ACCREDITATION PROGRESS EVALUATION REPORT
11600 Columbia College Dr.
Sonora, CA
95370
A Confidential Report Prepared for the
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges of the
Western Association of Schools and Colleges
This report
represents the findings of the accreditation progress report evaluation team
that visited
Dr. Brian King,
Chair
Visiting Team Members
Dr. Brian King (Chair) Ms.
Superintendent/President Commissioner
ACCREDITATION PROGRESS EVALUATION REPORT
FOR
On
On
Recommendation 1: Communication—The team recommends that the college
and district develop a concrete and systematic process to improve
collaboration, communication and cooperation. The process should include, but
not be limited to, an examination of whether any current functions provided by
the district office should be centralized or decentralized to better serve
students. (1.B.1; 1.A.4; III.B; IV.A; IV.B).
At
With respect to communication
between
Since the new Chancellor has only
been in the role since July,
The recommendation has been met.
Recommendation 2: Planning—The team recommends that the college
establish an integrated, comprehensive planning process in all areas of the
college by emphasizing and strengthening the link between planning, budgeting
and Program Review. Particular focus should be in the following areas (I.A.4;
I.B.2; I.B.5; II.A.2; II.C; III.B):
Under the leadership of the new
president,
At a series of two retreats for
the Columbia College Council, the Council developed a revised mission
statement, vision statement, and
As of
The recommendation has been substantially met.
Recommendation 3: Resource Allocation—The team recommends that in order
to best serve the needs of students, the district and the college engage in a
collaborative process to ensure a transparent and equitable allocation of
financial resources and that the district and the college implement a process
to communicate budget issues with each other on an ongoing basis (III.C.1a;
III.C2; III.D.1a,b,c; III.D.2a; III.D.2b; III.D.2d; III.D.2e; III.D3; IV.B.3d;
IV.B.3g).
As of
The recommendation has been partially met.
Recommendation 4: Research – The
team recommends that the institution adopt a culture of evidence by developing
and implementing, with timelines, responsibilities, and evaluation, a research
process based on quantitative and qualitative analysis that assesses
institutional effectiveness and documents the need for resources, technology,
staffing, programs, and facilities which best serve the students needs
(I.A; I.B; II.B.1, 3.4; II.C).
The current president of
The college took a second significant step in moving toward a culture of evidence in May 2007, when a Director of Research and Planning was hired. The Director of Research and Planning was previously employed in research and accreditation in the allied health field, and as a result began an already challenging job with the additional task of learning the language and practices of the community college system and becoming acquainted with available resources. In addition to tackling this learning curve she has, over the last five months, conducted an initial internal and external scan, developed a research protocol document, and established a process for submitting data requests. She has also held numerous meetings with faculty, both individually and in small discipline related groups, to discuss academic and student services research needs.
Because the college did not previously have a comprehensive Educational Master Plan (EMP), the task of developing an EMP has been particularly challenging and has been a high priority for the Director of Research and Planning. She has worked closely with the President, the Vice President of Student Learning and the College Council to develop the first draft of the EMP. In addition, she has focused on providing the data and other resources necessary to support Program Review and student learning outcomes, including the development of a database to track learning outcomes.
The college has begun a more systematic approach to the acquisition of qualitative and quantitative data, and the link between data, planning and resource allocation is becoming more clearly understood at all levels of the institution. A committee structure has been developed to support the interrelationship of research with key institutional functions including technology, facilities and hiring though the team found no evidence that specific timelines, responsibilities, and evaluation processes have been developed yet. However, the leadership, research capacity and governance structure to support a culture of evidence appears to be in place. Although commendable progress has been made in a short time, a great deal of work remains to be done in order for the college to attain the level of proficiency in which research is fully available, integrated, and systematically employed in all aspects of college decision making.
This recommendation has been partially met.
Recommendation 5: Student
Learning Outcomes – The team recommends that the college adopt an aggressive
approach with specific timelines and responsibilities for developing student
learning outcomes including documentation and assessment at the course,
program, and institutional level and demonstrate that evidence is being used
for institutional improvement. All
employees of the college must assume responsibility to improve student learning
outcomes (II.A.1, II.A.2; II.B; II.C).
With respect to the essence of
the recommendation—to adopt an aggressive approach and develop a specific
timeline—the College offers as evidence a table of actions with dates and
responsible persons covering the period from March 2006 through January
2008. However, the actions listed in
this document focus primarily on training, workshops, website development,
sharing of resources, and committee meeting agendas. The plan is primarily an historical snapshot
of the initial SLO planning phase. The
actions do not provide a specific timeline for the actual future development
and assessment of student learning outcomes at the course and program level. Although
One possible explanation for the modest progress at the course and program level may be that expectations have been fairly general and flexible. For example, the college required each department or work unit to develop a minimum of two SLOs by December 2006, and they report 95% compliance. However, departments were invited to focus on whatever level of SLOs interested them and to use whatever format they wished. This approach was used in part to maximize the level of engagement, and it may have been effective in accomplishing that goal. But it was not effective in addressing the spirit of the recommendation: to move aggressively to accomplish the task of SLO development and assessment at the course program and institutional level. The college has not developed a specific timeline that commits to a defined rate of progress toward that goal or a specific set of future actions and responsible persons to ensure that this task is accomplished.
The college has completed much of the foundational work needed to support a functional SLO cycle. They have engaged in extensive dialogue, explored definitions and models, provided staff development opportunities, established an SLO website, developed a database for tracking SLOs, agreed on an institutional definition and developed institutional learning outcomes. With the addition of a Director of Research and Planning they are well positioned to move forward. However the core of this recommendation still remains to be accomplished. The college needs to develop a concrete plan that defines when and how they will arrive at the point at which all courses and programs are actively engaged in ongoing assessment of learning outcomes and are using that process as an integral component of program review and institutional improvement. Fully meeting this recommendation will require the active involvement of all members of the college community and the development and implementation of specific strategies to accelerate and monitor the pace of progress in this area.
This recommendation has been
partially met.