Accreditation: Follow Up Report

1. Accreditation: Follow Up Report Presented at: Dialogue with the President April 26, 2012 Tina Leisner McDermott, Faculty Accreditation Coordinator

2. ACCREDITATION CYCLE

3. Follow-Up Report Work Group Members

4. Follow-Up Report Deadlines

5. Midterm Report and Self Eval– Standards Committees Recruitment • Std. I. A. – Mission • Std. I. B. – Institutional Effectiveness

6. Midterm Report and Self Eval– Standards Committees Recruitment • Std. II. A. – Instructional Programs • Std. II. B. – Student Support Services • Std. II. C. - Library

7. Midterm Report and Self Eval– Standards Committees Recruitment • Std. III.A. – Human Resources • Std. III. B. – Physical Resources • Std. III. C. – Technology Resources • Std. III. D. – Financial Resources

8. Midterm Report and Self Eval– Standards Committees Recruitment • Std. IV. A. – Decision Making • Std. IV. B. – Board and Administration Org.

9. Standards Committee Structure

10. Midterm Report Deadlines

11. RECOMMENDATION # 1 (a-d) • In order to comply with the standards, it is recommended that the college modify its processes in a manner that creates documentation and other forms of evidence that can be used to reveal the college’s progress toward implementation of SLOs and assessment of those outcomes. More specifically, the team recommends that to show compliance with the standards, that the college:

12. RECOMMENDATION #1 a. • Develop a method to monitor progress made when implementing activities identified in the program reviews to include listing steps in action plans, listing of individual student learning outcomes for each course and assessment activities matched against progress made to achieve assessment activities (I.B.3)

13. We’re doing great in WEAVE!

14. Response to Rec. #1 a. • Numerous new training workshops for WEAVE by SLO Committee and Research Office • Flex events • One on one WEAVE training • Video and Power Point tutorials • Better promotion and awareness of deadline dates and compliance rates per Division • Welcome Back Day • Meetings with Divisions • SLO newsletters • Increase faculty participation via Flex Events

15. Response to Rec. #1 a.

16. RECOMMENDATION #1 b. • Provide evidence in the form of documents or other deliverables to result from the operation of the integrated planning cycle (I.B.3)

17. Response to Rec. #1 b. • New budget request narrative form for SPBC to include P/SLO information • Dean of IERP is now Admin. Co-Chair of SPBC to better facilitate incorporation of SLO/PLOs and Action Plans into financial decisions • SLO and Program Review Co-Chairs will report regularly to SPBC to facilitate better communication

18. RECOMMENDATION #1 c. • Provide evidence that outcomes demonstrate the integrated planning cycle, from SLOs to making budget decisions (I.B.5).

19. Response to Rec. #1 c. Improved Linkage and Communication between Committees

20. Example: Graduation Office

21. Example: Physics

22. SLO trends in Program Review 6.4   The Communication Studies faculty has identified a list of needs within our discipline based on SLO data results that showed that one of our greatest needs is in improving students’ verbal fluency and speech delivery abilities. While we have seen improvementwe a, re still well below our benchmark SLO pass rate of 80%:

23. Action Plans that correlate to Program Review For Fall 2010, an additional lab activity relating to solutions will be added to the schedule to address SLO 2. Physical models capable of representing solute solvation and ion dissociation would also help students learn the topics involved in SLOs 2 and 6. The department currently has animations to show solvation, but models to physically manipulate would help students visualize concepts like dilution and ion dissociation. Budget Amount Requested: $800.00

24. RECOMMENDATION #1 d. • Assess Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) and provide evidence of program, student service and administrative changes and improvements as a result of changes made (II.A.1.a.; II.A.1.c).

25. Response to Rec. #1 d. • 76 identified programs on campus • 72% have approved PLOs • PLOs are in progress • New PLO Workbook • Committee Approval of remaining programs in progress • Assessments occurring • WEAVE reporting – trends over time

26. RECOMMENDATION #2 a. • To meet the standards, it is recommended that the college establish clear connection with and document the involvement of members of professions, association and professional organizations when curriculum is being modified and at other appropriate points in time to demonstrate input from vocational/occupational advisory boards and experts in the field so that the College can verify the quality of educational programs is based on experts in the profession (II.A.2.b).

27. Response to Rec. #2 a. • 24 Advisory Committees on campus • Minutes provided • New Minutes template for consistency

28. RECOMMENDATION #2 b. • To ensure each department is being consistently evaluated under the Program Review Process it is recommended that the college develop a list of minimum areas considered to ensure a rigorous self examination is conducted consistently across the college (II.C.1).

29. Response to Rec. #2 b. • Data Elements list being reviewed by Program Review Committee for consistent use of data in every Division • New rubric for peer review of Program Reviews • Dept. of IERP and Prog. Review Committee developing annual updates on WEAVEonline

30. RECOMMENDATION #2 c. • To meet the standards requirement that adequate resources be allocated to support the Library function of the college, it is recommended that the college conduct a comparative analysis against other similarly sized colleges to assess whether the amount of resources to meet the needs of students who rely on the Library to complete their educational goals (I.B.7).

31. Response to Rec. #2 c.

32. Response to Rec. #2 c. • Funding Sources • 2010 - $70K approved by District and SPBC for electronic resources • 2011 – State of CA will now pay for EBSCOhost • Library reviewing purchasing decisions for $70K

33. RECOMMENDATION #2 d. • To meet the standards and to enhance the effectiveness of its technology, it is recommended that the college adjust its technology advisory committee structure to ensure that the needs of administrative and instructional computing are equally well addressed, and that this dialogue then results in equitable priorities, implementation, and budget allocations for all technology needs (III.C.1 and III.C.1.d).

34. Response to Rec. #2 d.Quarterly Life Cycle (Needs assess.)

35. Response to Rec. #2 d.

36. Response to Rec. #2 d. • Distance Ed Committee is now DISTANCE EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE (DETC) – • covers any technology for teaching – online or in class

37. RECOMMENDATION #3 • To enhance the effectiveness of its technology, a variety of different levels of network security should be implemented to permit more flexible responses to instructional computing requests, while maintaining appropriate security for administrative data (III.C.1 and III.C.1.d).

38. Response to Rec. #3. • Goal = balance instructional flexibility needs with administrative security needs • expansion of its Open Digital Campus Program (ODCP) • Role based security; software updates; security education • Perkins Program 2011 allowed for upgrades across campus to replace old software (almost complete) • Segregate IP traffic • New infrastructure for Wireless, starting in H&S

39. RECOMMENDATION #4 To comply with the standards it is recommended that the college, when making its short-range financial plan, e.g. the annual budget of the college, consider its long-range financial obligationto pay the cost of the GASB 45– Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) as the costs are incurredinstead of delaying payment to some future date. Specifically, the college is encouraged to prepare a comprehensive plan to prevent disruption of services offered to students by paying the Annual Required Contribution (ARC) determined using generally accepted accounting principles into an irrevocable trust fund at the amount equal to the actuarially determined Annual required Contribution (III.D.1.c).

40. Response to Rec. #4 Currently conducting an actuarial study to determine our liability and annual funding of ARC Irrevocable trust is ready to be fundedthrough CCLC’s JPA 3-year budget plan presented toSPBC Plan to set aside$387,113 from SERP savings to be set aside annually starting 2012-2013