Professional
Development:
History of
Charges and Committee Recommendations
FY2000 – FY2005
|
YEAR: 1999-2000 |
|
CHARGE:
Professional Development and Student
Development are charged with examining and making recommendations on the
orientation of students and staff to the Brookdale Governance system |
|
RECOMMENDATIONS: It was determined that this
charge would be more appropriately handled by the Student Development and
College Life Committees. See Student Development and College
Life 1999-2000 Recommendations. |
|
YEAR: 2000-2001 |
|
CHARGE:
Training for Committee Chairs |
|
RECOMMENDATIONS: |
|
The Professional
Development Committee was charged with developing a training program for committee
chairs. In order to determine the components needed for such a program, the
committee developed and sent out a survey to all past and current chairs of
Governance Standing Committees. The committee wishes to thank all those who
responded. Here are the results of the survey, along with recommendations. The first half of the
survey addressed areas specific to governance. A scale of one – five (very
important) was used in determining importance. The following issues were
ranked highest. Understanding
the charge (median rate of 5) Recommendation: Committee chairs meet
with steering at the beginning of the term to discuss the process of
formulating a charge. In addition it is recommended that several members of
Steering meet with the committees as a whole to share with the members the
process involved in establishing a charge. Understanding
the Governance Process (median
rate of 5) Recommendation: All current and new members of standing
committee be given a handout that explains the
history and purpose for governance at Brookdale and the role of each
committee. Transition
Process (median rate of 4) Recommendation:
Have out-going chairs
stay on a committee for one additional semester in an advisory role to assist
new chairs Access to
steering (median rate of 4) Recommendation: Perhaps this can be remedied by following
the recommendations proposed in number one. The second half of the
survey rated skill areas on a scale of one – five. 1. Organizational Skills (median rate of 5) 2. Running effective meetings (median rate of 5) 3. Time management (median rate of 5) 4. Delegation (median rate of 5) Recommendations: It is the understanding of the committee
that our professional development partner, Human Resources, is planning several
workshops. For the Faculty Days in May, workshops dealing with “Running
Effective Meetings” and “delegation” are in the planning stage. Workshops for
“Organizational Skills and Time Management” could be planned for September.
These workshops could become permanent additions to faculty days and open to
all standing committee members who need them. |
|
RESULTS: |
|
VOTE: No vote was
taken. *From the May 2001 Gazette* “A Training Program for Committee Chairs:
Bill Burns and Laura Cooke of the Professional Development Committee gave a
PowerPoint presentation on their charge to develop a training program for
committee chairs. They outlined the process they used to gather information
about the training needs of chairs and then summarized the results from both
a Governance committee perspective and a more general perspective. Steering
has some work to do to help committee chairs become more comfortable with
their role. Workshops are planned for both this year and next on some of the
skills identified as important. “ PRESIDENT’S RESPONSE: No response in Gazette OUTCOME: |
|
YEAR: 2001-2002 |
|
CHARGE: Develop a definition of professional
development at Brookdale. Develop
Guiding Principles for professional development at Brookdale |
|
RECOMMENDATIONS: |
|
Definition of
Professional Development: Professional Development at Guiding
Principles: ·
Foster
the vision, values, mission and goals of the college. ·
Enhance
intellectual leadership capacity. ·
Improve
teaching, administrative and staff effectiveness. ·
Promote
individual, departmental and institutional effectiveness. ·
Reflect
best practices in teaching, leading and leadership. ·
Promote
an individuals development beyond the scope of primary job functions. ·
Encourage
affiliations with professional organizations. ·
Recognize
and acknowledge the daily commitment as well as exemplary actions of
employees. ·
Support
a coordinated effort for technology improvement and training. ·
Ensure
sufficient funding and support be devoted to meet the goals of professional
development. ·
Foster
effective communication of professional development opportunity campus wide. ·
Promote
understanding of diversity within the college community. ·
Ensure
appropriate assessment tools to measure the effectiveness of professional
development activities are in place. Recommendations
on Coordination and Communications Although the committee
has developed some initial recommendations regarding coordination and
communication of professional development opportunities on campus, more time
is needed to develop a comprehensive plan for these activities. The committee
will continue this effort in the fall. |
|
RESULTS: |
|
VOTE: The Forum voted unanimously
in favor (73-0) with no abstentions. PRESIDENT’S RESPONSE: From
Dr. Burnham: “The ‘Definition’ and ‘Guiding Principles’ provided by the Professional
Development committee provide an excellent guidepost for planning and
assessment of professional development programs.” OUTCOME: |
|
YEAR: 2002-2003 |
|
CHARGE: (2002-2003) |
|
RECOMMENDATIONS: |
|
Part 1
of charge: Identify and
categorize current Professional Development Committee and subcommittee
programs, along with current and potential funding sources for these
activities. Recommendation 1A. The
Professional Development Committee includes Sub-committees for Faculty,
Staff, and A&E. The specific initiatives offered by all the Professional
Development Committees are: The Technology Mini-Grants, funding for
conference/workshop participation, and recognition activities. We recommend a
budget within Professional Development designed to support the continuation
of these activities. Recommendation 1B.
Identify: Human Resources, Educational, Student and Outreach Services and
Non-Academic Divisions as potential funding sources. Part 2
of charge: Establish procedures
whereby the Committee is recognized as the primary contact point for
information regarding all college-wide professional development activities.
Identify ways to communicate these opportunities to all members of the
college community.
Recommendation 2B. For
the primary mode of communication, we recommend that the current Professional
Development Committee web pages be expanded to include content areas relating
to the full range of professional development activities taking place at the
College. Part 3
of charge: Establish a
coordinated planning process that includes the Professional Development
Committee and other professional development areas, such as Human Resources,
TLT, and Educational Services. Recommendation 3.
Expand the Professional Development Committee membership to include ex
officio members from: Educational, Student and Outreach Services and TLT. Part 4
of charge: Establish a
process for determining Subcommittee membership and operations. Recommendation 4. As
the Professional Development Committee continues to work on the fulfillment
of this charge, we recommend that Governance Steering consider the addition
of elected members to the sub-committees. These additional members would
assist in the provision of the activities offered through Professional
Development, such as the Technology Mini-Grants and the adjunct reception. |
|
RESULTS: |
|
VOTE: Jeanne Ostrowski and
Phyllis Shafer, Co-chairs of the Professional Development committee, noted
the changes the committee had made to its recommendations since the last time
they presented on April 1. It was agreed that there is still work to be done
to thoroughly address all of the issues in the charge, and Governance Chair
Jack Ryan indicated that some of the committee’s suggestions would require
the approval of Steering and the Board of Trustees. The recommendations
passed, unanimously. PRESIDENT’S RESPONSE: I salute the dedication of the members of
this committee: I know their job has not been an easy one and would like them
to know that their hard work does not go unappreciated by their colleagues or
me. Many of the recommendations voted and
passed by the Forum on April 15, 2003 need concomitant process and procedural
development and implementation. I know that Dean Patricia Sensi
is working closely with the committee to ensure that subsequent discussion
and activities work towards fulfillment of the greater goal. It is my fervent hope that in the coming
academic year we can come to consensus on the application of the Plan
developed several years ago and provide a truly comprehensive and integrated
professional development program campus wide. OUTCOME: |
|
YEAR: 2003-2004 |
|
CHARGE: Distribution of responsibilities for
planning and assessing professional development activities |
|
RECOMMENDATIONS:
* In May 2004 Gazette*
“See attached file for recommendations.” *No file is attached online* |
|
RESULTS: |
|
VOTE: All constituencies
voted on the Professional Development recommendations which passed
unanimously. PRESIDENT’S RESPONSE: I spent a great
deal of time thinking about professional development (PD) during the summer break
– prompted by the recommendations made by the committee in response to last
year’s Governance charges, and subsequent discussions with Dean Pat Sensi. The sheer
number of the recommendations made by the PD committee for 2003-2004 speaks
volumes about the committee’s dedication and focus. I would like to
acknowledge the wonderful work of the committee and encourage them to
continue their self-analysis of PD programs and funding. I salute their
tenacity and diligence, particularly the co-chairs Phyllis Shafer and Martha
Nobel, and respond here enthusiastically and optimistically knowing how
seriously the committee will work on the charge for 04-05 – to develop an
assessment model for a current PD program. I look forward to working with
Martha and her new co-chair, Ellen Musen, in the
year ahead. I see in these
most recent recommendations a true recognition of the value of needs
assessment and an integrated, comprehensive professional development program
for all employees. That said, I want to preface my reply with a
‘heads-up’; in the near future, I will be sharing with you and the PD
committee, a draft of a revised platform philosophy for PD at Brookdale that
I shall author. Your input and the input of the committee (in the form of an
additional Governance charge) will be critical as we refine and define this
approach to PD. Building on the
“Professional Development Operations and Resource Handbook 03-04”, the
committee’s work from last year, I envision a collegially evolved plan based
on a series of Learning Hierarchies (the handbook refers to “competencies”
but I find that term limiting) It will focus on the personal development of
individual employees which I truly feel in turn will lead to greater
organizational development. I believe that a strategic approach to ‘people
development’ – focused on employees’ knowledge areas, subject matter and
personal growth – will ultimately lead to greater organizational renewal and
innovation. I’m preparing a ‘white paper‘ for your
review and I look forward to our discussions. All told, I
counted 30 recommendations from the PD committee; I will respond here to
items as needed – the committee doesn’t need me to prescribe how to divide
its budget, or whether it can accept requests that don’t follow the
guidelines on the website. It has managed quite ably to this point, adapting
as times change. Please note
that I make some additional recommendations of my own here, as well. Faculty 1. I propose
asking the Office of the Executive Vice President for Educational Services to
fully fund the Adjunct Faculty Reception, believing that it is first and
foremost, an Educational Services responsibility to ensure excellence in
teaching. PD and Human Resources (HR) would, of course, continue to
collaborate with her office, on the intent and contents of the program. I
assume this program includes an evaluation component – for adjuncts who
attend the reception as well as those who don’t.
2.
Raising the maximum award to $350 makes sense; perhaps only those presenting
at a conference or program, or having an extraordinary circumstance, would be
permitted to receive additional funds from the Executive Vice President for
Educational Service’s office. However, I caution that for the current budget
year, the total dollars in the PD budget will not rise. Budget 1.
Perhaps I don’t understand the recommendation about a “separate budget
line…for college-wide PD activities”; the Human Resources office maintains a
sizable budget for such activities, and some discretion regarding
institutional priorities is HR’s prerogative. Also,
the Executive Vice President for Educational Service’s office is well-funded
for PD. It is my hope that mutual discussion about programming continually
takes place in the committee and is incorporated into HR’s
and Educational Services agendas, and vice versa. Please advise if this is
not so. 2. The
emphasis on aligning department goals and college-wide initiatives with PD
funding is overdue and welcomed. Needs Assessment & Measurement of
Outcome 1. We
must define a way to collect, collate and compare the volumes of data
collected separately each year by faculty, administrators, staff and the
police, on their year-end professional development activities and identified
needs. I will ask Deans Sensi and Kegelman to report back to me by January 2005 with
recommendations on how best to collect and assess this information. 2. An
assessment tool or rubric should be utilized for all programs, HR and/or
PD-initiated, with outcomes reported as consistently as intentions, within
the framework of the “institutional philosophy” which is currently being
evolved initially by me. PD’s charge from Steering for the coming year is one
I strongly support. Without evaluation, a program is in danger of becoming
moribund or obsolete. Competencies 1.
Perhaps the best place to maintain the Adjunct Faculty web-based Handbook is
the Teaching, Learning and 2. I
urge the committee to develop a broader-based “mini-grant” program to highlight
the new or unusual skills of their colleagues. In return, I would assume the
responsibility for funding the Technology Mini Grants, and administer them
through the Grants Office; and award them in conjunction with the Educational
Excellence Awards from the Foundation. I would ask the PD committee to fund
the recognition reception held each year for the awardees, a cost typically
borne by my office. I would like to see the two ‘internal funding’ sources
complementing each other – by design, not happenstance. I would like to see
coordinated, non-redundant criteria, and I reserve the right to approve – or
disapprove – of those criteria. I ask that the PD committee work closely with
Laura Qaissaunee, Director of Grants, and Tim Zeiss, Exec. Director, of the Foundation, on how to best
handle these awards in a planned, coordinated fashion, and report back to me
with their recommendations by January 2005. Recognition 1. Often, we
move so quickly from one initiative to another that we forget to take the
time to enjoy our success. The value of a ‘thank-you’ cannot be overstated,
yet it is often forgotten. I will work with Steve Nacco
and the Special Events people to ensure that our annual social and
recognition events continue. I would ask Dr. Nacco
and Dean Sensi to collaborate with the PD committee
on some of the more ‘unique’ recognition ideas and ask that they report back
to me in December 2004 with their recommendations. OUTCOME: |
|
YEAR: 2004-2005 |
|
CHARGE: Program
Assessment |
|
RECOMMENDATIONS: |
|
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT (Part 1) The Committee should: 1.
Coordinate with Human Resources to examine the effectiveness of one or two
ongoing Campus-wide professional development programs (such as Leadership
Brookdale, STARS, Action: The committee completed this part of
the charge by assessment of the Leadership Brookdale Program and presentation
of a 20 page summary report to the owners/facilitators of the program. We
reported completion of part 1 of this charge to the forum. 2004-5 Charge: PROGRAM ASSESSMENT (Part
2) The Committee should: 2. In
connection with this examination, develop a model of assessment for ongoing
campus-wide professional development programs. Action: Based on the Leadership Brookdale
program assessment case study presentation to the Forum and comments received
before that body, the committee discussed results of the process used:
Program Assessment Flow Sheet (PAFS), survey development, and other concerns.
We made recommendations for the general model of assessment for ongoing
campus-wide professional development programs. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MODEL
OF ASSESSMENT FOR ONGOING CAMPUS-WIDE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1. Use
the Program Assessment Flow Sheet (PAFS) for structuring the assessment
process, reporting results and determining any changes based on data gathered
2.
Develop a two-part questionnaire or survey that seeks information from both
participants and owners/facilitators 3.
Owners/facilitators should assess each professional development program every
3 to 5 years The committee further discussed details
and rationales for these recommendations as follows:
·
identify
relevancy to BCC Mission, Vision, Values, and Goals (MVVG) ·
gather
data ·
analyze
data ·
report
intended outcomes ·
specify
use of results Rationale: §
The
PAFS helps to organize the gathering and reporting of data and identify
modifications §
It
is a familiar process for the campus community §
It
encourages the use of an assessment cycle to modify and/or adapt a program
for improvement Note: Because
the PAFS sets the stage for the assessment process, it is also relevant to
identify a means of assessment or method of measurement for column 3 of the
PAFS. The committee recommends a questionnaire or survey.
Participant
questions may include the following: ·
Selection
process ·
Constituency
·
Goals
-
Knowledge
of -
Clarity
-
Attainment
·
When
attended ·
Effectiveness
of program ·
Appropriateness
of program length ·
Satisfaction
with program Owner/facilitator
questions may include the following: ·
How
do the goals support the current ·
What
are the intended outcomes of the program? ·
How
do you assess the outcomes? ·
Describe
the participant selection process. ·
How
does the program attract a cross section of the campus community, if that is
a program goal? ·
How
has the program changed since its inception? Rationale: §
The
committee has provided a selection of questions they felt were useful in
gathering information for assessment §
We
suggest that they be used in addition to any program specific questions.
Rationale: §
Using
the model and template questions, an individualized survey/questionnaire may
be easily developed and implemented by the owners/facilitators, as they are
most familiar with the content and internal workings of the programs. §
The
college has adopted a 5-year cycle for program assessment; therefore, for
consistency and allowing for currency of ever-changing content, the committee
recommends a 3 to 5 year time frame. |
|
RESULTS: |
|
VOTE: A vote was taken concerning the
Professional Development’s work on their Program Assessment charge. This was
an “all constituencies vote”. These recommendations passed unanimously
(59-0). PRESIDENT’S RESPONSE: The committee’s use of the Program Assessment Flow Sheet for structuring the
assessment process, reporting results and determining potential changes, is
excellent in that it is consistent with the approach that has been taken with
academic assessment and nests well with the Middle States approach to
assessment. The focus on the impact of the assessed program, and not on the
program owner or facilitator, creates a process free of intimidation and full
of opportunities for feedback. I particularly like the “individualized” model
and template, and the tie-in to the 5-year cycle for program assessment. By
virtue of this memorandum, I ask Dean Sensi to
share with me a list of Professional Development programs and a potential
timeline for the assessment of same, using this model. Perhaps the
Professional Development committee would work alongside the HR office to
update the catalog of professional development programs across the
institution, with a goal of formalizing an assessment “agenda” for all. OUTCOME: |
|
YEAR: 2005-2006 |
|
CHARGE: Mentoring |
|
RECOMMENDATIONS: See 2006-2007 Recommendations. |