IEL TASK FORCE MEETING NOTES 12-07-04

Present: Roxanne Beloit, Ellen Brown, Karen Driscoll, Joe Dunlap, Sally Grabicki, Marcus Jorgenson, Mike Mires, Scott Morgan (chair), Joanne Murcar, Mark Palek (for Pam Praeger), Linda Powell, Jacque Rainer, and Dixie Simmons.

The meeting came to order at 2:35 p.m. in the Falls Conference Room at SFCC.

November 16, 2004 meeting notes were presented as distributed with no recommended changes. Scott Morgan encouraged task force members to review meeting notes to ensure that notes appropriately reflect meeting discussions. Scott reported that the IEL Task Force meeting notes are now posted on the CCS Intranet @http://ccsi.spokane.cc.wa.us under Employee Information/Minutes of Meetings, Districtwide/IEL Task Force Meeting Notes

Action: Scott will send out a district-wide e-mail to advise faculty and staff that IEL Task Force meeting notes and other documents are posted on the CCS Intranet.

Review and Finalize Task Force Game Plan

Task force members reviewed, revised and made additions to the draft IEL Task Force Game Plan prepared and distributed by Scott Morgan. Refer to the attached Task Force Game Plan (revised 12/07/04). The game plan will be continually reviewed and refined in future meetings.

Review and Finalize Brainstorming Summaries

Task force members reviewed three brainstorming summaries developed by Scott Morgan from the November 16, 2004 meeting discussion for: credit instruction, continuing education and business and industry training. A lengthy discussion followed. Additions and revisions were made to the summaries. Refer to the attached brainstorming summaries (revised 12/07/04).

A recommendation was made to invite CCS continuing education directors to the December 21 IEL Task Force meeting. Continuing education directors will be asked to serve as a panel to answer questions and help task members define continuing education goals and trends.

Roxanne Beloit explained that in the past there were two CCS committees that worked together on district continuing education issues. The committees were the District Continuing Education Council and the District Class Schedule Committee. Both of these committees are currently being "resurrected" which should help identify issues and questions, and provide coordination with all educational units. These two committees will be meeting in the near future.

Karen Driscoll noted challenges facing student services with "seamless" processes in regards to state and federal regulation limitations. Financial aid services must comply with federal requirements and be administered by a college; and accreditation standards require college credits to be transcripted by SCC or SFCC.

Action:
    1. Scott Morgan will invite CCS continuing education directors to the December 21 IEL Task Force meeting.
    2. Scott Morgan will ask Colleen Straight to provide data on training and continuing education course offerings
    3. Scott Morgan will ask Linda McDermott to provide information on the current business and industry financial arrangement.
    4. Joanne Murcar will provide an overview of a report prepared by Cheryl Reed, workforce training consultant, that summarizes business training needs.
    5. Scott Morgan will distribute revised brainstorming summaries.
    6. Dixie Simmons will bring a definition of "continuing ed" to the next meeting.

Credit Instruction Issues: (accreditation and A-6 standard applies only to credit instruction)

3a. Is A-6 the standard? Are there reasons to go beyond the A-6 standard? What is required to comply with A-6?

The A-6 standard is the policy that governs the relationship between accredited colleges and contractors. Mark Palek indicated that in the past, the IEL has not been viewed as an "outside entity" in respect to accreditation, but rather as an element of the district.

Problems in earlier (1993, 1998 and 2003) accreditations were caused by the lack of clarity. By adopting an agreement (December 2001) that follows A-6 policy, the relationship is more formal and more clearly understood by accreditors; but the relationship is not a formal agreement under A-6.

Joe Dunlap indicated that Portland Community College is successfully using A-6 with two colleges. Scott Morgan and Dixie Simmons related similar discussions they had with Ron Baker of NWCCU who recommends A-6 policy standards. Mark Palek indicated that if A-6 is the approved standard, then IEL’s relationship with the colleges will become more formal than in the past.

The consensus of the group is that the A-6 policy is the appropriate standard and that it was not necessary to require standards over and above A-6. How formal the relationship should be has yet to be determined.

3b. Credit Instruction—What are the interests of the institutions?

SFCC:

Dr. Mark Palek indicated that SFCC’s interests are to maintain accreditation quality control; protect the good name of SFCC; if the IEL is to use SFCC curriculum, then standards and quality of SFCC must be maintained.

Efficiency is another issue. Should the IEL be offering classes at low student/ faculty ratios that, at those low levels, are canceled at SFCC? Fairchild programs are a particular problem.

IEL:

Dixie Simmons indicated that the interests of the IEL are to serve their students seamlessly, free of overburdened administrative processes. The IEL wishes to be responsive, flexible and efficient. Too much time and energy spent—too much burden on both the IEL and SFCC to get things done.

SCC:

Joe Dunlap indicated that SCC’s interest lies in a level and efficient playing field in relationship with the IEL and courses offered.

In conclusion, task force members agree that the current arrangement creates very complicated processes. These discussions offer opportunity to have conversations to identify difficult and challenging issues.

Next meeting: December 21, 2004, SFCC, Falls Conference Room.

The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.