1 / 51

Governing Board Accreditation Presentation

Governing Board Accreditation Presentation. Presenters: Accreditation Oversight Committee Co-Chairs Ron Vess, Library Department Chair Mink Stavenga, Dean of Instructional Support Services. February 5, 2011. Governing Board Accreditation Presentation.

rafe
Télécharger la présentation

Governing Board Accreditation Presentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Governing Board Accreditation Presentation Presenters: Accreditation Oversight Committee Co-Chairs Ron Vess, Library Department Chair Mink Stavenga, Dean of Instructional Support Services February 5, 2011

  2. Governing Board Accreditation Presentation Accreditation Oversight Committee (AOC) Mission: Oversight and coordination of Southwestern College’s ongoing accreditation process development and review of responses to ACCJC recommendations and action plans. Vision: Ensure that the college is meeting the AACJC Standards to achieve ongoing reaffirmation of accreditation. 1

  3. Status of 2nd Follow Up Report The Follow Up Report due March 15, 2011 should demonstrate resolution of the following recommendations: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8. By March 15, 2011 the District will also need to fully resolve the remaining recommendations still in progress from the October 2010 report: 6, 9 and 10 as well as a new recommendation 7 the Commission added this week. 2

  4. Recommendation 1: Mission Statement • As previously identified in the 2003 ACCJC WASC Accreditation Report, the team recommends that the college systematically and regularly evaluate and update the mission statement; assure that it defines the college educational purposes, its intended student population, and its commitment to student learning; and use it to guide institutional decisions and improvement goals (WASC Action Letter, February 2010). • Elements of Recommendation: • Defines College Educational Purposes • Defines its Intended Student Population • Defines its Commitment to Student Learning 3

  5. Recommendation 1 • Due: March 15, 2011 Status: In Progress • To address and satisfy this recommendation: • Researched mission statements of nine other colleges that have been reaffirmed. • Identified key elements that were common at other Institutions: • educational purpose, student population and commitment to student learning. • fundamental shift from short, business model to longer more educationally-based statement. • Drafted a mission statement that integrates our strategic priorities, institutional values, student learning outcomes, and institutional performance indicators. • Engaged in the consultation process in fall 2010. 4 4

  6. Process for Revision of Mission Statement • Additional Plans • Annual Review through Shared Consultation Council • Comprehensive Review through Strategic Planning Process 5

  7. Collegial Consultation Process Summer 2010/Fall 2010 • Additional Consultation: • Draft Mission Statement was distributed via • e-mail college wide (5/10) • Draft Mission Statement presented during fall 2010 Opening Day (8/10) • Draft Mission Statement consultation via email survey (8/10) • Target Presentations by Stuart/Suarez: • Academic Senate (11/9, 11/16) • Classified Executive Board (11/22) • Deans Council (11/10) • ASO (11/30) • CMT (11/16) • Higher Education Centers: Nov.4, 11, & 15*) Formal Consultation Process: • Policy Consultation Process involved all Constituency Groups through Shared Consultation Council • Governing Board Meeting: First Reading 1/2011 • Governing Board Meeting: Second Reading 2/2011. 6

  8. Draft Policy 1200: Mission and Values Three Components: Mission Statement Commitment to Achieving Student Learning Institutional Values Note: Distribute Draft as presented to Governing Board on January 19, 2011 for First Reading. Second Reading scheduled for February 9, 2011. Final approved version to be included in the SWC Shared Planning & Decision-Making Handbook. 7

  9. RECOMMENDATION 2: INTEGRATED PLANNING As previously identified in the 2003 ACCJC WASC Accreditation Report, the team recommends that the college establish and implement a collegial and comprehensive planning process that assures improvement in student learning. Such a process integrates the various college plans; is informed by quantitative and qualitative data and analysis; systematically assesses outcome within both instruction and noninstructional services; and provides for an ongoing and systematic cycle of goal setting, resource allocation; implementation, and evaluation. 8

  10. Recommendation 2 • Due: March 15, 2011 Status: In Progress • To address and satisfy this recommendation: • We are making considerable progress establishing and implementing a collegial and comprehensive planning process that: • Assures improvement in student learning; • Integrates college plans; • Is informed by quantitative as well as qualitative data and analysis; • Systematically assesses outcomes within both instruction and non-instructional services; and • Provides for an ongoing and systematic cycle of goal setting, resource allocation, implementation, and evaluation. 9

  11. RECOMMENDATION 3: PROGRAM REVIEW The team recommends that the college improve program review across all areas; integrate it with student learning outcomes; and ensure that it is evidence based and is occurring at regular intervals sufficient to provide a foundation for college planning and allocation of human, physical, technological, and fiscal resources. At issue since 1996, the team recommends that the college implement its policy on program discontinuance. 10

  12. Recommendation 3 • Due: March 15, 2011 Status: In Progress • To address and satisfy this recommendation: • Working towards improving Program Review across all areas: • Integrating Program Review with student learning outcomes to; • Ensure that it is evidence based; and • Ensure that it is occurring at regular intervals sufficient to provide a foundation for college planning and allocation of human, physical, technological, and fiscal resources. 11

  13. Planning Cycle Evaluation Goal Implementation Goal Setting 12

  14. RECOMMENDATION 3: Challenges with Program Review • Lack of integration: • Needs identified in program reviews of individual units were not integrated and prioritized in the program review of their larger administrative unit. • Program reviews were not integrated with institutional planning or budget processes. • Lack of access to data. • Not conducted regularly by all units. 13

  15. RECOMMENDATIONS of AOC 1, 2, 3: • Reinstate the institutional program review process in the spirit of Achieving Institutional Mission (AIM) • Establish the institutional program review process as the core for the College’s integrated planning processes. • Establish an Institutional Program Review Committee (IPRC) as a standing committee of the Shared Consultation Council. 14

  16. Institutional Program Review Committee (IPRC) Vice President—Division Program Review Dean—School/Director—Unit Program Review Academic Program/Unit Program Review 15

  17. Primary Role of IPRC • Implement the yearly institutional Program Review (PR) process. • Provide oversight to ensure that the PR process is carried out in accordance with the updated Program Review Handbook. Major Responsibilities • Establish and disseminate the yearly PR timeline • Establish and disseminate the PR Forms • Receive and archive completed PR reports • Forward submitted executive summaries/action plans/prioritized budget recommendations to the Shared Consultation Council (SCC) • Forward relevant sections of submitted PR reports to the appropriate institutional planning committees (e.g. Technology and Facilities) • Evaluate and update the process annually 16

  18. IPRC Membership • Faculty (3) • Vice President of the Academic Senate • SLO Coordinator • Faculty-at-large • Classified Employees (3) • One representative from each unit: Student Services; Academic Affairs; Business and Financial Affairs/Human Resources/ Superintendent/President • Administrators (3) • Dean of Instructional Support Services (ISS) • Director/Dean of Student Affairs (SS) • Dean/Director BFA/HR/SP • Associated Student Organization (ASO) 1 • Dean of Institutional Research, Planning, and Grants (Resource only) 17

  19. Institutional Planning • Institutions have multiple institutional plans to address various needs e.g.: • Technology • Facilities • Enrollment Management • Educational Master Plan • Strategic Plan • Program Review Challenges with Multiple Plans • Plans are not aligned with each other • Confusion exists over college priorities • Results in competition for limited resources • Plans are shelved and not implemented • Failure to achieve desired outcomes. 18

  20. WASC RECOMMENDATIONS 1, 2, 3: • Ensure that the collegial and comprehensive planning process: • Is guided by the institutional mission • Uses program review as a foundation for college planning and allocation of human, physical, technological, and fiscal resources • Assures improvement in student learning • Integrates college plans • Provides for an ongoing and systematic cycle of goal setting resource allocation, implementation, and evaluation. 19

  21. ACCJC and Institutional Planning • “A College must have a point in its decision-making process whereby: • It considers all of its plans • Determines how to align them and to which ones it will commit • Determines the sequence in which they might best be achieved • Set priorities, and • Allocates resources and responsibilities to achieve the needed changes by determined dates.” 20

  22. SWC and Integrated Planning • Shared Consultation Council is the “point” that considers all plans and sets priorities. • Program Review is the basis of institutional planning and improvement • Program review findings are integrated into all college plans: • Enrollment Management • Technology • Facilities • Educational Master Plan • Strategic Plan • Budget 21

  23. 22

  24. Recommendations of AOC 1, 2, 3 • Establish the necessary infrastructure to provide data for use in planning and assessing institutional effectiveness. • Establish that all planning processes and plans formally incorporate program review and strategic priorities as a criterion for prioritization of requests for resources. • Engage in the consultation process for the proposed draft integrated planning model. 23

  25. 24

  26. Key Features of Comprehensive Planning Model • Assures improvement in student learning through its integration with program review. • Links program reviews with institutional planning and allocation of resources • Is responsive to change through yearly program review updates and two, three, and six year comprehensive program review cycle. 25

  27. RECOMMENDATION 4: STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES (SLOs) The team recommends that the college identify SLOs for all of its courses, academic programs, learning and support services; and identify administrative unit outcomes for noninstructional areas. It is further recommended that the college use data and analysis to assess student achievement of those outcomes and use assessment results to make improvements. 26

  28. Recommendation 4 • Due: March 15, 2011 Status: In Progress • To address and satisfy this recommendation: • The SLO Committee is now comprised of members representing Academic and Student Service SLOs as well as Administrative Unit Outcomes.  The committee is guiding and monitoring our SLOs/AUOs.  This comprehensive approach has resulted in the following: • All Academic Course SLOs are 100% complete.  92 of 328 Academic Program SLOs are complete.  100% of Program SLOs will be completed by May 30, 2011 and ready for implementation and assessment. • All Student Service/Learning and Support Services SLOs and Administrative Unit Outcomes are complete. 27

  29. Recommendation 4 (continued) • Training for planning, implementation, and assessment of SLOs will be offered beginning next week, February 7, 2011.Thisspring all SLOs/AUOs are being implemented, assessed, with results used in planning program improvements.  This will “close the SLO loop” or SLO cycle for the first time.  Campus-wide refinement of SLOs, assessment, and process will occur hereafter. • eLumen will be used to store SLOs/AUOs, SLO/AUO methods of assessment, assessment results, and plans for improvement.  This data and plan will be included in our Program Reviews on a yearly basis. • Analysis of Workload will occur in all areas to assist in planning for current and future resource allocation needs.  It is projected that workload will decrease as SLOs/AUOs are institutionalized. 28

  30. RECOMMENDATION 5: SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE FOR DISTANCE EDUCATION PROGRAM The team recommends that, in order to comply with the Commission’s policies on distance learning and substantive change, the college submit a substantive change report for those programs that currently offer more than 50 percent of a program through distance education. 29

  31. Recommendation 5 • Due: October 15, 2010 Status: Resolved • To address and satisfy this recommendation: • A Substantive Change Proposal (SCP) for Distance Education was submitted to the Commission in May 2010. • The SCP Committee accepted the proposal bringing the College into compliance with this requirement. 30

  32. RECOMMENDATION 6: TECHNOLOGY As previously identified in the 1996 and 2003 ACCJC WASC Accreditation Reports, the team recommends that the college implement a Technology Plan that is integrated with the Strategic Plan and college goals; relies on Program Review; and provides reliable budgetary process for renewing technology and for providing appropriate technology staffing, support, and training college wide. 31

  33. Recommendation 6 Due: March 15, 2011 Status: In Progress This recommendation was covered in the Interim Superintendent/President’s Presentation. 32

  34. RECOMMENDATION 7: STAFF DEVELOPMENT The team recommends that the college plan and conduct professional development activities to meet the needs of its personnel and implement a formal evaluation process of activities. 33

  35. Recommendation 7 • Due: March 15, 2011 Status: In Progress • To address and satisfy this recommendation: • A new Staff Development Coordinator was hired in November 2009. • Work Group 7 recommended a reorganization of the infrastructure of the Staff Development Committee and created a flow chart that depicts the specific roles and responsibilities of the administration, coordinators, and respective committees. • Staff Development developed, administered and analyzed a Needs Assessment Survey which included all the constituency groups of the college. • Budget request for 2010-2011 was driven by the results of the Needs Assessment surveys. • A training services coordinator position will be updated and filled based on the needs assessment survey. 34

  36. Recommendation 7 Additional Plans • Work Group 7 recommends that The Staff Development Committee create an advisory committee to provide recommendations to the Human Resources Director regarding the interpretation of the CSEA Contract language regarding Educational Incentive. • Needs Assessment Surveys will be administered in January 2011 to all constituent groups. • Staff Development plan will be finalized and will drive the budget plan and requests for 2011/2012. 35

  37. Recommendation 7 Additional Plans (continued) • Faculty will be encouraged to complete Individual Professional Development plans. • The Staff Development Committee will perform a self-assessment in late spring 2011. • Work Group 7 will work with the Staff Development Committee to create a comprehensive evaluation process for all activities offered through the Staff Development Office. 36

  38. RECOMMENDATION 8 (a): COLLEGIALITY The team recommends that the college set as a priority fostering an environment of trust and respect for all employees and students that allows the college community to promote administrative stability and to work together for the good of the college. 37

  39. Recommendation 8 (a) • Due: March 15, 2011 Status: In Progress • To address and satisfy this recommendation: • The Campus Climate Survey was deployed in November. We are currently analyzing the results and will develop Action Plans to address campus morale. • Although morale on campus seems to have improved over recent months, deploying another Campus Climate Survey at the end of the spring semester will give us an instrument to gauge this more accurately. 38

  40. Recommendation 8 (a) • Work Group 8 (a) developed several recommendations to address campus morale. The following recommendations have been resolved: • The Staff Dining Room re-opened in fall 2010. • Staff Development offered workshops during Opening Days in August 2010 and January 2011 on Bullying in the Workplace and Interpersonal Communication. • The December Governing Board meeting was moved to a larger venue for the December 2010 meeting. • Constituency Reports have been moved back to the beginning of Governing Board meetings. • Students and Staff were honored with recognition during the spring 2011 convocation. • Staff Development created an “SWC Student Honor Roll” which was unveiled during spring 2011 Opening Day. 39

  41. RECOMMENDATION 8 (b): DECISION-MAKING PROCESS The team further recommends that the college establish and follow a written process and structure providing faculty, staff, administrators, and students a substantial voice in decision-making processes. • Elements of Recommendation: • Establish a written process • Define the structure for a substantial voice in decision-making • Follow the process 40

  42. Recommendation 8 (b) • Due: October 15, 2010 Status: In Progress • To address and satisfy this recommendation: • Researched several other California community colleges shared governance policies & documents • Identified key elements that were common at other Institutions: • Policies and procedures based on CCLC and other college models • Adapted key elements in Ed Code & Title 5 into policies • In summer 2010, consultation of revised policy and new procedures 2510. • Policy & procedures 2510 approved by constituency leaders • presented at the SCC Retreat in August 2010 & approved by SCC • NewPolicy 2515 Role and Scope of the Academic Senate 10 + 1 Agreement approved by Superintendent/President on August 20, 2010. 41

  43. Additional Plans Development of Shared Planning and Decision-Making • Handbook originally started with Integrated Planning Work Group 2 • When consultants suggested such a handbook in November, the AOC suggested that its development become part of Work group 8B’s task Handbook Modules: • Updated Mission Statement • Strategic Planning/Integrated Planning Process & Flowchart • Program Review/SLO Process and Flowchart • Shared Governance structure Flowchart • Organizational Structure Flowcharts • List of Shared Governance Committees 42

  44. CONSULTATION PROCESS FOR THE HANDBOOK: • First reading was last week to the Academic Senate & the SCC • Sent out globally to the campus community & posted in public folders. • A committee template was developed and sent out; updates included as they come in. • Flowcharts are in currently in discussion and under development. • Next Steps: • Work Group 8B will be reviewing the final copy next week • Second draft of Handbook to be sent out globally next week • Second reading at Academic Senate on Feb. 15 • Second reading and expected approval at SCC meeting on Feb 16 43

  45. NEXT STEPS REGARDING SHARED GOVERNANCE ISSUES: • Constituency request for inclusion of the Confidentials group for Procedure 2510will be addressed in GBAPPRC and the SCC to allow for full and equitable participation of all constituent groups. • Continued use of consultation form for constituency input (e.g. policies) • Spring survey of constituencies to assess how the Handbook is meeting their needs. • Annual review and update of Handbook at SCC August Retreat. • Note: SWC Shared Planning & Decision Making Handbook does not require formal Governing Board approval. It is a document to be used by the campus community, it need only receive approval from the SCC and will be an info item for the Governing Board. 44

  46. RECOMMENDATION 9: POLICY-MAKING BODY As previously identified in the 2003 ACCJC WASC Accreditation Report, the team recommends the Governing Board adhere to its role as a policy-making body and not interfere with the authority and responsibility of the Superintendent/President for college operations. The team further recommends that the Governing Board act as a whole once it reaches a decision and as an advocate for the college. 45

  47. Recommendation 9 • Due: October 15, 2010 Status: In Progress • To address and satisfy this recommendation: • The previous Board participated in two training sessions specifically addressing issues identified in this recommendation and several Governing Board policies and procedures have been revised in response to issues identified in the Evaluation Report. • The newly seated Board Members received a comprehensive orientation and attended CCLC sessions in January. The ALO is working with the Office of the Superintendent/President to provide additional training sessions with the newly seated Board members. • As a result of the activities described, there is awareness among constituency groups that the role of Governing Board is to be a policy-making body and that it is not to interfere with the authority and responsibility of the Superintendent/President for District operations. 46

  48. Recommendation 9 (continued) • In preparing the 2010–2011 budget assumptions, additional funding was approved for ongoing workshops and training sessions for the Governing Board. • As previously mentioned plans are underway to develop a College Shared Planning and Decision Making Handbook. This handbook would further clarify the role of the Governing Board and its individual members. 47

  49. RECOMMENDATION 10: ROLES AND PROCESSES The Team recommends that the Governing Board establish and implement a formal procedure for handling potential conflict of interest and ethics policy violations and document adherence to the protocol. 48

  50. Recommendation 10 • Due: October 15, 2010 Status: In Progress • To address and satisfy this recommendation: • Procedure 2710: Conflict of Interest was approved by the Governing Board on June 9, 2010. • Policy and Procedure 2715: Code of Ethics was approved by the Governing Board on October 13, 2010. • The new Code of Ethics Procedure No. 2715 is a comprehensive document supporting the Code of Ethics Policy and was approved at the October 13, 2010 Governing Board meeting. • The Governing Board will review these policies and procedures at their annual retreat in 2011. • A Governing Board self-evaluation will take place in 2011. 49

More Related