|
QEP
Meeting Minutes April 9, 2004
QEP Meeting
Central Alabama Community College
Minutes, April 9, 2004, 8:30 a.m.
Held in the Distance Learning Lab on each Campus
Present: Dr. James Cornell, Dr. Richard Wilmarth, Denita Oliver,
James Blair, Dr. Ron Prochaska, Jimmy Nix, Linda McGuirt, Dr.
Betty Carol Graham, Dr. Amelia Pearson, Norman Coffman, Tara
Bradford, Elizabeth Mitchell, Janice Stephens, Ralph Cline, Bert
Sims, Nathan Brackeen, Dr. Jim Thompson, Wanda Harkins, Glenda
Bland, Jane Boos, Burk Yarbrough, Laura Brown, and Barbara Anne
Spears
I. What is the QEP? A Review
Spears explained that several individuals had questioned her
about the QEP and its relationship to next week’s trip to
Monroeville. Therefore, she felt a review would be helpful. QEP
is an acronym Quality Enhancement Plan, a required part of the
reaccreditation process for the Southern Association of Colleges
and Schools. The QEP is a comprehensive plan for improvement of
student learning. The process is faculty-driven, but should
include all constituencies of the College. Results must be
measurable; funds must be committed.
II. CACC’s QEP – Developmental Education, An Initial Vision for
An Ideal World
Brown, who will coordinate the new developmental education
program, presented an initial vision as an example for committee
members. The committee will develop its own vision statement at
a later date. Brown described a program which included learning
styles testing, professional development for instructors,
training for students regarding learning style techniques,
success workshops, computer labs, tutors, and more.
III. Roles for the QEP
Spears’ role will be to oversee the writing and preparation of
the QEP and ensure that the program meets all SACS
qualifications. She will write the annual reports and collect
documentation. Brown will direct the developmental education
efforts. Both roles are ongoing; however, Spears will not be as
directly involved with the day-to-day operation of developmental
ed but will, instead, work to ensure that QEP items are being
accomplished according to the timeline.
IV. QEP Example
Pearson described her experiences as a SACS onsite visitor to a
community college in North Carolina last week. Eight team
members visited the college; six were assigned compliance issues
to review. Two were experts in the QEP topic. The six who
focused on compliance also reviewed sections of the QEP. Broad
areas for review included the following:
A. Comprehensive Indicators
1. The QEP is used to outline a course of action for
institutional improvement by addressing one or more issues that
contribute to institutional quality with special attention to
student learning.
2. The QEP complements the institution’s ongoing integrated
institution-wide planning and evaluation process. The QEP is
expected to contribute to the achievement of the strategic plan
and goals of the institution.
B. Focus Indicators
1. The QEP identifies one or more critical issues related to
improving student learning and justifies the importance and
benefits of implementing its action plans.
2. The QEP contains relevant and specific goals and objectives
projected to improve student learning. Student learning outcomes
for the QEP are well-defined. The goals and strategies of the
QEP are clearly linked to improving the quality of student
learning and are expected to lead to observable results.
3. The QEP includes a careful and thorough analysis of the
institutional context in which its goals were established and
will be implemented.
C. Capability Indicators
1. There is a viable implementation plan for the QEP. The QEP is
realistic and achievable. Necessary institutional approvals and
authority to proceed are in place.
2. The QEP’s implementation strategies include detailed action
plans, a clear timeline, assignment of responsibilities to
qualified individuals to administer implementation, and
appropriate administrative processes for monitoring progress.
3. The institution has committed or will secure sufficient
resources to implement, sustain, and complete the QEP. This
includes the commitment of sufficient financial, physical, and
human resources to adequately support implementation.
D. Assessment Indicator
1. The QEP includes adequate procedures, measures, and methods
for evaluating the extent to which ongoing progress is
monitored, goals are achieved, and student learning is improved.
E. Involvement Indicator
1. All appropriate constituency groups of the institution’s
community, including faculty, staff, students, board members,
and administrators, were involved in the development of the QEP.
V. Items to Consider
Spears reviewed the list of items which must be accomplished.
These include the following:
A. Definitions
1. Developmental/Transitional Education
2. Student Learning
B. Literature Review
C. Inclusion of Constituencies
D. Vision
E. Goals
F. Timeline
G. Space Allocation
H. Faculty/Part-Time, Full-Time
I. Staff
J. Hardware/Software Needs
K. Assessment & Use of Results
L. Professional Development
M. Newsletter
N. Funding
O. Planning Sessions
P. QEP Format
Q. Learning Styles Testing/Training
VI. Subcommittee Assignments
Subcommittees were created in order to begin immediate work.
Chairs were encouraged to add additional College personnel to
their committees.
A. Literature Review – Denita Oliver, chair; Barbara Anne
Spears, Elizabeth Mitchell
B. Roundtables – Glenda Bland, chair, Childersburg; Wanda
Harkins; Ron Prochaska, chair, Alexander City
C. Learning Styles Testing – Wanda Harkins, chair; Rick Wilmarth
D. Professional Development/Training – Laura Brown, chair; Bert
Sims, James Blair
E. Baseline Assessment – Nathan Brackeen, chair; Bert Sims,
Wesley Storey, Janice Stephens, Jim Thompson, Barbara Anne
Spears
F. Space, Equipment & Staffing – Amelia Pearson, chair,
Alexander City; Ronnie Harkins, chair, Childersburg; Elizabeth
Mitchell, Tara Bradford
VII. Adjourn
Spears thanked everyone for participation and encouraged them to
get others involved. With no further discussion, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:53 a.m.
|
|