Florida Community College Assessment Report
One example of the College’s data-driven process in the area of Educational Support Services is the expenditure of funds to enhance SPC’s library collection. This decision was based on the Educational Support Services Oversight Group Report from December of 2004. The summary of the assessment findings from that report is as follows:
Excerpt from Educational Support Services Oversight Group Report, 2004
“The state has not conducted an updated collection assessment, however, the library collections were purged resulting in 7,174 (3% of the collections) items withdrawn from the collections. At the same time, the collections increased by 12,387 items (5% growths). The Collection Development Committee updated the Collection policy to include baccalaureate programs. The library budget for baccalaureate programs was $406,000 which allowed for the addition of databases and resources to support the Dental Hygiene, Public Administration, Veterinary Technology programs, Orthotics/Prosthetics programs, and University Partnership Center (UPC) programs.”
Administrative Services Assessment: Surveys are also used to judge the performance of administrative services as it relates to students, College staff, and administration. Unit managers review survey reports annually and determine whether intervention based on survey findings is required. The following table list the key surveys used to assess and judge the performance of administrative services rendered at SPC:
One example of
performance improvement in the area of administrative services is
demonstrated by the College’s use of results from the 2005-2006 Enrolled
Student Survey. Several administrative areas, which included the
bookstore services, were identified as not meeting the College’s long
established criteria of performing at a 5 or above on a 7-point
satisfaction scale. Action plans were developed for the 2005-2006
Administrative Services Oversight Group Report to address these areas.
The following excerpt is from the action plan for improving the student
satisfaction with the bookstore services from the 2005-2006
Administrative Services Oversight Group Report: Excerpt from 2005-2006 Administrative Services Oversight Group Report
Beginning In August 2005, the College successfully collaborated with Follett Bookstore’s IT staff to implement the BookNow program. This allows a student who completes their registration in our system to click one link at the bottom of the registration page and it takes the student to the Follett’s Web site where the student’s shopping cart is already filled with the required books for the schedule they have created.
These improvements in the bookstore process resulted in an increase in the level of student satisfaction with the bookstore services. The following table from the 2006-2007 Administrative Services Oversight Group report displays the increases in student satisfaction in the areas of parking, bookstore, and food services.
Change in Student Satisfaction Levels
Student Services Assessment: Student surveys are also an essential part of the student services evaluation process. Students are surveyed at different points in their educational career to determine their perceptions in order to implement changes and improvements that will enhance the institutional and learning experience. Unit managers review survey reports annually and determine whether intervention based on survey findings is required. These surveys include the Entering Student Survey, Enrolled Student Survey, Graduating Student Survey, and Recent Alumni Survey, as listed below.
The College administers the Enrolled Student Survey, developed as one component of a Collegewide assessment system to ensure the delivery of quality academic and student services. The purpose of the survey is to ascertain how students enrolled at the College perceive available academic and student services. Students are given a list of specific services and asked about the importance to them and their level of satisfaction. Subsequently, Faculty and administration use the data to establish quality improvement initiatives through the unit planning process. An example of the
data-driven process is in the area of student services is related to the
introduction of the PeopleSoft Student Administration System in the fall
of 2003. The College confirmed from the October administration of the
“Enrolled Student Survey” that there was an issue related to the student
satisfaction with the registration process. Upgrades were made top the
system and a supplemental spring administration of the “Enrolled Student
Survey” was given to monitor the impact of these improvements. The
resulting satisfaction scores showed improvement in student
satisfaction. The following excerpt is a summary from the Enrolled
Student Survey Spring Term Follow-up Report from 2003-2004: Excerpt from Enrolled Student Survey Spring Term Follow-up Report from 2003-2004
“This was a limited follow-up survey to check whether certain student services had improved after steps were taken to correct problems with the new student administration system. Consequently, it was not possible to make statistical comparisons as the sample size and questions were different from the Fall survey. It should also be noted that the rate of return from the four major campuses was not proportional to their student enrollments and this may bias the results. Given those caveats, it does appear that satisfaction has noticeably improved between Fall 2003 and Spring 2004 and, while the performance gaps may still be negative, there is also a substantial improvement there.”
The following table shows a comparison of student’s level of satisfaction on the enrolled student survey between Fall 2003 and a special administration in Spring 2004 for a limited number of student services. The mean score increased in all services areas with the application / admission process (0.55) reporting the highest increase in student satisfaction followed closely by academic advising (0.50).
Relationship of Institutional Effectiveness to College’s Budget St. Petersburg College has a sound planning system and communicates annual budget preparation guidance to the College community via instructional documents on the College’s Strategic Planning Online (SPOL) system. The College develops a budget plan based on the Board-approved Strategic Directions and Institutional Objectives (SD-IOs) for the upcoming year. The Budget takes in to consideration the prior year’s budget as well as the any additional funds necessary to achieve the upcoming year’s approved institutional objectives. As previous stated in this section, the institutional objectives are developed through the evaluation of the previous year’s assessments. This includes educational outcomes, institutional surveys, and departmental-specific assessments. Specific evaluation instruments, reports, and measures are listed below:
These individual assessments results are reviewed by the respective oversight group which in turn aggregates the information and presents recommendations to the President’s Cabinet. These recommendations are evaluated and are routinely summarized in the form of the Institutional Objectives (IOs). Using these Institutional objectives as a guide, each unit within the College develops unit-level objectives for the coming year. Funds necessary to support these objectives are estimated and requested by each budgeting unit. Requests from all budgeting units are aggregated, reviewed, and, if approved, considered by the Collegewide Budget Committee. The Collegewide Budget Committee estimates the coming year’s revenues and sources of new funds in order to provide the College President with data needed to make informed budgetary decisions. The completed budget is then submitted to the Board of Trustees and the Florida State Board of Education for approval.
Internal and External Constituents / Stakeholders Planning and Assessment Involvement
In addition to the internal constituents’ involvement in planning and assessment, as discussed extensively throughout this section, involvement of external constituents is also an important component of the evaluation and assessment process. At SPC, evaluation and assessment by external constituents are achieved through education advisory committees, and community and Florida Department of Education partners.
The technical education advisory committees are an example of this community input. Advisory committees meet a minimum of twice annually with additional meetings as needed for good program coordination. Advisory committee members are appointed by the College President (BOT Rule 6Hx23-3.08) to serve a one-year term of office and must have a demonstrated competency in the program specialty area or an understanding of the program and of the community at large. An exception to the above may be a lay person directly involved in a related program field such as counseling, public relations, or administration of a business or industry.
Specific Duties of Advisory Committees are to:
1. Serve as a communication channel between the college and the community. 2. Determine specific skills and suggest related and technical information for the program. 3. Suggest ways for improving public relations and articulation of the program with other institutions. 4. Assist in recruiting, providing internships, and in placing qualified graduates in appropriate jobs. 5. Keep the program personnel informed on changes in labor market, specific needs (competencies) and surpluses. 6. Recommend curriculum revisions as necessary to comply with current trends. 7. Assist in assessing the program needs in terms of the entire community (long-range planning). 8. Assist program personnel in searching for sources of funding for scholarships, equipment, etc. 9. In general, advise, recommend, and assist in assuring a quality program as determined by community needs. 10. Discuss proposed equipment purchases in excess of $9,999.99.
Florida Department of Education, Division of Community Colleges Evaluation and Assessment: Dr. Judith Bilsky – Executive Vice Chancellor Division of Community Colleges and Workforce Education, reviewed the College’s 2006-2009 Strategic Directions and 2007-2008 Institutional Objectives (SD-IOs). Dr. Bilsky suggested several areas to increase focus, and commended the comprehensive nature of the College’s SD-IOs; their clearly attuned alignment with both statewide and community college system mission and goals.
Pinellas County Economic Development Staff Evaluation and Assessment: Mr. Mike Meidel Director Pinellas County Economic Development also reviewed the College’s 2006-2009 Strategic Directions and 2007-2008 Institutional Objectives. Mr. Meidel suggested several areas for consideration. He emphasized the importance of the College’s Corporate Training Program to the County’s success in achieving State-funded Incumbent Workers Training (IWT) and business retention goals, and expressed appreciation for the College’s efforts to include the County’s economic development perspective in our planning processes and programs.
Collegewide Communication and Dissemination The College communicates the College Mission Statement, the evaluation and assessment reports, the Strategic Directions and Institutional Objectives, and other related strategic plans (e.g. Strategic Technology Plan) to College Faculty and staff through multiple means including, but not limited, to the ones presented below:
In summary, institutional effectiveness at SPC is defined as the integrated, systematic, explicit, and documented processes of measuring performance against the SPC mission for purposes of continuous improvement of academic programs, administrative services, and educational services offered by the College. The cornerstones are: · College Mission Statement & Purpose · Evaluation and Assessments-Oversight Groups & Data-driven Reports · Strategic Directions & Institutional Objectives (SD-IOs) · Unit Plans – Developed at academic program and functional (Budget Supervisors) levels · Reviews, Approvals, and Communicates by standing committees, including the President’s Cabinet, and Board of Trustees · Strategic Planning Online System (SPOL) - an American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) award winning, Web-based, information management system |
