Community Colleges of Spokane Focus Group Summary Report

1
Community Colleges of SpokaneFocus Group Summary
Report

• Prepared by
• Robinson Research
• October 2007

2
Methodology

• Six focus groups
• Business leaders
• Community leaders
• Alumni
• Employers served by CCS
• Higher education representatives
• K-12 counselors
• Conducted at Robinson Research facility

3
Purpose

• Gather perceptions to help CCS evaluate the
  progress it is making on the goals established in
  2004

4
Overview

• Perceptions of CCS
• Overwhelmingly positive
• Biggest surprise
• High school counselors see both liberal arts
  transfer and career/technical education offered
  by CCS as good options for variety of students

5
Objective 1

• Prepare students to compete and succeed in a
  global economy
• Perceptions
• Better at seamless transitions from high school
  than other higher ed institutions
• Doing excellent job preparing students for
  workforce
• Aware of CCS role in improving adult literacy
• Not aware of CCS role in educating young
  children, Head Start

6
Objective 1 Continued

• Prepare students to compete and succeed in a
  global economy
• Perceptions
• Work supporting adults in transition well known
  womens programs, Kaiser, retraining
• Considered diverse in relationship to region
• Student population representative of community
• Lack of diversity in faculty
• No awareness of promotion of personal, academic,
  civic responsibility
• Extremely responsive to changing needs of
  employers

7
Objective 2

• Provide access to lifelong learning opportunities
  for people of all ages and backgrounds
• Perceptions
• High awareness of continuing education, personal
  enrichment classes
• Low awareness of districts geographic size or
  rural/urban nature
• Low awareness of need to manage enrollment

8
Objective 2 Continued

• Provide access to lifelong learning opportunities
  for people of all ages and backgrounds
• Perceptions
• Assume CCS pursues new resources (e.g., new
  buildings, programs) but little knowledge of
  details
• Seen as slowly growing nontraditional delivery
  methods
• Believe hands-on, face-to-face classroom
  interaction still important

9
Objective 3

• Define the Institute for Extended Learnings
  roles, relationships and future directions
• Perceptions
• Awareness of IEL and its roles, relationships to
  district, SCC, SFCC has increased
• GEDs, ESL, adult literacy
• Its where people need it to be
• Everything thats not degree related
• Oversees programs in rural areas
• Tied closely to social programs

10
Objective 3 Continued

• Define the Institute for Extended Learnings
  roles, relationships and future directions
• Perceptions
• SCC
• Extraordinary outreach to employers
• Technical programs with very good reputations
• SFCC
• The liberal arts transfer school
• Appropriately small class sizes
• Reputation for providing excellent value

11
Objective 4

• Clarify policy and operational roles to enhance
  efficiency emphasizing collaborative and
  student-centered strategies avoiding
  unnecessary duplication
• Perceptions
• Little knowledge of CCS policies or operational
  roles
• Efficiency equated with Blackboard, online
  learning
• Noted long lines for financial aid and parking
  permits
• Class times not convenient for working students
• Duplication, if any, viewed as necessary

12
Objective 5

• Support a workplace environment where diversity
  is cultivated and celebrated
• Perceptions
• Trying hard to celebrate diversity among faculty
  and staff
• No awareness of efforts to recruit and retain
  globally competent, highly qualified faculty and
  staff
• No awareness of professional development
• No awareness of recognizing, rewarding job
  performance
• However, they assume CCS does these things.

13
Objective 6

• Create and implement communications strategies
  that enhance the public image of CCS increasing
  awareness and understanding across the district.
• Perceptions
• Public image is pretty good
• Aware of quarterly schedule, advertising,
  advisory groups, presence at community events
• Dr. Livingston is a positive influence, good
  spokesperson
• Could communicate more about programs, community
  resources

14
Objective 7

• Continually conduct master planning that
  clearly identifies, prioritizes and documents
  future needs.
• Perceptions
• Low awareness of this objectives specifics
• But general feeling that CCS is getting its share
  of funding from the State Legislature and is
  planning for technology needs

15
Objective 8

• Practice good stewardship of the financial
  resources entrusted to us
• Perceptions
• Presume CCS is fiscally responsible
• Appears to be good
• No scandals
• No news is good news
• Continuous building, so must be doing okay
• Aware of the CCS Foundation and its work

16
Objective 9

• Be response to changing educational, training,
  social and employment needs by building strong
  collaborative relationships
• Perceptions
• Seen as dynamic and flexible
• More responsive than the four years
• Amazed that CCS can put together a special
  program in six months
• SCC especially good at collaborating with business

17
Objective 9 Continued

• Be response to changing educational, training,
  social and employment needs by building strong
  collaborative relationships
• Perceptions
• Strong community player
• Works well with K-12 and four-year institutions

18
Constructive Criticism

• Perceptions of areas that could be improved
• Advising Provide career counseling, not just
  class schedule planning
• Ensure students understand the difference between
  a technical degree and transfer degree
• Math Correct the disconnect between high school
  and college
• Class times Make schedule more convenient for
  working adults
• Update programs that may be out of touch with
  todays workplace

19
Conclusion

• Even though specifics about many of the
  objectives would be best known by CCS employees
  and insiders, according to opinions expressed by
  these six subsets of stakeholders
• CCS has been performing remarkably well.
• Robinson Research
• October 2007