Development of STRATEGIC PLAN through 2015

1. Development of STRATEGIC PLAN through 2015

2. DEVELOPMENT STEPS

3. Strategic Plan Model Used Adapted from Peter Drucker’s model:

4. Tentative Timeline for Development

5. Developed Strategic Plan Questions Survey and focus group questions designed to: • Map to the components of a strategic plan (i.e. values, vision, mission, goals, etc.) • Be tailored to the specific knowledge and language of each stakeholder group

6. Strategic Plan Surveys • Students (current) • Credit - 173 submitted • Continuing Education - 60 submitted • Employees - 141 submitted • Community Representatives – 13 submitted • Board of Regents – 5 submitted

7. Focus Groups of Community Representatives & Board Held on February 4th & 5th at Region XVI Service Center • 113 invitations sent to CEOs, Board and other comm. Reps. • 37 attendees participated

8. RESULTS for Mission & Core Purpose from Surveys & Focus Groups

9. Credit Student Survey:MISSION

10. CE Student Survey:MISSION

11. Employees Survey:MISSION

12. Board of Regents Survey: MISSION What makes AC unique? • I'm not sure `unique` is the right word, but AC does things better than many community colleges. It has excellent faculty and programs, especially workforce development and developmental level courses. • Dedicated leadership and faculty and community support. • Dedicated faculty and staff • Having somewhat of a family atmosphere. • Location • Affordability • Ability to address current needs • Willingness to respond to community needs, especially work force training.

13. Community Reps. Survey:MISSION

14. Community Reps. Survey:CORE PURPOSE

15. Community Reps. Focus Group:CORE PURPOSE

16. Community Reps. Focus Group:CORE PURPOSE

17. Board of Regents Survey: CORE PURPOSE If AC did not exist, how would Amarillo be different? • Fewer affordable educational opportunities = lower college graduate demographic • There would be large gaps in access to education, certificate programs, job training and workforce development. • Unemployment would be adversely affected. • Could not attract business & industry (e.g. Bell Helicopter) • There would be more difficulty in readily finding qualified people to do quality jobs or fill quality jobs. • Health care could not staff RNs, therapists, etc. • Quality of life would be diminished if AC was not there in partnership with the Arts and Cultural entities.

18. Employees Survey:CORE PURPOSE

19. Credit Students Survey:CORE PURPOSE

20. CE Students Survey:CORE PURPOSE

21. PROPOSED: VALUES VISION CORE PURPOSE MISSION

22. Who Proposed These & Why? • President’s Cabinet proposes the values, vision, core purpose & mission. • Drafted after reviewing: • the results of all survey and focus group answers and • considering the environmental survey.

23. REVISING & VETTING AC’s MISSION

24. Why must the mission be vetted? SACSCOC Core Requirement 2.4: The institution has a clearly defined, comprehensive, and published mission statement that is specific to the institution and appropriate for higher education. The mission addresses teaching and learning and, where applicable, research and public service. (Institutional Mission) SACSCOC Comprehensive Standard 3.1: The mission statement is current and comprehensive, accurately guides the institution’s operations, is periodically reviewed and updated, is approved the governing board, and is communicated to the institution’s constituencies. (Institutional Mission)

25. Why must the mission be vetted? Ensuring Fulfillment of AC Board Policy: 1. A broad representation of the College stakeholders should have input regarding the mission to be sure that it represents AC. Ensuring Fulfillment of SACSCOC Requirements: 2. Mission must include EVERYTHING (e.g. instruction and public service) that AC is doing to serve all of its stakeholders (i.e. students, community, employees, Board of Regents, etc.)

26. Why must the mission be vetted? Ensuring Fulfillment of SACSCOC Requirements: 3. Must select effectiveness indicators for the mission. Once the mission is used, results from these effectiveness indicators must be produced regularly, used systematically in making decisions, and reported publicly. 4. When considering the revised AC mission, must be sure that AC reflects within the mission or elsewhere as instructed by the Board of Regents, how the current economic downturn and budget limitations will be reflected within AC’s mission.

27. Questions Considered in Vetting the Mission MISSION Amarillo College – enriching the lives of our students and our community. Question #1: Does this proposed mission statement must include EVERYTHING (e.g. instruction and public service) that AC is doing to serve all of its stakeholders (i.e. students, community, employees, Board of Regents, etc.)? IF NOT, what is missing?

28. Questions Considered in Vetting the Mission MISSION Amarillo College – enriching the lives of our students and our community. Question #2: Does it appear that the proposed effectiveness indicators for the mission will provide the answers necessary to determine annually whether AC is accomplishing its mission? If not, what is missing?

29. Questions Considered in Vetting the Mission MISSION Amarillo College – enriching the lives of our students and our community. Question #3: Does the mission statement indicate how the current economic downturn and budget limitations will aid AC in determining its scope of operations? IF NOT, what should the Board require of AC in making these determinations?

30. Who vetted the mission? Existing Groups of Stakeholders: • Students • Credit – Student Government Association (4/21/10) • Employees • Administrators Association (Requested – no response) • Classified Employees Council (4/22/10) • Faculty Senate (4/9/10) • Listening & Learning – all employees invited (West Campus 3/22/10 & Washington Street campus 3/23/10) • ITS Division (4/7/10) • Assessment & Development Division (4/8/10)

31. Who vetted the mission? Existing Groups of Stakeholders: • Employees (continued) • Administrators Association (Requested – no response) • Classified Employees Council (4/22/10) • Faculty Senate (4/9/10) • Instructional Assessment Subcommittee (3/26/10) • Non-Instructional Assessment Subcommittee (3/23/10) • Listening & Learning – all employees invited (West Campus 3/22/10 & Washington Street campus 3/23/10) • ITS Division (4/7/10) • Assessment & Development Division (4/8/10) • Continuing Education Division (4/19/10) • Enrollment Mgmt. Division (4/26/10) • VP Council (4/28/10)

32. Who vetted the mission? Existing Groups of Stakeholders: • President’s Cabinet • Reviewed “word-smithing” responses regarding proposed mission • Decided to recommend the proposed mission to Board of Regents • Decide to recommend an annual review of the mission at each June Board of Regents meeting • Board of Regents • Scheduled to approve/revise proposed mission at August 13, 2010 BOR meeting

33. What is the proposed mission? MISSION Amarillo College – enriching the lives of our students and our community.

34. What is being proposed? VALUES At Amarillo College, we value: • Student Success • Quality Education • Opportunity for All • Collaboration • Community Responsiveness • Responsible Stewardship VISION • At Amarillo College, we aspire for every student to have a success story. CORE PURPOSE • At Amarillo College, we help each student to succeed.

35. What is being proposed? GOALS • Ensure Student Success • Expand Student Access • Promote Academic and Economic Viability • Ensure the College’s Future

36. Development of Strategies and Tasks for Accomplishing Goals • Developed the Environmental Scan (11/10) President’s Cabinet; Updated ( • Developed AC’s list of Policies (Constraints) based on Environmental Scan Danita McAnally & Mark Hanna

37. Development of Strategies and Tasks for Accomplishing Goals • Identified Concerns & Issues Front Line Managers - (4/23/10) Conversations on Student Success – (5/7/10) • Proposed Topics for Strategies & Tasks based on Concerns & Issues (6/4/10) Senior Administrators

38. Development of Goals through Action Plans Finalize Strategies and Tasks to accomplish Goals President’s Cabinet – (7/6-8/2010) Vet Strategies & Tasks (7/15/2010) Front Line Managers & Sr. Administrators Entire Strategic Plan through 2015 edited by Strategic Plan Writing Team (7/19-8/2/2010) Approved by President’s Cabinet (8/3/2010)

39. Publication of Strategic Plan through 2015 Published the Strategic Plan, primarily as a web document, with a limited number of print copies – College Relations (8/4/10)

40. DEVELOPMENT STEPS for STRATEGIC PLAN – Remaining

41. Approval and Distribution of Strategic Plan through 2015 Submit to Board of Regents for approval President’s Cabinet (8/13/2010) Distribute to all stakeholders Employees beginning with General Assembly – (8/18/10) Community – September and October 2010 Students – Fall 2010 Employers via Advisory Committee Mtgs. – Fall 2010 and Spring 2011

42. Employees involved in Developing Strategies and Tasks

43. Employees involved in Developing Strategies and Tasks Frontline Managers: Assessment & Development: • Cara Crowley • Kara Larkan-Skinner • Delton Moore College Relations: • Jena McFall • KACV : • Linda Pitner • Lynne Groom • Lee Proctor • Jackie Smith Continuing Education: • Sherrie Nunn • Kim Davis • Megan Eikner • Leslie Shelton • Luke Morrison

44. Employees involved in Developing Strategies and Tasks Frontline Managers (continued): Continuing Education (continued): • Charlotte Modersitzki • Toni Gray • Sondra Beighle • Eric Wallace • Alex Chancia • Kim Crowley • Cindy Crabtree Enrollment Management: • Dale Longbine • Kay Mooney • Jodi Lindseth • Maury Roman • Diane Brice • Jason Norman • Brenda Rossnagel • Heather Atchley • Melissa Wilson

45. Employees involved in Developing Strategies and Tasks Frontline Managers (continued): Finance & Administrative Services: Lynn Thornton Bruce Cotgreave Vickie Shelton Sharon Doggett ITS: Jeff Gibson Terry Kleffman Linda Hendrick

46. Employees involved in Developing Strategies and Tasks Instructional: Department Chairmen • Craig Clifton • Daniel Ferguson • Mary Graff • Kim Hays • Lynae’ Jacob • Dr. Lana Jackson • Dr. Michael Kopenits • Duane Lintner • Mary Clare Munger • Anne Nail • Dr. James Rauscher • Victoria Taylor-Gore • Dr. Kathryn Wetzel • Henry Wyckoff

47. Employees involved in Developing Strategies and Tasks Instructional Program Directors: Ron Faulkner Doug Adcock Becky Burton Donna Cleere Valerie Hansen Lisa Holdaway Kelly Jones Shawna Lopez Janet Martin Judy Massie Lisa Meehan Mark Rowh Dana Scott Tonya Tackitt Sheree Talkington

48. Employees involved in Developing Strategies and Tasks Instructional Program Coordinators: Dr. Bob Banks LaVon Barrett Steven Beckham Edie Carter Dr. Judith Carter Judy Carter Ann Fry Judy Isbell Judy Johnson Sandra Jefferson Jonathan Kohler Catheryne Lankford Robert Mathews Trace Megenbier

49. Employees involved in Developing Strategies and Tasks Instructional Program Coordinators (continued): Bruce Moseley Gay Mills Terry Moore Vince Salinas Carol Summers Tony Thomas Joan Urban Beverly Vinson Other Instructional Staff: Mark Hanna Brian Nixon

50. Employees involved in Developing Strategies and Tasks Senior Administrators: President’s Cabinet: • Dr. Paul Matney • Robert Austin • Terry Berg • Lee Colaw • Ellen Green • Dr. Russell Lowery-Hart • Danita McAnally • Ellen Green • Damaris Schlong Instructional Deans: • Bill Crawford • Dr. Shawn Fouts • Jerry Moller