NEASC Phase I Assessment of Effectiveness Standards 1 - 11

1. NEASC Phase I Assessment of Effectiveness Standards 1 - 11

2. Goals for Today’s Meeting • Identify Key Issues or Concerns cited by NEASC over last 10 years • State the 3-5 Key Elements that CCRI feels it needs to address in each Standard • Assign a Self-Rating to our Effectiveness; Identify Priority Level • Identify “source of information” for rating/evaluating

3. Role of Collective Participation • Using the comment sheet provided, we ask that everyone provide feedback regarding each Standard, using the framework outlined in today’s goals! • Your comments will be submitted anonymously

4. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 1 : Mission & Purpose #1 Strengths/successes since 2004 NEASC visit: • We have a mission developed by a comprehensive, diverse college committee. • “New” comprehensive mission approved 2006. • Traits within the mission are accurate.

5. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 1: Mission & Purpose #2 Challenges/Areas for improvement • Remaining challenges: • Lack of acknowledgement, publicity, visibility and usage college-wide. • Increasing all of these would increase the overall importance of the mission within the everyday workings of the college community

6. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 1: Mission & Purpose #3 New challenges/Areas of improvement: • An institutional vision is mentioned in the standard. CCRI does not have an approved one. • Changing times may lead to reviewing and “tweaking” the mission as needed. Should the tweaking include simplifying the message? Re-evaluation committee is needed.

7. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 1: Mission & Purpose #4 Self-ratings:Priority • 1.1 B A • 1.2 B A • 1.3 B+ B • 1.4 C A • 1.5 C A

8. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 1 : Mission & Purpose #5 Evidence: • Above based on the fact we have a mission. • Inferred some information. • Of the 132 Web pages and print materials reviewed, only 14% or our “public image” pieces include some mention or a link to the CCRI mission statement. Making it tough for the community to know the elements of the mission.

9. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 2 : Planning & Evaluation #1 Some of what we have been doing: • Strategic Plan (SP) • Mgt. Ltr. Tracking objectives • Inclusive President’s Council • Improved personnel evaluation systems • MyCCRI communications • True relational database • Acad. Program Review • Student Learning Outcomes • Strengthening enterprise reporting & analytics • More Transparent data-driven budget process • Peer group to gauge performance (SP) • Key performance indicators to track progress • Others……

10. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 2 : Planning & Evaluation #2 Standards of greatest concern (3-C’s; also 4-B’s) *WASC worksheet ratings

11. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 2 : Planning & Evaluation #2 Key Issues

12. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 2 : Planning & Evaluation #2

13. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 3:Organization & Governance #1 • Board of Governors • New Board • Future? Legislative /Administration Plans • President & Council • President is also the Commissioner • Faculty union president now on council • Administration • Physically decentralized; administratively centralized • No full-time administrator on each campus • Two vacant dean positions

14. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 3:Organization & Governance #2 • Governance, What we did well: • Wrote, vetted, and passed governance system (May 2008) • Completed survey of all College committees • Conducted successful elections for two years(2008-2010) • Sponsored several activities • “Got Issues?” campaign • Issues of Concern form developed, process established • Forum on Open Door Admissions at Professional Development Day • Facilities Survey

15. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 3:Organization & Governance #3 • Governance, What we did not do so well: • Website not functional • Lengthy, confusing process over construction • Meaningful institutional support lacking • No budget, no incentive to participants • System lacks full scale participation • Community does not understand system • Misperception about nature and scope of system

16. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 4: The Academic Program #1 The Academic Program in 2004 • Many programs had not articulated formal learning outcomes • Learning outcomes were not included or were not consistent throughout all sections of each course • No definition of an educated person • No required general education core • No consistent assessment process for courses or programs

17. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 4: The Academic Program #2 The Academic Program 2011 • All academic programs have learning outcomes except one • Many more courses include learning outcomes and it is unknown if they are the same for all sections of courses offered • We have a definition of an educated person • We have a required general education core for all programs • We have a formal program assessment process and a formal faculty evaluation process

18. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 4: The Academic Program #3 Activities in Progress 2011 • Determine if all courses include learning outcomes which are consistent for all sections of each course • Determine how the learning outcomes are assessed for each course • Determine how the definition of an educated person and general education core are communicated and understood by faculty and students • Determine how we know that graduates demonstrate competence in communication, reasoning/critical thinking, and the ability to access the resources for continued development

19. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 4: The Academic Program #4 Activities in Progress 2011 • Determine improvements that have been made within programs as a result of the assessment process • Identify the rationale (mission) for each program • Determine the extent to which resources available on the 4 campuses are made available to students at satellite locations and in distance learning • Determine the difference in the approval and assessment processes for the credit bearing and non-credit bearing certificate programs • Determine the method(s) used to insure academic integrity in distance learning courses

20. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 5: Faculty #1 Instructional technology: • Ensuring faculty competent in use of technology to support teaching responsibilities. New resources include: • Distance learning/Blackboard resources • Centers for Instructional Technology • Instructional Support Team • Interactive Video Conferencing • Classroom and Event Technology • Electronic Classrooms • New Employee Orientation to Information Technology

21. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 5: Faculty #2 Evaluation • Review and implementation of student evaluation instrument • Adopted a more consistent approach to evaluate Adjuncts

22. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 5: Faculty #3 College Governance Structure • Adopted new model which ensures faculty understanding and participation in committee system processes • Improved communication via college wide events, meetings, etc.

23. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 5: Faculty #4 Banner system: a review and standardization of course hours throughout the curriculum. • Addressed inconsistencies in the number of classroom hours. • More systematic approach to enforce standards across the board for faculty load and overload.

24. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 5: Faculty #5 Areas to be addressed: • Cultural competence: based upon diversity of student population, faculty ranks should diversify. Steps to enhance pool of minority applicants. • Strategies to support adjunct faculty (contracts, orientation, faculty mentoring system)

25. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 6: Students #1 • Generally speaking, the College effectively meets the standards for Admissions, Retention and Graduation, Student Services, and Institutional Effectiveness. Where the College falls short is illustrated below.

26. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 6: Students #2 Admissions • 6.2 Academic Standing Policy not in catalog • 6.3 &6.4 AccuPlacer insufficient to identify needs at lowest end of necessary supports. Insufficient supports in place for students with academic deficiencies

27. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 6: Students #3 Retention and Graduation • 6.8 Institutional goals for retention and graduation non-existent or not well disseminated. • 6.9 Data on retention, graduation and other measures of student success may not be reviewed in the context of institutional or departmental planning and improve

28. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 6: Students #4 Student Services • 6.10 Response to student needs is not pro-active. Mission of Student Affairs not publicly available. • 6.11 Availability of services for Distance Learning students or via electronic means not universally available. • 6.17 Training opportunities hampered by staff and budget cuts. Facilities, technology and funding are inadequate for current level of services. • 6.18 Ethical standards not publicized. • 6.19 Records retention policy unclear • 6.20 Co-curricular goals?

29. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 7: Library & Information Resources #1 • Strengths since last NEASC visit • Library renovation • Electronic classrooms • Wireless infrastructure • Blackboard • Banner (new implementation) • DL growth • Institutional and educational planning helps encourage information resources and technology to be integrated into the student educational experiences 

30. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 7: Library & Information Resources #2 Key Issues 1. “Mission” Grade= B • While NEASC suggests inclusion of information literacy skills in the definition of an educated person, it is not in CCRI's newest definition; strategic plan merely implies acquisition   2. “Support”Grade= C • Absence of a comprehensive plan to provide adequate user support (“services are reactionary rather than proactive”) • Not adequate time for staff to learn new technologies nor time for them to create documentation and train faculty • No time for researching/ supporting appropriate new tools for instructional technology

31. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 7: Library & Information Resources #3 2. (“Support” continued) • Consistent funds for resources but incongruency between funding available and people dedicated actually to implement those initiatives. • Under resourced areas, generally IT support services (i.e., Help Desk) 3. “Assessment” Grade= C • Lack of measurable criteria of competencies for teaching online • No mechanism in place to gather student perception about the quality and efficacy of instructional technology • No objective way to measure if technology is promoting better student success

32. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 7: Library & Information Resources #4 3. (“Assessment” Continued) • No mechanism in place to assess whether students demonstrate proficiency with information resources and technology….nor for attaining appropriate level of proficiency for their program • Not all programs/courses have published learning outcomes. • Learning outcomes do not address information literacy and technology for all students. (English 1010 and Speech 1100 do.) • Strategic plan mentions “mapping” curriculum to  definition of an educated person—no evidence that these maps exist.

33. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 7: Library & Information Resources #5 3. (“Assessment” continued) • A lack of measurable course objectives makes it impossible to determine either levels of competence or levels of growth in a student's ability to assess and use research/reference materials.

34. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 8: Physical & Technological Resources #1 • Standard 8.4 • The institution undertakes physical resource planning linked to academic and student services, support functions, and financial planning. • Space planning occurs on a regular basis as part of physical resource evaluation and planning, and is consistent with the mission and purposes of the institution.

35. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 8: Physical & Technological Resources #2 • Standard 8.4 • Standard 8.4 • Self-Rating: C • Priority to Us: s/b A • Evidence • X25/R25/S25 • Experience • Major Strengths • X25/R25/S25 • Areas For Improvement • Addressing Findings/Experience

36. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 8: Physical & Technological Resources #3 • Continuing upgrade and maintenance of the network infrastructure to support existing and future bandwidth requirements for the next decade • Aggressive implementation of highly available, fault tolerant, redundant systems to ensure that essential services are accessible and pervasive always • Virtual desktop initiative to develop a sustainable model for delivering desktop services and information anytime, anywhere to constituents based upon their role • Vigorous creation of an enterprise-wide academic analytics agenda for informed business decision making.

37. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 8: Physical & Technological Resources #4 • Vibrant launch of a convenient, highly-responsive, multimedia streaming service delivering digital content to all learners, both internal and external to the campus • Unwavering pursuit of resource conservation programs, including cooling, print management and power distribution through virtual machines • Cultivation and provisioning of a “warm” site on the Flanagan campus for disaster recovery and business continuity • Measured adoption of those “cloud” services enhancing and improving service delivery for constituents

38. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 9: Financial Resources#1 • 10/2004 interim finding = ensure that strategic planning is linked to budgeting • 3/25/2009 interim finding = address resource challenges incurred by reduced state $’s; strengthen engagement of faculty & staff in using data for planning & decision making

39. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 9: Financial Resources #2 • BRC implemented & merged w/ SPC • Used web to ease availability of fiscal information & budget process-but is it used? Include in upcoming survey • Answers to the core questions on which SP was based have not been clearly communicated to college at large

40. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 9: Financial Resources #3 • Data collection benchmarks id’d in SP for decision making need to be populated & peer & other external validation measures need to be selected • Need a mechanism by which data standards are agreed upon, universally available & presented

41. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 9: Financial Resources #4 • Use data to address divisional/cultural differences • Use data to better manage resources & align expenditures to missions/goals • Sufficient strategic alignment of institutional goals, resources & divisional actions?

42. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 10: Public Disclosure #1 • For our Fifth-Year Report, NEASC raised assessment of student learning and measurement of student success as issues for CCRI, which implicate consideration 10.12 to the extent that we make public statements or promises about them • Key issues are not in order of importance

43. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 10: Public Disclosure #2 • Key Issue #1: Delivering accurate and timely answers to questions • Self-Rating: A-C (depending on topic) • Evidence: Largely (and perhaps inevitably) anecdotal • Complicating factors: (i) Dearth of written policies across the institution; and (ii) the growing importance of social media

44. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 10: Public Disclosure #3 • Key Issue #2: Revising, and maintaining the currency of, OES and financial aid Web resources • Self-Rating: B • Evidence: Ongoing staff review of present functionality in light of student inquiries • Complicating factor: Seemingly endless ferment in federal financial aid programs

45. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 10: Public Disclosure #4 • Key Issue #3: Organizing and designing CCRI’s information resources around what we want students to know • Self-Rating: A-C (depending on topic) • Evidence: Volume of questions with answers that (we think) are readily available in print or on the Web, but is higher than one would expect even from a spoon-fed population

46. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 10: Public Disclosure #5 • Key Issue #4: Keeping CCRI’s Web site (ccri.edu) and portal (MyCCRI) current and user-friendly • Self-Rating: A-C (depending on topic) • Evidence: Same as Key Issues #1 and #3 • Complicating factor: Staffing constraints in securing the continuous assistance of content, communications and IT experts

47. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 11 : Integrity #1 Strengths and Accomplishments • Breadth of policies available from federal, state, BOG, and contractual documents • Print and online materials have been updated • Success Centers for students established • Access to information about transfer opportunities and processes readily available to students • Organizational structure for governance established • Opening Day Convocation, Professional Development Day, and annual retreats established • All job postings for permanent positions are readily available to the public online

48. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 11 : Integrity #2 From 2004 and 2009 NEASC Reports • Adjunct Faculty: no standard orientation; no ongoing evaluative review of handbook/website to monitor effectiveness • CCRI Code of Ethics not updated or aligned with Mission Statement • Perception (in public media) of favoritism in hiring remains; staff diversity has improved, diversity among faculty remains low • Key committee agendas and minutes not readily available online • Committee system within governance structure not working as designed to strengthen greater communication, input, and accountability; no evaluation of new governance system occurred at end of 2008-2009 academic year • Process of solicitation and review of recommendations for fiscal efficiencies is inconsistent and ineffective

49. Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 11 : Integrity #3 Summary • Communications • Committee agenda and minutes not readily available online • No standard orientation, handbook, or policies for adjuncts • Policies and Implementation • No college-wide policy manual • Governance • Committee structure not working as designed • Diversity • Lack of diversity among FT and adjunct faculty • Perception of unfair hiring remains

50. What Next? • Assemble feedback, distribute to Committees • Participate in individual meetings by Standard to review information available • Discuss how to set institutional priorities for each Standard