EVALUATION REPORT
A Confidential Report Prepared for the Accrediting Commission
for Community and Junior Colleges
This report represents the findings of the evaluation team that visited
Dr. Audre Levy
Team Chair
Dr. Audre Levy
President
Ms. Mary Gallagher
Acting Vice President, Administrative Services
Mr. Robert Allegre
Vice President, Administrative Services
Dr. Susan Carleo
Senior Associate Vice Chancellor, Human Resources
Los Angeles Community College District
Ms. Debbie Distante
Bibliographic Instruction Librarian
Mr. Philip Dykstra
Research Analyst
Dr. Brian King
Superintendent/President
Ms. Kerrin McMahan
Distance Education Coordinator
Dr. Diane Ramirez
Vice President, Student Services
College of the Desert
Dr. Linda Stevens
Dean of Instruction, Academic Programs
In advance of the site visit, the team read the self-study, the catalog, and other supporting documents, as well as the report of the previous team visit. Each member was asked to write a preliminary review of the standard to which he or she was assigned. The team met at the hotel on Monday to review our evaluations of the self-study and to organize the site visit. For two and a half days, the team held on-campus meetings with individuals and groups, conducted interviews of administrators, faculty, support staff, and students, examined files, reports and documents, observed classes and facilities, attended on-campus meetings and met a great number of individuals at Columbia College. In fact, among the 10 of us we had 252 faculty and staff contacts, visited 27 classrooms, attended 8 campus wide meetings and met with district personnel including board members. In addition, we held two open sessions to avail ourselves to any member of the college community for any reason.
The team found that
While the self-study is an important document to this process, the team found that the structure, content, and format of the study did not serve the college well. Despite this shortcoming the team was able to complete their task and observed the following conditions that require attention and are recommendations for improvement:
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 student needs (I.B.1; I.A.4; III.B IV.A; IV.B).
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):
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 (IIIC.1a; IIIC.1d; IIIC.2; IIID.1a,b,c; IIID.2a; IIID.2b; IIID.2d; IIID.2e; IIID.2g; IIID.3; IVB.2d; IVB.3d; IVB.3g).
The team recommends that the institution adopt a culture of evidence by developing and implementing, with timelines, responsibilities, and evaluations, 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 team recommends that the college adopt an aggressive approach with specific timelines and responsibilities for developing student learning outcomes including documentation and assessments at the course, the program, and the 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).
In conclusion, during the visit and the review of the self-study some of these same issues were highlighted as well as a number of other issues that also need to be addressed. The team hopes that these recommendations will provide emphasis and support the college’s efforts to address them. We also noted a number of other observations and suggestions which will be included in our final written report.
Since the last accreditation
visit in March 2000,
On
A careful review of the document reveals that the format of the self-study goes into great detail in the introduction for each standard followed by an analysis of each item in the standard. Included in the description was some evaluation of how the college was performing with regard to meeting that standard. The sections of the standard dealing with self-evaluation and the planning agenda were extremely brief. Some of the self-evaluation sections are limited to one to two sentences and are not an assessment. Much of what is found in the descriptive area could have been shifted to the self-evaluation section. Many things are stated as having been done but the visiting team has found few examples to support these assertions. The self-study as a whole could have benefited from concrete examples given to support statements.
The team found that all previous
recommendations of the 2000 visiting team were reviewed and reported in the
self- study as having been met; however, upon exploration, the prior
recommendations had not been fully met by the time of the visit. During the visit, the 2005 the team also
developed several of its own recommendations and noted a number of
commendations. None of these
recommendations are classified in the “non-compliance” category, despite the
seriousness with which the team believes these issues are to the future of the
college.
The team highlighted a few of excellent programs and services at the college worthy of special notice.
THEMES
DIALOGUE: The College has been engaged in some initial dialogue; however, there is not evidence of meaningful dialogue related to any system or complete review of governance, institutional research, planning, and building a culture of evidence. Significant dialogue is needed to enhance compliance with the Commission’s standards. It will be necessary for all of the individuals to cooperatively explore and exchange ideas. Communication is central to the current challenges facing the college and the district. The lack of effective communication between the college and the district is such that it is interfering with the college’s ability to make strides for improvement. While informal communication is an important component, it does not provide the record and collective memory and conscious building necessary to make plans, assign responsibility across departments, and effect change.
INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY: The visiting team experienced difficulty in obtaining adequate documentation/evidence to support the self-study. The lack of critical and pertinent information was prevalent in areas such as Program Review, student learning outcomes (SLOs), research, organizational structure, and planning. It was very difficult for the visiting team to make an accurate assessment of the college’s current state of progress in addressing this theme due to the apparent lack of documentation and the untimely and incomplete manner in which the existing documentation was prepared and provided. For the most part, however, the college publications were complete, accurate, and honest. (See Recommendation 4.)
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES: The visiting team noted that the college is
attempting to develop and implement student learning outcomes on the institutional
level. The college appears to have made
a good start; however, the efforts need to be coordinated in extending SLOs to
the course and the program level throughout the college. The degree of engagement is imbalanced. The college will have to develop a plan to
engage all appropriate individuals, establish a timeline, and implement an
assessment and improvement process. (See
Recommendation 5.)
PLANNING, EVALUATION, AND IMPROVEMENT: The visiting team noted that the college needs to be more vigilant in addressing this theme. This cycle of planning, evaluation, and improvement is at the heart of the college and leads to ensuring that an institute continues to address and meet the needs of the community which it serves. The college’s reliance on surveys as the form of documentation for change is short-sighted, as is the advocacy for more funds and staff based primarily on anecdotal comments. The team saw little planning and, where planning efforts existed, there did not appear to be identified leadership of the efforts. (See Recommendation 2.)
ORGANIZATION: The college is experiencing serious organizational difficulties that are reinforcing and exacerbating the current communication problems. The combined effects of these organizational and communication problems have created a confused and inefficient environment both at the college and the district level. As a result, it is difficult to undertake the important work that lies ahead for the college. The current campus climate reveals a lack of confidence and trust with the district office, which appear to have resulted in struggles between the college and the district. (See Recommendation 1.)
INSITUTIONAL COMMITMENT: The visiting team found that the college provides high quality education congruent with the college’s mission statement. The college has stated that it is committed to supporting student learning and student success. This commitment was evident from conversations with satisfied students throughout the campus. The stream of pride by college employees and students was noted and the environment seems enjoyable for learning.
Recommendation 1.A.
The College, with the assistance
from the District, completed a study of comparable colleges to determine an
appropriate and adequate level of administrative staffing (Standard 7.A.1).
The mid-term response of the
college indicates that a review of administrative staffing at five other small
community colleges located in
The recommendation was not
met.
Recommendation 1.B.
The College develops fully and
implements a staffing plan to fund support staff in key areas (Standard 7.A.1.).
The mid-term response of the college describes the staffing changes that occurred at the college. However, during the visit, the team could not find any evidence of a college staffing plan. While the college seemed prepared to move forward after 2000 and even after the 2002 mid-term report, it appears that intervening factors, attributed to Datatel implementation, changes in district leadership, and key college administrative restructure, along with a perception of a lack of resources, have affected the ability of the college to complete effective planning. The recommendation of developing and implementing a staffing plan was not addressed. Statements about what will be done in the future seem well-intentioned but there is a lack of evidence that the college has the true foresight on how to proceed. The team found no staffing plan that was based on institutional research and it was not evident that there was any depth of understanding about how to best meet institutional needs.
The recommendation was not
met.
Recommendation 2.A.
The College develops more
effective mechanisms to communicate the outcomes of planning more clearly
(Standards 3.B.1., 3.C.2., and 7.C.1.).
The mid-term response of the college listed key initiatives the college undertook to effectively communicate to the campus. During the visit, the team noted that while there has been involvement in the planning process, it seems that information has not been effectively communicated to faculty and staff. A lack of instructional leadership at the vice presidential level only exacerbated this problem. However, since a Vice President for Student Learning was hired in January 2005, there has been a communication link which has flowed from and between members on planning committees. Several individuals indicated they feel that a communication breakdown exists because information does not get from these committee representatives back to their various constituencies.
The recommendation was not
met.
Recommendation 2.B.
The College takes the seven
planning themes listed in the planning summary at the end of the self-study
document and provides time lines, responsibilities, funding sources, and
measures of progress and completion for the specific activities that will be
undertaken to accomplish these goals (Standards 3.B.2., 3C.1.).
The mid-term response of the college outlines the planning processes that have been established at the college. During the visit, the team observed that the planning themes from the previous self-study were developed in a format that includes the subject, recommendation, activities/actions, outcomes, completion target dates, and evidence. This same format was also used for the 2005 self-study. Although the college is attempting to perform planning that incorporate some of the recommendations from the 2000 report, there is an apparent lack of comprehensive understanding of effective planning, particularly with regard to responsibilities, funding sources, and assessment of plans.
The recommendation was not
met.
Recommendation 2.C.
The College seeks improvements in
research effectiveness and quality assurance by:
Recommendation 2.C.1.
Consolidating and expanding
learning outcomes and institutional effectiveness measures and clearly
communicating the results (Standards 3.C.1., 3.C.2., 3.C.3.).
The mid-term response of the
college indicates that the college anticipates developing learning outcomes and
review curriculum. During the visit, the
team found that reported limited
resources and the YCCD elimination of a researcher position were cited as the
reason the college indicated that they have not moved forward with
instructional research. The
mid-term report indicates the college had not yet decided whether outcomes
would be developed by program or course-by-course. The team found that the college continues to
grapple with where to begin in developing SLOs – the institution, the program,
or the course. The team also noted the
college needs to develop and implement a comprehensive institutional agenda
that consolidates and expands learning outcomes and institutional
effectiveness, ensures that the results lead to institutional improvement, and
clearly communicates the results and then related improvements to the employee
community.
The recommendation was not met.
Recommendation 2.C.2.
The College seeks improvements in
research effectiveness and quality assurance by: Establishing a comprehensive
institutional research agenda, with the assistance of the District Research
Office, that strengthens the assessment of institutional effectiveness
(Standard 3.A.3.).
The mid-term response of the
college indicates that there was a comprehensive research agenda that was
developed in conjunction with the Yosemite Community College District
(YCCD). During the visit, the team found
no evidence that research had been implemented nor any plans of a research
agenda developed. While the college has
had the opportunity to use a variety of alternatives to meet its research
needs, there has been no leadership in the area of research for the last few
years until two weeks before the accreditation site visit of 2005. These issues have interfered with the ability
of the college to move forward to improve institutional effectiveness by
ensuring that results lead to improvement and these results are effectively
communicated to employees at
The recommendation was not
met.
Recommendation 2.C.3.
The College seeks improvements in
research effectiveness and quality assurance by: Instituting processes that produce
evidence that program evaluations lead to improvements of College programs and
services (Standard 3.A.4.).
The mid-term response of the college indicates that the current Educational Master Plan (EMP) considers effectiveness changes as a by-product of Program Review. During the visit, the team found no evidence to verify that the EMP process allows the campus to evaluate and improve programs. The team noted that the EMP was essentially not as traditional as most plans for educational programs but in fact it was a list of requests. Although the college has made strides in the area of learning outcomes through their work on SLOs, the college is fractured in its ability to perform Program Review and measure institutional effectiveness. Although there are departments within the college that are further along in this process than others, the college has been lax in its assessment of programs for improvement.
The recommendation was not
met.
Recommendation 2.C.4.
The College seeks improvements in
research effectiveness and quality assurance by: Completing a current
technology plan, including desired acquisitions, time lines, and activities in
concert with the College
The mid-term response of the
college cites the services of a consulting firm and the development of a
Technology Master Plan. During the
visit, the team verified the creation of a Technology Master Plan in fall 2004 that is in concert
with the college mission and relates to a cohesive education plan. The Technology Master Plan articulates the
desired
actions,
equipment acquisitions, et cetera, but the plan does not include timelines and
resource requirements for the items listed.
There is, however, a process
to ensure that college-wide technology needs are guided by the Columbia College
Technology Master Plan.
The recommendation was met.
Recommendation 2.C.5.
The College seeks improvements in
research effectiveness and quality assurance by: Completing a facilities review
and developing a facilities plan to address the short-term and long-term space
needs for Student services and other non-instructional programs (Standards
3.B.3., 8.1., 8.5., and 9.A.3.).
The mid-term response of the college lists the steps to be taken to increase the space needs for Student Services and other non-instructional programs. During the visit, the team confirmed that the college completed the acquisition and construction of new space, furniture, and equipment for the indicated areas. In addition, a Facilities Master Plan was adopted in 2004. This is a comprehensive plan that is regularly reviewed and will address both short- and long-term facilities needs of the college. A bond was passed so the college will have the resources to build out their Facilities Master Plan.
The recommendation was met.
Recommendation 2.C.6.
The College seeks improvements in
research effectiveness and quality assurance by: Developing and equipment
maintenance and replacement program plan (Standards 6.2., and 8.4.)
The mid-term response of the
college relies on the Technology Master Plan as the vehicle for ensuring that
equipment is maintained and/or replaced.
During the visit, the team confirmed that the Technology Plan lays out desired actions, equipment
acquisitions, et cetera. However, the self-study reflects that the college is
unable to fund upgrades and replacements due to the district funding model, and
the college budgeters only make funds available for upgrades from unexpended
funds left at the end of the funding year.
The district Central Services provides the list of items for scheduled
maintenance and provides the funding for these projects. The college relies on the Educational Master
Plan (EMP) as the driving plan of equipment purchase, repair, and maintenance
needs. In fact, again the team found the
EMP to be a listing of equipment needs and it appears to be an unreliable source
to determine campus needs. The team
found no operationalized commitment to regular replacement of outdated equipment.
The recommendation was not
met.
Recommendation 3.A (Standard Six)
The College expands its
technology enhanced presentation capability in classrooms (Standards 4.D.5.,
6.2.).
The mid-term response of the
college indicates that there were two “smart” classrooms implemented, as well
as a new learning resource center with state-of-the-art multi-media
equipment. During the visit, the team verified
that the institution has a well-equipped
classroom designed for videoconferencing for distance education, as well as WebCT
as its online education software platform.
The new multimedia
The recommendation was met.
Recommendation 4.A (Standard
Seven)
The College devotes particular
attention to and develops a plan for recruiting and hiring diverse staff and
faculty (Standard 7.D.2.).
The mid-term response of the college states that, in conjunction with the YCCD, recruiting efforts will be expanded to deepen the pool of diversified applicants. During the visit, the team found that efforts to diversify the staff continue to be addressed with recruitment efforts such as national advertisements and web-based postings. There does not appear to be any effort beyond this standard approach. College equity and diversity concerns have been and continue to be addressed through staff development activities that develop an appreciation of diverse cultures and backgrounds.
The recommendation was not
met.
1.
Authority: The
visiting team confirmed that
2.
3.
Governing Board:
The visiting team confirmed that
4.
Chief Executive Officer: The visiting team confirmed that
5.
Administrative Capacity: The visiting team confirmed that
6.
Operating Status:
The visiting team confirmed that
7.
Degree: The
visiting team confirmed that
8.
Educational Programs:
The visiting team confirmed that
9.
Academic Credit:
The visiting team confirmed that
10.
Student Learning and Achievement: The visiting team confirmed that
11.
General Education:
The visiting team confirmed that
12.
Academic Freedom:
The visiting team confirmed that
13.
Faculty: The
visiting team confirmed that
14.
Student Services:
The visiting team confirmed that
15.
Admissions: The
visiting team confirmed that
16.
Information and Learning Resources: The visiting team confirmed that
17.
Financial Resources:
The visiting team confirmed that
18.
Financial Accountability: The visiting team confirmed that
19.
Instructional Planning and Evaluation: The visiting team confirmed that
20.
Public Information:
The visiting team confirmed that
21.
Relations with the Accrediting Commission: The visiting team confirmed that
General Observations
The self-study provides a
description of the college’s activities related its vision and mission
statements. The
In the area of improving institutional effectiveness, the college has been undergoing a great deal of change brought on by an administrative reorganization and a perceived lack of funding for needed positions. This has led to problems in effectively communicating planning information to all groups at the college. The college has stated that it will be revising its Program Review and planning process to better integrate program evaluation and planning. While there appears to be broad-based support for these initiatives, it is too early in the process to determine if the changes have improved the institution’s effectiveness.
Findings and Evidence
Standard IA: Institutional
The college mission statement indicates a commitment to student learning. The mission addresses a wide array of transfer, vocational, cultural, and community education. The college also offers area-specific programs such as Forestry and Natural Resources. In fact, the Wildlife/Urban Interface Fire Management Program is the only one of its kind in the state. The heart of the mission “is a desire to develop a zest for lifelong learning throughout the community.” The college is capitalizing on this opportunity by beginning to offer some community education courses to meet the area needs of a growing retirement population.
The latest mission statement was adopted by the College Council in March 2005 and approved by the Yosemite Community College District Board of Trustees in April 2005. The college mission statement is reviewed every two years by the College Council. A subcommittee of the College Council comprised of students, faculty, and staff is formed to evaluate the mission statement to determine if revisions are warranted. This evaluation process is entirely under the direction of the subcommittee. Once the evaluation is complete, the revised statement is returned to the College Council and President for review before submission to the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees.
The mission statement was revised in 1999, 2002, and 2005. The most recent revision incorporates the concept of transformational learning in the statement. The mission is widely distributed to students and the community in the college catalog, on the college website, in various documents such as the student handbook, and displayed throughout the campus.
In linking the mission to decision-making and planning, the college has worked to address this relationship. While the process is not complete, the college has stated it intends to develop a connection between the mission and the Educational Master Planning process. The campus makes decisions based on the college mission and the College Council attempts to use the mission statement as the primary basis for action. However, the college’s progress cannot be effectively evaluated since the planning process remains incomplete.
Standard IB: Institutional
Effectiveness
Institutional goals are included with the college mission statement located in the college catalog. These goals are shaped by the College Council’s Special Priorities, state, and district budget decisions, as well as the Program Review process. The goals influence the Educational Master Plan (EMP). Once student learning outcomes are approved, the plan is to integrate these into instructional goals and the student learning contained in the mission and the EMP. However, the college does not have a specific strategic plan in place to serve as the vehicle for implementing and determining that these goals are accomplished.
While making progress towards improving institutional effectiveness through planning, the college admits that it needs significant improvement with regard to Program Review. There has been a tremendous amount of changes with the Program Review process, and the process continues to be fragmented with areas such as vocational education making positive attempts, while the instructional, student services, and administrative services areas lag behind. The self-study states that Program Review will be revised by fall 2005; the college contends that a full cycle of Program Review for all areas will not be complete by fall 2006. The Vice President of Student Learning and the Chief Operations Officer are making a good faith effort to lead a participatory process to develop a strategic planning process and direct integration of the EMP, resource allocation, and Program Review. However, this process remains incomplete and difficult to evaluate in terms of effectiveness.
The district and college planning processes are under major revision. However, the district and the college have not worked collaboratively in the area of planning for the last few years. Planning at the college has the potential to be broad-based because anyone who wants to be involved in the planning process has the opportunity to participate. While participation may be strong, awareness of the relationship between the EMP and resource allocation is not. Only 61 percent of full-time staff strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with this linkage. Recently, a lack of funds is cited as inhibiting the college from making improvements in the planning process. However, the college states that the planning process does result in improvements that do not require additional funding. The administrative reorganization since the last self-study is cited as an example.
The college readily admits that it does not do an effective job of using documented assessment results, nor does it do a good job of communicating matters of quality assurance to appropriate constituencies. The communication regarding research at the college and district level has not been evident due to changes at both the college and the district in the last few years. After budget cuts in 2002, the college did not fund a research position until Fall 2005 to conduct research and to use the results to make improvements. Two weeks before the accreditation site visit, a 50 percent faculty research and 50 percent articulation officer position was filled to primarily support SLOs. The college is in the early stages of the revised institutional planning process and developing SLOs. There is great enthusiasm at the college about the new researcher, but it is too soon to determine the impact on institutional effectiveness and whether information is being communicated about institutional quality to those who need to know.
The college is in the initial stages of designing a revised planning process to integrate the EMP, resource allocation, and Program Review. Currently, the entire process is incomplete and therefore difficult to ascertain whether the process is effective in accomplishing its goal.
The college also admits that “it is difficult, if not impossible to conduct the evaluation, planning and improvement desired to support ongoing improvements at the college.” The college feels the new strategic planning process and EMP web application will use measurable outcomes to evaluate program planning. This process is not finished and is therefore difficult to evaluate. Though research expertise at the college has been lacking, a 50 percent faculty person will focus on SLOs, general planning, and institutional effectiveness. Therefore, the college does not effectively improve instructional programs, student services, and other support services because they have been unable to develop and assess their evaluation mechanisms.
Conclusions
The college does not meet the standard related to institutional effectiveness. While the college is attempting to incorporate research, planning, and evaluation into assessing institutional quality, it is in the early stages of this process. Recommendations related to research and planning set forth by the previous team have not been fully addressed. The college indicated several items it will be implementing in the future related to planning, this is unfortunate when the need was cited in 2000 by the previous team. Work in the areas of research and planning has been done, but after six years, it remains incomplete to non-existent. The college must fully complete the planning process with research and evaluation components to address previous recommendations.
Recommendations
2. 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).
4. The team recommends that the institution adopt a culture of evidence by developing and implementing, with timelines, responsibilities, and evaluations, 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).
General Observations
The
There is no evidence that the institution has assessed the varied educational needs of its students. The college is unable to rely upon research and analysis to assess student needs since only recently has a .50 FTE Researcher been hired. The college has a few mechanisms designed to assure quality instructional programs including the Curriculum Committee and the advisory committees (who meet annually). However, the team saw little progress toward the identification of student learning outcomes (SLOs). A college-wide committee was created in 2003 to address SLOs (to date the committee has only developed a draft set of broad college-wide SLOs). The overall process is unclear as to how the college will meet the accreditation standards in relation to SLOs. Program Review is an evolving process that was suspended for at least one year as a new software system, Datatel, was implemented.
The college has a board policy addressing academic freedom and expresses its expectations concerning student academic honesty in both the catalog and student handbook.
Findings and Evidence
As stated in their mission,
According
to the college staff,