ࡱ> ` Vbjbjss 7N`$ 3333$4TIjP5P5P5P5P5P5P5P5HIJIJIJIJIJIJI$3KhMVnI>55>>Ա55I55HI"D G,I0IDRM>>MM057>>>d++d@\ To: John Nixon, VP, Instructional Services Virginia Burley, Dean, Instructional Services From: Jemma Blake-Judd, Coordinator, SLOs/AUOs Implementation Team Subject: Summary/Evaluation of SLOs/AUOs Team Year-Two Activities Date: June 6, 2006 The SLOS/AUOS Implementation Team has focused on six areas in year-two of the three year implementation process: Consistent and Equal Service Coverage Effective Communication and Documentation Quality of the Implementation Process Team Support for the New 91ֱ Review Process (PIE) Utilization of the Accreditation Self-Study warehouse Senate approval of the Proposal for Institutionalization of SLOs/AUOs These areas have again informed the coordinators reports to the campus and will serve as the framework for this summary/evaluation of the teams work to date. Area One: Consistent and Equal Service coverage Summary of Team Activities: Early in the initial outlining of Mt. 91ֱs 2004 accreditation self-study, it became obvious that, in the past, positive activities for improvement had occurred in silos and did not achieve the broad base of support needed to change campus culture. This issue was considered by the SLOs Steering committee when it set up an implementation plan that would span all of Mt. Sacs departments/units. At the beginning of year-two, with 98% of the initial presentations to the 156 departments/disciplines/units completed, the team faced many of the same challenges it faced in year-one. The facilitators and researcher continued to actively contact non-participants and to assist those areas that had begun to move through the process. The teams activities in year-two ranged from creating SLOs in areas that had done nothing the first year to discussing results in areas that had taken the leap early in year-one. It is important to note that the recent addition of six division offices ,four vice-presidents offices, and the presidents office to the total of the colleges units and departments did effect the colleges participation figures, but will provide for a more accurate assessment of campus-wide participation. Evaluation of Team Activities: In May of 2005, 35% of the institution was working on SLOs/AUOs and 20% was working on means of assessment. In May of 2006, 59% of the college was working on SLOs/AUOs and 49% on means of assessment. Due in part to the teams efforts, this increase in activity should also be attributed to Mt. 91ֱs new program review process, which motivated a number of areas that had been either resistant to or procrastinating about SLOs/AUOs work. The two areas with the most significant increase in participation on campus are Instructional and Administrative. A comparison of the 2005 year-end figures to the 2006 year end figures in the Instructional areas shows participation as doubling. SLOs activity increased from 24% to 59%, and means of assessment activity rose from 16% to 48%. The largest increase in activity came in Administrative Services where 19% of units were working on AUOs in May of 2005 as compared to 55% in May of 2006, and where 0% was working on means of assessment in May of 2005 as compared to 50% in May of 2006. This is due in large part to the support the new vice-president of Administrative Services has given to the process. In addition to the SLOs/AUOs facilitation in departments and units, the team offered workshops on Surveys and Rubrics several time a month in fall semester of 2005 and on Flex day in January 2006. The team also conducted work groups in April 2006. These work group sessions, targeting those department/units that had stalled between the creation of their SLOs/AUOs and the determination their means of assessment, were designed to answer questions about the process and offer suggestions on how to proceed. Representatives from the Library, PE, Spanish, and Astronomy/Earth Science talked to team members about specific means of assessment from surveys to embedded questions in department wide-finals to rubrics for performance evaluations. The positive and pro-active tone of these cross-discipline discussions ensured that the team will make every effort to offer these sessions in year-three. Area Two: Effective Communication and Documentation The SLOs plan and timeline places much weight on effective communication as a means of successful implementation. The ground work was laid in year-one, but there have been a number of improvements made to communication and documentation within the team, across the campus, and with other colleges. Summary of Team Activities: Team Communication This year the team effectively alternated between formal and informal meetings. Each week the facilitators, coordinator, and researcher had a chance to connect with and assist one another. The teams dialogue was greatly enhanced by its self-assessment efforts and the resulting creation of and utilization of a rubric to assess the colleges 5 column models. (See Quality of Implementation Process below.) In addition to the team meetings, the members continued to use Quick Place for both formal and informal documentation of activities within departments and units. Campus Wide Communication The team communicates to the campus through its web site, which houses the campus wide updates (spread sheets charting activities), the newsletters, forms (checklists to assist participants in the process), and links to resources across the country. The Team also communicates through the coordinators appearances before the senates, management teams, and instructional divisions. These appearances are augmented by beginning and end-of -semester informational letters and spread sheets as well as the monthly newsletters. These newsletters, complete with photos, detail the journeys of areas as diverse as Histotechnology, Dance, Public Safety and Math toward the effective use of SLOs/AUOs for their departments/units. They follow a formal structure: The department is introduced The interviewee is asked about previous assessment efforts and problems the department has experienced (routinely negative) The interviewee is asked about the departments initial perceptions about SLOs/AUOs (routinely negative) The interviewee is asked about initial work with the facilitators (routinely positive) Finally, the interviewee is asked about what the department looks forward to discovering in the future (routinely positive) These newsletters serve to humanize the process as they put a name and a face to our campus successes. Their positive effect is reflected in the number of departments/units that have asked to be the subjects of future newsletters, and as a result, the coordinator will continue to use them in year three. In May 2006, the Coordinator further expanded the teams communication and documentation efforts by utilizing campus wide email to distribute the end of the semester letter. Documentation will also be modified in year three to depict both breadth of participation (total of vp offices, division offices, and departments participating) and depth of participation (the previous total including a total of all disciplines as well). Formal and Informal Dialogs with Other Colleges When the Steering Committee went to President OHearn with its Implementation Plan in May of 2004, he supported the idea of Mt. 91ֱs mentoring role. Since then, the AACJCs positive response Mt 91ֱs SLOs Implementation Plan and the summary of Mt. 91ֱs efforts to date that was sent out state-wide by the Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges has prompted dozens of calls for assistance from other campuses. This assistance has involved not only an explanation of Mt. Sacs model and processes but also suggestions of differing models and processes based on the particular colleges culture and needs at the time. The following is a list of colleges the Coordinator has worked with in the past two years either formally (in workshops) or informally (in on-campus discussions, emails, and phone conversations): Riverside Community College Chaffey College West Hills, Lemore College College of the Redwoods Orange Coast College Santa Monica College Golden West College Butte College LA Southwest College West Hills College Saddleback College Cerritos College San Mateo College LA Mission College While the time spent with other colleges has added to the coordinators work load, there has been a beneficial component to this activity; during the most challenging moments over the past two years, these regular reminders of what can happen to a college when it proceeds without a plan, a model, method of documentation, or consideration of the campus culture, has helped to strengthen the teams commitment to Mt. 91ֱs plan. Evaluation of Team Activities: The best indicator of the effectiveness of the efforts at communication are the increase in campus-wide participation. (See Consistent and Equal Coverage above) Other indicators are anecdotal in nature. There are far fewer faculty/staff claiming no knowledge of the process and far fewer individuals questioning the model. In May of 2005, the Coordinators end-of- semester letter dealt with commonly asked questions about the model and the process. In May of 2006, this did not appear to be necessary. Area Three: Quality of Implementation Process Summary of Team Activities: Early in the first semester of year-one the team created its own SLOs and AUOs. The AUO was: The team will increase the number of dept/unit participants who effectively engage in the SLOs/AUOs process. Mid-way through year-two the team found that the two means of assessment methods it was employing were not effective. Initially, each facilitator was to complete a self-assessment, but this was not done with enough consistency to make it valuable. Then, each department/unit was given an evaluation form. This was done more frequently, but it yielded little beyond the perfunctory statements: great job or thanks a lot. Faced with a lack of meaningful data, the team began to discuss other options and decided to utilize a two pronged means of assessment. The first would involve a simple tally of participants. #1: Using the SLOs/AUOs team camp-us update of May 1, 2006, as compared to the update of May 1 2005, SLOs/AUOs participation in all 156 depts/units will increase to 60% and means of assessment participation in all 156 depts/units will increase to 35% as calculated by the ERRA by June 1, 2006 The second was based on a team generated rubric, which would assess the quality of the 5 column models on numerous levels: #2 Using the SLOs/AUOs team generated rubric, 60% of department/unit models submitted will be rated acceptable or above as evaluated by SLOs/AUOs team members and calculated by the ERRA by June 1, 2006 The utilization of a rubric brought with it further delays as the team could not proceed with its assessment until the norming process was completed. Ironically, this reinforced the positive and forgiving nature of outcomes assessment. Evaluation of Team Activities (See attached 5 column model) For Means of Assessment #1, the participation data collected listed SLOs/AUOs at 59% and means of assessment at 49%. This was in line with the teams desired numbers, and it prompts the team to continue facilitation efforts as usual, but in order to have a more accurate count for year three, the team has agreed to use the campus update spread sheets to list only those depts./units that have a documented 5 column model as opposed to last year when credit was given to areas engaged in SLOs discussion and willing to proceed. For Means of Assessment #2, the table below summarizes the results and depicts the need for a number of changes to team protocols for year three. First, the data collected prior to this summary depicts a significant variation in the ratings given by team members for column one. As the team appears to be normed in their ratings of the other columns, the section of the rubric dealing with column one should be discussed in order for the team to come to an agreement on what constitutes Acceptable in that column. Second, the team will begin using the rubric in conjunction with the existing checklists as they work with departments/units to ensure a quality process. Finally, its important to note that the bulk of models rated by the team that contained information in columns 4 and 5 were from areas that had either begun the process the year prior to the teams existence (i.e. Tutorial Services and Mental Health Tech) or had worked in the past year without the team(i.e. French Hotel and Restaurant Management). At the end of the Implementation phase next year we should see an increase in the percentage of areas rated Acceptable in columns 4 and 5 as depts. /units that have worked with the team move into those columns. Team Ratings of Five-Column ModelsColumn 1 - MissionColumn 2 - OutcomeColumn 3 - AssmtColumn 4 - SummaryColumn 5 - Resultsn%n%n%n%n%Needs Work8350.9%4728.8%6658.9%1666.7%1376.5%Acceptable or higher8049.1%11671.2%4641.1%833.3%423.5%Total163100.0%163100.0%112100.0%24100.0%17100.0% Area Four: Team Support of the New 91ֱ Review Process (PIE) Summary of Team Activities: The fall 2005 letter from the SLOs/AUOs Coordinator that preceded the distribution of the PIE forms detailed the assistance the team could provide for PIE. This, coupled with a notation regarding SLOs team assistance on the PIE form, references to the assistance the team could provide in the PIE training sessions, the visibility of the SLOs coordinator in the PIE training sessions, and the Coordinators phone calls to those areas that were behind in the process, did prompt a large number of requests for assistance. As a result, the Coordinator was able to conduct training for all 20 of the Administrative Services Units, and facilitators gave informal PIE training to representatives from 16 academic departments. The Institutional Effectiveness Committees recommendations to PAC suggesting more training sessions in fall of 2006 and an earlier distribution date for the PIE forms themselves will require additional support from the SLOs/AUOs team in fall of 2006. Team support of the process also occurred in other, less obvious ways. After turning in the PIE Summary form at the end of the first year of the new process, one division dean shared her departments individual PIE forms with the coordinator and voiced concern that a number of departments that had not worked with the team had created SLOs on their own. The Coordinator looked over the SLOs and give credit to those areas that had met the college standards. This notation of credit was accompanied by a note to the chair outlining what the team could do for the department in the next round. More importantly, the coordinator also contacted those department chairs, whose listed SLOs were not outcomes (i.e. secure funding for a new facility), explained the adjustments that were needed, and pointed out the ways in which the team could be of service to the department. Evaluation of Team Activities: Formal evaluation of the year-two team PIE support activities came in the SLOs Team Support section of the PIE summary form completed by deans and managers. The comments were resoundingly positive. One dean, whose division experienced a flurry of activity in fall of 2005 states: My hat is off to this team; they are accomplishing a Herculean effort- not just in the sheer number of presentations and workgroups but in their cultural re-education of the campus. Another dean whose division includes a number of non-participants states: Trainers have been generous in offering support. We have some department/programs that have declined to participate in the current SLOs process, but that is no fault of the trainers or opportunities offered. It is important to note that while the Coordinators scrutiny of the PIE forms turned in by departments in one division (see above) did prompt a flurry of revisions and did raise the number of recorded SLOs, they only occurred in one division. The labor-intensive nature of the activity was such that is was difficult for the coordinator to maintain. In future, however, it should be done consistently across the campus to ensure the quality of both the PIE and SLOs processes. There is reference to this need in the Proposal for Institutionalization of SLO/AUOs where continual scrutiny of outcomes and objectives is listed as a function of the SLOs/AUOs Project Quality Assurance Committee. Area Five: Utilization of the Accreditation Self-Study Warehouse Summary of Team Activities: The spread sheet used for campus updates was altered to include a column entitled Upload Accreditation. This will be utilized as departments/units complete 5 column models and give their permission to house the models in a section of the self-study deemed appropriate by the Coordinator. Evaluation of Team Activities: To date, eight completed models have been uploaded to the warehouse, attached to the appropriate standards. These range from French to Counseling, and the continuation of these efforts is a top priority for both the coordinator and the team. While there are different software programs being considered that may accomplish this task in conjunction with other institutional effectiveness processes in future, it is important to warehouse the information in a logical format until then. Area Six: Senate Approval of the Proposal for the Institutionalization of SLOs/AUOs and the Proposal for General Education Assessment Summary of Team Activities In the summer of 2005, the SLOs/AUOs Coordinator wrote a proposal for the institutionalization of SLOs/AUOs at Mt. 91ֱ. This included reference to another proposal for General Education assessment that was created at the same time. The former listed the committees that needed to be created, the coordinators duties and requested significant release time for this faculty member. This Institutionalization proposal went to the Academic Senate for approval spring of 2006 in anticipation of a lengthy approval process. Evaluation of Team Activities Although its president and vice president were supportive, the proposal did not fare well on first reading in the Academic Senate. While there were a couple of senators against the quantity of released time, the majority of questions posed were answered by the document itself. This indicated that a large number of the senators had not read the proposal. This was further proved when one faculty member stated my department hasnt read it, but theyre against it. At that point it seemed likely that the proposal would be tabled. It was then that the President of the Faculty Association stepped in with the suggestion that the proposal be broken down into a series of small resolutions. The first of these was a general resolution in support of a faculty member continuing as the coordinator when institutionalization occurs. It passed unanimously in April 2006. That resolution will be followed by multiple resolutions to be voted on in the fall. This will have to be accomplished quickly as the release- time for the position should be bargained before December 2006, and the new coordinator should be trained during spring semester 2007. There is the additional issue of approval of the proposal for General Education Assessment which must also be dealt with as soon as possible in order to be fully underway by the next accreditation cycle. Conclusion It is not surprising that promoting and sustaining one of the largest initiatives for improvement in the colleges history would involve many trials and tribulations for its leaders, but there is no denying the fact that Mt. 91ֱ is moving steadily toward the point at which faculty, staff, and managers campus-wide will consistently use assessment results to improve their students learning and their service to the campus. S^x 9 = > j  ' 7 f |papQhSh5CJOJQJaJhShCJOJQJaJhEmCJOJQJaJhn_CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJh~CJOJQJaJh_tCJOJQJaJhSh-CJOJQJaJh![,CJOJQJaJhSh!)CJOJQJaJhShSCJOJQJaJhnCJOJQJaJhShCJOJQJaJ+_`l  O 6 7 g   NOgd gd & FgdVf g  , 0 @ [     ! * ³§›³§›th\hQ%CJOJQJaJh![,CJOJQJaJh0+h0+CJOJQJaJhOCJOJQJaJh_tCJOJQJaJh CJOJQJaJhUsCJOJQJaJh0+h CJOJQJaJh CJOJQJaJh56CJOJQJaJ"h~h56CJOJQJaJh~h5CJOJQJaJ* ? \ _ c e f k p w   &-~o`THhj4&CJOJQJaJhvCJOJQJaJhShvCJOJQJaJhSh-CJOJQJaJhGCJOJQJaJhcCJOJQJaJh![,CJOJQJaJhQ%CJOJQJaJhSh3;/CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJh CJOJQJaJh`hUs5CJOJQJaJhUsCJOJQJaJhShJ-CJOJQJaJ-123Q^`v}~'FЦЦsdTGhO6CJOJQJaJh`h 6CJOJQJaJhSh CJOJQJaJh-CJOJQJaJh CJOJQJaJh]CJOJQJaJhSh] CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhShTYCJOJQJaJhSh-CJOJQJaJh![,CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhj4&CJOJQJaJhOCJOJQJaJFv}~NOXwƷ}ma}UI=h CJOJQJaJhOCJOJQJaJho$CJOJQJaJhcCJOJQJaJhch![,5CJOJQJaJhch5CJOJQJaJh![,CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJ"h~hTY56CJOJQJaJh2 56CJOJQJaJhSh-CJOJQJaJhO6CJOJQJaJh`h 6CJOJQJaJh 6CJOJQJaJOPQRSTUVWXw-.z{ BC]XYgdgdPgd$gdgdTY#%&?*,ȼȤ}nbVG}bhSh%!CJOJQJaJh%!CJOJQJaJh~CJOJQJaJhSh] CJOJQJaJhShTYCJOJQJaJhvCJOJQJaJh]CJOJQJaJhpCJOJQJaJhOCJOJQJaJh![,CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhch5CJOJQJaJhUs5CJOJQJaJh hCJOJQJaJ,.!#$ADHJKLxpaRChchcCJOJQJaJhchQ%CJOJQJaJhShJ-CJOJQJaJhSh] CJOJQJaJhcCJOJQJaJhwNxCJOJQJaJhO5CJOJQJaJhUs5CJOJQJaJh h5CJOJQJaJhShCJOJQJaJh0+CJOJQJaJh CJOJQJaJh_tCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJ #),/07DNmp ˿׿ח׋{llח`ThpCJOJQJaJhOCJOJQJaJhShJ-CJOJQJaJhchQ%5CJOJQJaJhcCJOJQJaJho$CJOJQJaJh?ZCJOJQJaJhwNxhwNx5CJOJQJaJhwNxCJOJQJaJh]CJOJQJaJhcCJOJQJaJhQ%CJOJQJaJhchc5CJOJQJaJDKj /34<CDZ^ch٩蝑ͅy͵j^R^^h8$CJOJQJaJhcCJOJQJaJhShxCJOJQJaJhUsCJOJQJaJhV CJOJQJaJhcCJOJQJaJhpCJOJQJaJh]CJOJQJaJhxCJOJQJaJhwNxCJOJQJaJhQ%CJOJQJaJhSh$CJOJQJaJhOCJOJQJaJh`CJOJQJaJ h DGKThQxyz{иܔܸĸĸyjZh~h5CJOJQJaJhShCJOJQJaJhSh$CJOJQJaJh0+CJOJQJaJhGCJOJQJaJhOCJOJQJaJhxCJOJQJaJh#QCJOJQJaJhV CJOJQJaJhQ%CJOJQJaJhcCJOJQJaJhcCJOJQJaJh8$CJOJQJaJ !"B[]y (28ʾʲ⣲┅scWKhcCJOJQJaJh~CJOJQJaJhShTn6CJOJQJaJ"hGh56CJOJQJaJhShCJOJQJaJhShCJOJQJaJhShxCJOJQJaJhcCJOJQJaJh8$CJOJQJaJhwNxCJOJQJaJhzCJOJQJaJhSh3;/CJOJQJaJhShTnCJOJQJaJ0;R`qruvxʾ񲣗wk__hD|CJOJQJaJh$CJOJQJaJhchc6CJOJQJaJhch3;/6CJOJQJaJhcCJOJQJaJhSh%!CJOJQJaJh%!CJOJQJaJh  CJOJQJaJhxCJOJQJaJhzCJOJQJaJhSh3;/CJOJQJaJhShTnCJOJQJaJ %@ABCO\]frz*WXw͗͗͗͗͗k͗_hTnCJOJQJaJhD|CJOJQJaJh~h3;/6CJOJQJaJh~hTn6CJOJQJaJhShTnCJOJQJaJhShPCJOJQJaJh$CJOJQJaJhzCJOJQJaJhSh3;/CJOJQJaJh?ZCJOJQJaJh8$CJOJQJaJhcCJOJQJaJ XYV]jkp|}015o ⻯⻠ʔvg[hzCJOJQJaJhShCJOJQJaJhhCJOJQJaJhSh~CJOJQJaJh CJOJQJaJh~h~CJOJQJaJhwNxCJOJQJaJhShTnCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhcCJOJQJaJhSh3;/CJOJQJaJhShwNxCJOJQJaJ#YQnU )!*!\" $ $<$'''3((((\*]*|*++t,u,v,gdgdgdc & Fgdcgd : ? D U V n !'!(!*!,!9!e!p!{!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"S"Z"["\"]"^"ٵ詵͑ٝͩvh"#CJOJQJaJhSh?ZCJOJQJaJh?ZCJOJQJaJh]GCJOJQJaJh  CJOJQJaJh CJOJQJaJhzCJOJQJaJhcCJOJQJaJhShCJOJQJaJh8$CJOJQJaJhwNxCJOJQJaJ+^"b"g"m"n"x"""""""# ### $ $ $$.$2$4$;$ĸyjZM=MZh~h~6CJOJQJaJh6CJOJQJaJh~hTn6CJOJQJaJhSh$ CJOJQJaJhShPCJOJQJaJhj4&CJOJQJaJh"#CJOJQJaJhU&0CJOJQJaJhD|CJOJQJaJh'CJOJQJaJh CJOJQJaJh%!CJOJQJaJh]GCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJh$CJOJQJaJ;$<$$$$$$$$$$%.%%%%% &&'&1&;&B&{&&&&&&&&&&ȹ}nb}V}bh]GCJOJQJaJh%!CJOJQJaJhShPCJOJQJaJh$CJOJQJaJh"#CJOJQJaJhJstCJOJQJaJhh CJOJQJaJhj4&CJOJQJaJhShj4&CJOJQJaJh  hj4&CJOJQJaJh  CJOJQJaJh  hU&0CJOJQJaJhTn6CJOJQJaJ &&'''('4'5'8'9'C'D'E'K'g'k'~''''''''''''''( (((%(*(2(?(پ;xl`پ``l``hz8CJOJQJaJh2 CJOJQJaJhShzCJOJQJaJhh hP6CJOJQJaJh"#CJOJQJaJh%CJOJQJaJhSh3;/CJOJQJaJhShPCJOJQJaJhh CJOJQJaJhcCJOJQJaJhi{CJOJQJaJhSh%!CJOJQJaJ%?(@(I(S([(](g(r(z(((((((((1)S)b)y)z))))))赩ymamUFhSh%!CJOJQJaJhi{CJOJQJaJh"#CJOJQJaJhJstCJOJQJaJh]GCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJh3;}CJOJQJaJh%CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJh:CJOJQJaJh$CJOJQJaJhShPCJOJQJaJh2 CJOJQJaJhz8CJOJQJaJhcCJOJQJaJ)))))))))*"*0*P*W*Z*[*\*]*{*|*****徲َ٦paRFRFhCJOJQJaJhw.hw.CJOJQJaJh56CJOJQJaJ"h~h56CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJh]GCJOJQJaJhi{CJOJQJaJh3;}CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhSh3;/CJOJQJaJh%CJOJQJaJh CJOJQJaJhSh0~CJOJQJaJh$CJOJQJaJ*++ + +++++I+v++++++++++++,B,M,N,O,T,i,s,t,u,÷Ç{{ëoëcWhCJOJQJaJh  CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJh]GCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJh%!CJOJQJaJh$CJOJQJaJh%CJOJQJaJhw.CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhh6CJOJQJaJhh6CJOJQJaJhh6CJOJQJaJu,v,z,,,,,,, ----- -!-"-a-d-----ôrcccTTHhJstCJOJQJaJh%!hCJOJQJaJhw.hCJOJQJaJhhCJOJQJaJh]GCJOJQJaJh)SCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhw.hw.CJOJQJaJh56CJOJQJaJ"h~h56CJOJQJaJhSh5CJOJQJaJh2 5CJOJQJaJh5CJOJQJaJv,w,x,y,z,,,9/"1#1j2k2X3Y33 455{:|::::::: $$Ifa$gdDgdgdgd-------.(.0.9.I.P.r.x........./#/%/'/(///5/6/8/:/F/_/e/q//////³泤昳thDCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJh hCJOJQJaJhSh hCJOJQJaJhShCJOJQJaJh2 CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhi{CJOJQJaJh6CJOJQJaJ)//*0,0-0N0j0y0000000000 11 1"1#1:1=1U1g1v1111111112,21252h2j2222333-3U3V3پ诣hw.hCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhDCJOJQJaJhShDCJOJQJaJh56CJOJQJaJh2 CJOJQJaJh%!hCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhtCJOJQJaJ1V3W3X3Y3v333333334445B5X5_5i5l555555?677B7a7777777 8868G8µsssgssssgshj4&CJOJQJaJhtCJOJQJaJhc?CJOJQJaJh2 CJOJQJaJhthtCJOJQJaJh2 hgCJOJQJaJh2 5CJOJQJaJhSh5CJOJQJaJh~56CJOJQJaJhDhw.6CJOJQJaJhShw.CJOJQJaJ(G8 :1:z:{:|:::;;L;M;;;;;;;;;;;;;<ɷ~obRERhx5CJOJQJaJhSh5CJOJQJaJhB5CJOJQJaJhVh CJOJQJaJhVhCJOJQJaJh5CJOJQJaJ)hg5B*CJOJQJ\^JaJphhgCJaJ#hgB*CJOJQJ^JaJphht5CJOJQJaJhj4&htCJOJQJaJhj4&hj4&CJOJQJaJhj4&CJOJQJaJ::kd$$Ifl4ֈ$ ^ U&~/`p''''T')  <.644 la p<::;;;; ; ; ;;;;;;";(;+;1;4;:;=;C;F;L;M;b;Ff $$IfWDd`a$Ff $$Ifa$$Ifb;e;k;o;u;x;~;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;$IfFf$$IfWDd`a$Ff $$Ifa$;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;&<'<C<??@@|C}CCFFgd0+gdjgdFfG$If<!<%<&<'<C<G<L<a<l<w<<<~==========>>B>W>Z>i>u>{o{{{cWoKohCJOJQJaJhBCJOJQJaJh"#CJOJQJaJh hCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJh=+CJOJQJaJhShCJOJQJaJ"h~h56CJOJQJaJhShCJOJQJaJhSh5CJOJQJaJhSh5CJOJQJaJhSh!)5CJOJQJaJu>}>>>>>>>>>>????A?P?Q?b?h?p???????@@@@@@|CĸЬĠĔĠĠĈ|pahShjCJOJQJaJh&CJOJQJaJhU&0CJOJQJaJh$CJOJQJaJh%!CJOJQJaJh~CJOJQJaJh'CJOJQJaJhjCJOJQJaJh hCJOJQJaJh=+CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhj4&CJOJQJaJh"#CJOJQJaJ!|C}CCCCCCCCCC DD:DcDDDFFFG]G^GGGGGHH HH4H?HCHĸymayaUh=+CJOJQJaJh0+CJOJQJaJhnCJOJQJaJh^3GCJOJQJaJh5CJOJQJaJhP]CJOJQJaJhSgQCJOJQJaJhhjCJOJQJaJhjCJOJQJaJh$CJOJQJaJh0+h0+CJOJQJaJ"h~h56CJOJQJaJhShCJOJQJaJ!FFFIGIHIIIJIKILIMINIOIIIIJJJLL\M]MxMOOOTTTgdgd0+CHJHWHkHmHoHHHHHI>>FAGAHAIAJAKALAMANAOAAAABBBDD\E]ExEGGGLLLNN@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z @8Z@8Zv:v:v:v:|v:Qv:t0v:v:\v:v:Sv:v:v:v:v:v:xv:0v:v:\v:v:Sv:v:v:v:v:v:xv:0v:v:\v:v:Sv:v:v:v:v:v:tv:0v:v:\v:v:Sv:v:v:v:v:v:xv:0v:v:\v:v:Sv:v:v:v:v:v:x@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z @8Z@8Z@8Z@8Z@8+_`lO67gNOPQRSTUVWXw- . z{ BC]XYQnU)*\  <3 \"]"|"##t$u$v$w$x$y$z$$$9'")#)j*k*X+Y++ ,--{2|2222222223333 3 3 333333"3(3+31343:3=3C3F3L3M3b3e3k3o3u3x3~3333333333333333333333333333333333&4'4C47788|;};;>>>FAGAHAIAJAKALAMANAOAAAABBBDD\E]ExEGGGLLLNN0000000000 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000022222223333 3 3 33333"3(3+31343:3=3C3F3L3b3e3k3o3u3x3~3333333333333333333333333333Nj00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j00j0 0 j0 0j0 0j0 0j0 0j0 0j0 0j0 0j0 0 j0 0 j0 0 j0 0  00ff * -F,hX ^";$&?()*u,-/V3G8<u>ILOTV,/012456789:;<>?@ABCDEGHIJOPQSTUVWXYOYv,::b;;FTV-3=FKLMNRZV.0?~$~d~~~$~d~$d~$d$d$d$d$d$d$d $ dPP~$~d '    % % + I N T ] h r r { 22EEEN      !"$#%&')(*+,/-.*   " * 2 2 M S [ g o z 22EEEN  !"$#%&')(*+,./-8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity=00*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=..*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName9//*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace;***urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsaddress:))*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsStreet #0/./0.*)0/.0.0.0/.0.00.0..0/.0.00.0/.0.0/.0//0.$M'MNLZs1x1N::,-12_`fvTTa/a/6060G0z2}66JAOA M$MMMMM1N1NNN$M'MN;ETz T^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHETz;                  zYutP] h= V h $ ]   x"V %!"#8$o$Q%j4&0+=+![,J-3;/U&0p1U06z6z8:?<^3GIG]GSgQ[R)S?Zn_Vbek n0nTnZoUsJstwNx3;}vD'ob&~ D|E B O]i{-c?zo;#Qpj`$%!)O'_t)`.$0~hnw.TYcEmceXPgx%5G$t2 S|2222222223333 3 3 333333"3(3+31343:3=3C3F3L3M3b3e3k3o3u3x3~333333333333333333333333333333N@$M$Md/$M$MN@@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial7&  Verdana;Wingdings?5 z Courier New"hZˤFFC:fFo B( B(!>4dsNsN @HP(?2 jblake-judd jblake-judd  Oh+'0p   , 8 DPX`h jblake-juddNormal jblake-judd70Microsoft Office Word@Z}z@BY@-wh@6 B՜.+,0 hp  91ֱ(sN  Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[]^_`abcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F7Data \1TablelNWordDocument7SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q