Virtual College Leadership Team (VCLT)

Wednesday, December 8, 2010
9-11 am
Room 9201

1. Additions to Agenda
2. Request for Notetaker (Ann)
3. Announcing Vice Chair: Stuart Trippel (Ann)
4. History of Virtual College Initiatives in the CTC System (Connie Broughton, Managing Director of WAOL)
5. VCLT Tools
a. SCC Virtual College wiki: (Ann). Ann work with Gary: DONE.
b. Listserv (Gary)
c. Dropbox (Kenny)
6. Revised Principles Approved: Access, Accountability, Affordability and Outcomes (Ann)
7. “Blueprint” Outline Draft (Ann, Stuart)-postponed to next meeting
  • Timeline:
    • December - Feb. 4th, 2011: work groups do their work
    • Feb. 4 - March 1, 2011: VCLT writes blueprint
    • March 1, 2011: blueprint submitted to PSET
  • Work groups-postponed to next meeting
    • Define charge for each work group
    • Select members
    • Work group work completed: Friday, Feb. 4th, 2011
8. Next Meeting Options:
* check next week for the next meeting date-Stuart can come in. Done.
a. Tuesday, Dec. 21, 12:30 -2 pm-works for all.
b.Wednesday, Dec. 22, between 10:30 am – 4 pm OR
c. Thursday, Dec. 23, noon-1:30 pm, 3-5 pm: does not work for Amy
9. Good of the Order/Other

Meeting Notes:

Virtual College Leadership Team (VCLT)
2010 December 8 (Wednesday)

Present: Dr. Ann Garnsey-Harter, Chair; Mr. Stuart Trippel, Vice-Chair; Mr. Jim Hills; Professor Carla Hogan; Mr. Gary Kalbfleisch; Professor Amy Kinsel; Dean Ken Lawson

Notes by: Gary Kalbfleisch and Stuart Trippel

Gary suggested that to promote efficiency and avoid overload, the VCLT coordinate any requests that will need to be submitted to Joe Duggan, the college’s institutional researcher. The group agreed.

Ann gave a brief overview of the Washington Online (WAOL) program. She discussed the nature of the consortium and how participating colleges receive funds from or pay funds into a pool depending on their net contribution (faculty teaching) or use (students learning). Administrative costs are paid from a skim from all colleges in the system. WAOL currently uses Angel as an online learning environment and will migrate to a new learning management system in the future (since ANGEL will go away in 2014).

Connie Broughton, assistant director of eLearning at the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges and managing director of WAOL, participated in the meeting by speakerphone and Elluminate to provide an overview of WAOL’s virtual campus initiative, which was ultimately not successful. The purpose of this presentation to the VCLT was to provide information on lessons learned that could be valuable for Shoreline’s experience. Ms. Broughton’s points were as follows:
· In 1997 there was an interest within the community and technical college system in exploring “virtual” initiatives; at the same time, there was concern about a single college doing it alone.
· WAOL’s virtual campus initiative was initially funded by accumulated interest remaining from a large K–20 project.
· Five colleges tried to form a virtual campus, of which Shoreline was one, and developed an associate’s degree that would be offered by the virtual campus. This smaller group provided both programs and support services. Colleges not participating in the group generally did not regard the group supportively.
· The original model was one in which each student’s enrollment was maintained by the home institution, and the students were pooled into sections for instruction.
· In 1999 WAOL was awarded a $2.2-million grant from the United States Department of Education from the Fund for Improvement for Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) to promote “learning anywhere, anytime” to build a system-wide virtual campus. Ultimately this initiative failed.
· The FIPSE-funded initiative contemplated full delivery of online support services, including a northwest e-tutoring consortium, electronic bookstores, and library services; in the end, nothing comprehensive evolved, however.
· WAOL student management functions were pulled into a separately developed SQL database.
· The college presidents supported the idea in principle; however, they were reluctant to relinquish control of their students and to pool enrollments, which was the model of the FIPSE-funded initiative.
· Ultimately, in 2003, every single college in system declined to participate in the initiative.

Ms. Broughton noted that one potential barrier to a state-wide virtual college is that students still have familiarity with, and perhaps loyalty to, their local college. She suggested looking at opportunities to serve otherwise underserved markets, such as the following
· Tribal reservations (examples: Grays Harbor, The Evergreen State College)
· Online nursing for incumbent workers at distant medical facilities (example: Lower Columbia College)
· Highly specialized programs (example: water management at Walla Walla Community College, which has students worldwide)
· Overseas programs (example: Bates College in China)

Ms. Broughton recommended that the following questions be considered as Shoreline proceeds with its virtual college:
· What are the rules within the CTC system regarding marketing?
· Will there be a concern about poaching other institutions’ students?
· What are the implications of the required process for approval of professional-technical programs? These programs are approved separately by the SBCTC, and other colleges are invited to comment. The SBCTC is concerned with duplication of effort in professional-technical programs.

Following the call with Ms. Broughton, the VCLT engaged in broad discussion about the information presented. The VCLT reached consensus that discussion of the online clearinghouse of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) should be on the next meeting’s agenda.

ACTION: Ann will place AACC review on next agenda. DONE.

The VCLT discussed the benefits and costs of supporting low-income populations and the meaning of “affordability” as encompassing not only the price of a service but the resources available to assist consumers in paying for the service

The VCLT reached consensus that bringing a proposal to the legislature for SCC to form a virtual college for the CTC system would not be a favorable approach to this issue.

The VCLT then turned its attention to consideration and definition of the revised principles of access, accountability, affordability, and outcomes. Working definitions are as follows:
· Access: The virtual college will increase meaningful, easy access to online education for more students wherever they may be geographically; the virtual college will break down hurdles (e.g., lack of online advising and counseling, tutoring, financial aid) in order to increase completion rates.
· Accountability: The virtual college will be accountable to students, funders, accreditors, employers, and taxpayers.
· Affordability: The virtual college will provide a high price-to-value ratio and will offer education at a price less than the competition and/or will provide funding to students to help them meet the cost. The virtual college also will be affordable to Shoreline Community College in terms of resources required.
· Outcomes: The virtual college will demonstrate that student learning outcomes are being satisfied. Students in the virtual college will be held to the same standards as students attending Shoreline Community College face-to-face.

The VCLT briefly discussed tuition rates for international students and how such tuition rates would apply in a virtual college.
ACTION: Stuart will investigate issues regarding tuition for international students taking online courses in their own country.

The VCLT briefly discussed perceived quality issues related to tenured versus non-tenured faculty and discussed quality control mechanisms as a way in which concerns could be alleviated.

The VCLT adjourned at 11:00 a.m., with the next meeting to be held Wednesday, December 15, from 12:30 to 2:30 p.m.