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,
The self-study indicates that “the Curriculum Committee monitors the courses to ensure that they meet the students’ learning needs. Student learning needs in vocational courses are determined using labor market information, VTEA Core Measures, advisory boards, and employer feedback.” The Curriculum Committee is a pivotal body that oversees the quality of the college curriculum at the course and program levels, monitors program quality, and designs new programs. The Curriculum Committee meets every two weeks to evaluate and establish curriculum within the parameters of the Education Code and YCCD/Columbia College policy. Committee members described their discussions as a means of assuring breadth, depth, and rigor to the approved curriculum. The institution recognizes the central role of its faculty in establishing quality education and improving instructional courses and programs. The Curriculum Committee has seven voting faculty members serving staggered terms, with one being appointed as chair of the committee. Nonvoting members include the Vice President for Student Learning, the Articulation Officer and a faculty intern. Additional resources/liaisons include a secretary, the Dean of Learning Support Services, the Dean of Vocational Education, the Instruction Dean of Arts and Sciences, the Director of Student Success/Matriculation and a student representative who has completed a minimum of 24 units.
The Curriculum Committee guides the development of course descriptions, course objectives, content, methods of instruction, methods of evaluating student progress, and the syllabus as submitted by the faculty author. In addition, they review new course proposals and modified course proposals. The self-study states that “the compatibility of delivery systems and modes of instruction with curriculum objectives is assessed by the instructor with the approval of the Curriculum Committee.” The team was unable to confirm this during the visit. It was noted that the review process occurs on a five-year schedule.
The use of appropriate modes of
instructional delivery is varied at the college
and included in the criteria used in faculty evaluation. There is face-to-face instruction, hybrid, and
completely online instruction, as well as synchronous video conferencing. Courses intended for distance delivery undergo
the same curriculum review process as other courses with an additional Technology
Mediated Instruction form submitted to Curriculum Committee. Web-based delivery
is via the WebCT course management system. Instruction observed during the
visit was active and engaging. Some
courses offer a combination of delivery styles. Students report that they have been taught with
a variety of instructional modes and speak enthusiastically about their
participation in lively classroom discussions.
The self-study
states that the vocational programs have functioning advisory committees
comprised of employers, industry representatives, and alumni. The minutes reflect the attendance of program
faculty and advisory committees as well. The documents reveal discussions on
curriculum content, skill competencies needed for employment, and student
learning outcomes. External agency program approval has also been awarded to
the
The
team found no evidence of ongoing systematic review of programs. It appears
that courses are reviewed every five years by the faculty. One of the
administrators reported that Program Review had “been broken and separate” from
college processes in the past. It was stated that it had been, as reported in
the self-study, suspended during the past year while Datatel was activated as
the computer-based system that would allow systematic data retrieval and
contribute to the Program Review process. It was indicated that Program Review would, in
the future, occur annually and would contribute to the Educational Master Plan.
It was reported that the review would be
based on program identification of projects being undertaken or to be done with
measurable outcomes. The indication is
that projects would need to be tied to the annual special projects of the college.
It was stated the Program Review process
would be completed for all programs beginning in fall 2006.
Credit
is awarded to students at the conclusion of courses based on the instructor’s individual
grading process. Grading criteria are
based on course objectives rather than SLOs. There are no norming exercises that have been
initiated by the college to ensure consistent awarding of grades.
The college
catalog explicitly states the courses that are required for degree and
certificate completion. These degrees and certificates are awarded based on
program/certificate design approved by the Curriculum Committee rather than on
program SLOs. A review of the catalog
provides evidence that all degree programs include focused study in at least
one area of inquiry or in an established interdisciplinary core. The programs
reflect from 18-45 units of required coursework in the major field of study.
Transfer
requirements are found in the 2005-06 catalog for both the California State
University (CSU) and the University of California (UC). The adequacy of these courses has been
determined by the CSU and UC systems. The quality of any course outside of the
General Education Requirements involved in transfer is assessed by the faculty
of the receiving institution as a part of the articulation process. When a
student plans to transfer to other universities, transfer information is
available in Counseling and the
The Yosemite
Community College Board of Trustees (BP 6025) adopted a general education
philosophy that is “designed to introduce students to the variety of means
through which people comprehend the modern world.” General education course
completion would enable students to analyze, evaluate, and appreciate the
natural, cultural, and social environments in which they live. The General
Education breadth requirements were found in the 2005-06 college catalog. The courses include communication and critical
thinking, the physical universe its life forms and mathematical concepts; arts,
literature, philosophy, and foreign language; social, political and economic
institutions and behavior; and lifelong understanding and self-development.
There is not a specific requirement for information competency or computer
literacy in the Columbia College General Education Breadth requirements. The specific
The
Paramedic program is one instance of program elimination since the last
accreditation visit. Existing students
were allowed to finish their program and new students were redirected to other
institutions where the program would be available. Interviews during the site visit rendered
differing opinions as to whether there was a process or procedure to follow
when those tough discussions of program closure may need to occur. There were
different views as one administrator indicated that the Yosemite Faculty
Association had drafted such a plan while another was unaware of such a
document or plan. In a document reviewed entitled Columbia College
Program/Services Reduction Process it was written that when “needs change, the
content and organization of educational programs and services must undergo
annual review for appropriateness and efficiency.” Quantitative and qualitative criteria are
listed and the process is specified.
In
reference to assuring academic integrity of the teaching-learning process,
Board Policy 6030 states that while faculty have the right to present ideas and
conclusions, which they believe to be in accord with available evidence, they
also have the responsibility to acknowledge the existence of different opinions
and to respect the right of others to hold those views. In the 2004 Student Survey 81 percent of the
responding students strongly agreed or somewhat agreed to the statement,
“Instructors distinguish between their personal opinions and professionally
accepted views in the field.”
Catalogs,
statements, and publications, including those presented in electronic format,
are reviewed and revised annually. Expectations
concerning student academic honesty and the consequences for dishonesty are
explained in the catalog and in the 2005-06 Student Handbook.
Conclusions
The team was able to validate that
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:
(II.A.2).
5. 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 (II.A.1, II.A.2).
General Observations
The college and the district office appear to have undergone an upheaval in administrative personnel including the chancellor and several interim positions in a variety of key administrative areas at the district level. The college appears to be groping with the needed change at the institution, in the wake of staff downsizing and an apparent lack of leadership on several issues (which were the reasons given to the team as causing the delay in meeting the previous team recommendations), a decrease in college financial resources (the outcome of a Golden Handshake offered to employees), and a loss of an institutional historical perspective that occurred with key retirements. This instability is frequently referenced as having caused the delay in the college making progress on the recommendations for improvement.
The overall responses to the standard showed that many aspects were addressed but there was a lack of evidence to support statements. Some responses elicited concerns from the team regarding the interpretation of the standard, particularly in matters of diversity, access, and record maintenance. The apparent lack of planning was a major concern for the team.
Findings and Evidence
For the most part, evidence/documentation in support of this section of the self-study was found to be lacking, incomplete, or missing, although statements were made in the self-study that the college student services have improved. There is a lack of evidence to support that there was improvement of services to students with the recent administrative reorganization. The 2004 Student Survey, as referenced in the college self-study report, was the only research data cited, and it does not assess the current organizational effects on services to students. Further, the team could not locate the summary results and analysis of the Student Survey, and only a blank sample of the survey instrument was provided to the team on request of the survey results. Interviews with a variety of student support services personnel presented a picture of an attempt to recover and cope with the fragmentation of traditional student services into two areas under a new Vice President of Student Learning and the Chief Operations Officer. Communications between and among traditional student services is an effort, both informally and formally, as they are physically and organizationally disconnected. It was not possible to discern in this visit the depth or frequency of these communications. However, several of those in leadership positions stated that they are planning for better partnering.
Student Services appears to be in a holding pattern anticipating that new leadership will activate the plans they desire for improvement. The college produces a clear and well organized Schedule of Classes, Student Handbook, and Catalog. Printed and on-line materials are clear and user-friendly and the publications accurately reflect the institution.
The team found many gaps in the self-study as it was not clear how the institution interprets the standard related to access to support services. The lack of extension of library services to the Calaveras off-site center is redundantly mentioned as if it were the only issue of access. In interviews with personnel and new leadership, the question of access appears now to be recognized more broadly to include physical access and services access, with planning in the future to address the off-campus concerns of service delivery. This singularity of focus was noted with regard to diversity as Student Activities was the only focus on diversity in the college response to Standard II.B.3.d.
In interviews with relevant staff, it was discovered that very few Student Services Program Reviews have been completed and it is not anticipated that the process will be completed until fall 2006. Although student learning outcomes (SLOs) in Student Services is mentioned in discussions referencing a Program Review conducted in 2003-04, the team found that the unit responded with future tense in response to the development of student learning outcomes in Student Services as part of several Program Reviews to be conducted in 2005.
Datatel implementation issues are cited as problematic in reaching some of the Student Services goals, such as follow up with students on an early alert program and conducting Student Services Program Review.
Conclusions
It is not clear if this standard is fully met as the information the team was able to observe and read was not of sufficient magnitude to validate an appropriate status. Further investigation at the institution to clarify the notions and progress in areas of access, diversity, and student learning outcomes is needed in order to meet this standard. The institution cites and the team found that the reason given was a perception of a lack of the necessary resources for research, access, support, and tools for advancing pursuit of Program Review, SLOs, and overall improvement.
The institution is to be commended for its clear and informative Schedule of Classes, Catalog, and Student Handbook, and its desire to improve student services and the articulation of those areas. The Student Survey conducted in 2004 provides evidence upon which to build improvement and validate successes.
Recommendations
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 (II.B.1, 3, 4).
General Observations
This standard is problematic
because the self-study only addresses library services and collections. The self-study made no mention of any of the tutoring
services, learning centers, computer labs, or technology training available on
campus. In visiting the campus website
and physically touring the campus, it became apparent that these services exist
at the college. Tutoring services are
available through the
In addition to providing access to print and electronic resource materials in a comfortable and inviting setting, the library provides students with access to computer stations that contain Internet access and numerous software programs. In observing the library facility at various times during the day, it was apparent to the visiting team that the library is a vital, well-used support service on the campus.
Findings and Evidence
With regard to the library, the institution meets accreditation standards
for this section overall. However, the
self-study did not highlight any of the other learning support services on
campus. In addition, much of the
evidence that is offered in support of this standard consists of the student surveys and staff surveys that were prepared
for accreditation. The visiting team did
investigate other learning support services available on campus and the degree
to which they are being utilized.
Faculty appear to be actively involved in the selection of materials for
the library. The self-study states that
the librarian receives an average of 25 suggestions per week from faculty for
materials for the collection. These
suggestions are actively solicited and the librarian provides faculty with
review materials to aid in the selection of library materials. During the site visit, the librarian verified
the number of suggestions received per week and showed several examples of
recent suggestions he had received, which come in a variety of formats, such as
emails, pages clipped out of publishers catalogs, and items marked on the
review form circulated by the library.
Most of the suggestions received from faculty are purchased and added to
the library collection. Relocation into the new library facility in the
Tamarack building has significantly increased the physical space and equipment
available to students. According to the
faculty librarian, the volume of students making use of the facility has more
than doubled since moving into the new facility.
A large number of students (1,234 in 2003-04 as cited in the self-study)
are reached through class-oriented library presentations. These sessions are planned in collaboration
with the instructor and focus primarily on the assignment for the class, which helps
to ensure the relevance of the information being presented to the
students. The librarian is proactive in scheduling
classes into the library for assistance.
If students approach the reference desk with difficult class
assignments, the librarian will determine who the instructor is and contact
him/her to suggest that the class meet in the library for an instruction
session tailored to that assignment. A
one-unit Library and Information Resources course is offered each semester,
although no statistics or support materials about this course were offered as
evidence in the self-study. During the
site visit, it was determined to be a short-term class that is offered in the
middle of the semester, as confirmed by a conversation with the instructor for
this course.
A significant number of students are supported via the
Disabled students are capably served in the DSPS High Tech Center. At the beginning of fall 2005, 75 disabled
students attended an orientation to become familiar with what DSPS services there
are available on campus. The High Tech
Center provides students with access to 8 computers, all of which were upgraded
in the summer of 2005, with programs such as JAWS, Dragon Naturally Speaking,
Kurzweil 3000, and ZoomText, among others.
DSPS staff is available to work with students in learning how to use the
programs and technology that will be most beneficial, based on the student’s
disability. Students also have access to
forms and information about services available through the DSPS website, which
is updated frequently to provide current information to students. The DSPS High Tech Center is
officially open from
The library and learning support services appear to be open sufficient hours for the needs of the campus and student population. While only one library staff member is on duty during evening hours, the faculty librarian does come in to do any necessary instruction sessions during that time period. It was apparent during the visit that the library and learning support services are used consistently by students throughout the day. Several students were observed in the library in the evening hours during the visit, making use of the different resources available to them in the facility. The library makes numerous research materials available to the campus community from off-campus via the library website, including online databases, email reference service, internet resources, et cetera. The use of passwords for proprietary subscription databases, typically with license agreements and fees based on FTES, was discussed with the faculty librarian. He clarified that the vendors in question are all aware of the fact that the passwords are available in this manner. One database vendor was unwilling to accept that and that database is now available on-campus only. The YCCD technology staff are working on implementing the EZProxy system for authenticating students who use remote access. Once that has been established, remote access to all databases should be possible for students.
The self-study states that maintenance of the new library building is
inadequate; however, there was no evidence presented in support of this claim. The facility appears to be clean and well
kept. There is a visible presence of
security staff on campus. Currently,
security assists in closing the library Monday through Thursday as there is
only one library staff member on duty each evening. Whenever possible, the learning support
services hire student workers to assist in the evening, although it appears
that there is no funding provided to the learning support services specifically
for student workers. The visiting team
did not receive any reports of maintenance or security issues pertaining to the
The library is a member of the 49-99 Cooperative Library System/Central
Association of Libraries, which also includes public, academic, and some
special libraries. This appears to be
the means by which the library provides students with interlibrary loan (ILL) services. These services have also increased
dramatically since moving into the new facility. During the 2001-2002 academic year, the
library processed 182 ILL requests. That
jumped to 560 during the 2002-2003 academic year and dropped to 446 during
2003-2004. The library is also a member
in the Higher Education Consortium of Central California (HECCC). This service gives
Historically, there has been no evaluation of library and learning
support services other than student and staff surveys conducted in conjunction
with an accreditation self-study. Neither
the library nor learning support services has participated in the Program
Review process in the past. When
questioned about this issue, the faculty stated that in the past, Program
Review was tied directly to data reports from the district on enrollment. As the library has no recorded enrollment,
they were not able to participate in the process. The self-study states that the library and
learning support services will take part in Program Review beginning in the
2005–06 academic year and use that process to begin to address how the
library’s contributions to SLOs college wide will be measured. The faculty librarian appears to be eager to
participate in this process. There was
no mention of the evaluation process for the
In addition to serving students at the main campus, the library appears
to be offering sufficient support to off-site locations, such as the
Conclusions
The college appears to be doing well in terms of supporting student learning programs and services. In reviewing the services and the materials available from those services, the campus appears to be meeting the needs of its students regarding learning support services. The planning agenda for this standard needs to be appropriately targeted, particularly concerning the library and learning support services contribution to SLOs college-wide and staffing issues.
Recommendations
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 (II.C):
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 (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.C).
General Observations
While the self-study addressed all the major categories in this standard, the separation of the description section from the evaluation and planning section made it more difficult to follow the issues through the document.
In general, it appears the
college started out on the path of planning and development then lost its footing as many key personnel resigned or
retired, a new district database was purchased, and the reorganization
distracted the college from its planning agenda. Unfortunately, the complaints regarding lack
of funds are difficult to substantiate when there is no data or analysis to
show what the goals are and how the college will achieve its plans.
Some factions of the college seem to understand the concept of student
learning outcomes and this grass roots effort will need to ensure that each
employee contributes to this effort. The
current culture of practice demonstrates the focus on continuous improvement is
in its infancy and will only continue with the commitment from a growing number
of staff and faculty. It appears the
college is pursuing this direction.
Findings and Evidence
The college seemed to be making progress on key issues in the human resources area at the time of their mid-term report. However, recent changes in the college and district leadership seems to have interrupted the progress and a major reorganization of personnel to address these issues is underway.
Through college and district hiring methods, the college meets the necessary hiring standards with regard to minimum qualifications and good hiring practices. Efforts to diversify the staff continues 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. There is no evidence that hiring prioritization is based on a comprehensive staffing plan since there is no staffing plan in existence. Classified positions are filled by the district for the college location. The concerns regarding hiring classified staff reflect the need for unambiguous communication between the district and the college. The new YCCD Vice Chancellor for Human Resources has made the commitment to visit the college twice a month to answer questions and address concerns regarding district human resource issues.
The college carries out its staff evaluation processes as described in its board and district policies and collective bargaining agreements. The academic senate is developing definitions to guide faculty in this process with regard to the faculty performance standards. The college has indicated that while the faculty evaluation process seems to work well, supervisors need training on how to conduct evaluations before the goal of effectively evaluating staff can be met.
While the college had considered incorporating student learning outcomes into its evaluation processes, this concept has been abandoned at this time. The role of the collective bargaining process has led the college to realize that this might not be feasible. A different method to assure that all faculty and staff address the issue of student learning outcomes will need to be developed.
A code of ethics for all employees exists in the handbooks for faculty, staff, and managers. The Board has also adopted a Code of Ethics. While the statement on the Role of Professionalism is referred to as the document that demonstrates the college has met this requirement, this statement is not an ethics statement. However, the reference to ethics as described above is sufficient to meet this standard.
With regard to faculty hiring, the college must meet its full-time faculty obligation as part of the district’s obligation. The college determines the specific positions it will fill among the faculty and the staff. Annual faculty hiring requests are submitted via a defined process and the prioritization of this request list, emanating from a review committee comprised of the president, vice president, area deans and academic senate president, is then shared with the faculty. The district selection process and timelines are then used to complete the process.
Budget constraints were used to explain the absence of a staffing plan. However, the impact of no staffing plan further impedes the college’s ability to determine it real needs and to address staffing concerns. Recent efforts to assess work load and organize the support staff in a manner that better meets the newly configured administrative structure should be continued. Seeking ways to inform the staff of the college about timelines and processes for classified selection seem to be missing. As a result, it does not appear this meets the standard and a comprehensive staffing plan is needed to effectively address this issue.
The district provides the college with its overall personnel and employment policies and procedures. Board rules, procedures, and labor agreements appear to clearly address working conditions and related areas. Documents are available on the website as well as in hard copy. The college follows the district’s procedure with regard to employee access to personnel files. This indicates that this part of the standard has been met.
College equity and diversity concerns have been and continue to be addressed through staff development activities that appreciated diverse cultures and backgrounds. The lack of a staffing plan and research on student trends, which should be combined to create a comprehensive strategic plan, would be a source of more information to assist the college in expanding its efforts in this area. District reports show progress with regard to equity, and diversity tends to fluctuate as a result of recent retirement and hiring decisions.
The college appears to be a collegial work environment where faculty, staff, and students are treated with respect and integrity. However, the college has no quantitative data to verify that this perception is the reality. The statement of themes for the year shows the intent of the college leadership to strive for an atmosphere of integrity.
The newly hired Vice President of Student Learning has been assigned the role of coordinating staff development. Preliminary planning efforts show the college is attuned to the importance of continued staff development. Workshop flyers evidence the college’s efforts to focus staff development opportunities to meet the professional growth obligations in student learning outcomes. While the impression given to the team is that programs are effective, no formal evaluations exist and evaluation of these activities would be helpful to future efforts. In spite of this, this standard has been met.
The college self-study evaluation states that Program Review leads to recommendations for more staff but does not address “excess” staff. If this is the case, then the Program Review process should be expanded to encompass a full review of program viability. The finger is pointed at the administration to do the innovative planning, which seems to miss the point of the review process. The college needs to add a planning agenda item to address this issue.
Conclusions
The college lacks the understanding with regard to planning and
connecting the mission and goals of the college to its staffing needs. The
district is blamed for controlling the college’s destiny, yet college requests are
not based on data and analysis, and sound planning to increase the likelihood
that requests for additional funds will be genuinely considered. The college discusses a lack of funds on one
hand, yet the college controls the hiring decisions. The district’s classified service poses
difficulties for a small college like
The following are suggestions to help the college improve human resources:
Recommendations
The team has
no recommendations.
Standard III.B Physical Resources
General Observations
The structure of the self-study report on physical resources was confusing. The self-evaluation appears to indicate that the college meets the standard; however, the evaluation of the description found that there are problems with meeting this standard. The physical resource agenda does not contain any planning, rather a description of how planning is performed at the college and requests made of the Yosemite Community College District Office with regard to the physical resources of the college.
Findings and Evidence
The college is mindful of the importance of maintaining a safe and
clean campus environment. The campus
Facilities Committee and the campus Safety Committee are committed to solving
issues related to ensuring that the educational programs and services can be
delivered in a clean, safe facility, as evidenced in the minutes of both
committees and discussions with campus personnel. Classrooms are equipped with telephones and
flashlights and there is information on emergency procedures located in offices
and classrooms throughout the campus. A
survey of the students indicates a good deal of satisfaction with the campus
facility with over 80 percent reporting agreement that the campus is clean and
safe. The number one complaint of the
students is parking.
The self-study indicated that the college is dissatisfied with the
reporting structure of the facilities staff of the college as the direct report
is to the YCCD Director of Facilities and Operations. The president of the college strongly
believes that a change in reporting structure would improve the efficiency of
the facilities staff; however, in discussions with the YCCD Director of
Facilities and Operations, there is equally strong opposition to any change in
reporting structure. The facilities
staff indicated that they would like the reporting structure to remain the
same, as they feel the campus personnel lack the experience and knowledge in
the operations of the facilities, as well as the fact that the facilities staff
believe there is a lack of communication from the Columbia College
administration. The college president
believes this is creating a great deal of strain on college operations due to
delays that occur because of this disjointed operation. However, there was no evidence that
maintenance is delayed due to this current process, but it is a challenge for
college administration to have staff that are not supervised directly by the
campus. The college president indicated
that there are not enough resources to meet staffing needs, but there is no
evidence of a staffing plan to confirm this concern.
The self-study reflects that the college is unable to fund upgrades and
replacements due to the district funding model.
The college indicates the only funds available for upgrades are those
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, the team found the EMP to be a
listing of equipment needs and it appears to be an unreliable resource to
determine campus needs.
The college formed a Facilities Planning Committee in October
2002. The Facilities Planning Committee
meets once a month. The YCCD Director of
Facilities and Operations is a member of this committee, attends the meetings
of the committee, and assists in the preparation of the agenda for the
meetings, even though there is an obvious level of non-cooperation between the
president and the Director of Facilities and Operations. The Facilities Master Plan (FMP) was
developed in spring 2003, with a latest revision of the plan in January
2004. The FMP is the college’s version
of a long-range plan and delineates a 5-year, 10-year, and 20-year grid. It is curious that the YCCD Director of
Facilities and Operations indicated that she was not involved in the
development of the Columbia College FMP.
There is no evidence that planning is integrated at the college. The planning agenda contained in the self-study
is a description of how planning occurs at the college rather than a concrete
plan of action. Referenced in the
planning agenda is that the Fiscal Review Task Force is charged with completing
regarding physical resources; however, there is no evidence that this task
force is doing anything about planning, implementing, or evaluating college
physical resources.
Conclusions
The college grounds are attractive, clean, safe, and well
maintained. The college has challenges
regarding funding and direct supervision.
The college has little to no influence on the district with regard to
Central Services such as Facilities.
The problem the college administration conveys regarding funding
shortfalls for facilities and equipment upgrades and purchases could be more a
product of not planning than from the district allocation model as stated in
the self-study. The lack of updates of planning documents is
evidence that there is no evaluation occurring and therefore no formal planning
for improvement. The Fiscal Review Task
Force does not seem to be the appropriate body to perform the planning and
implementation of physical facilities.
The planning documents of the college are elementary at best. There are no objectives and therefore no
measurable outcomes with which to evaluate to improve. A great deal of assistance is needed in order
for the college to bring their planning up to the level required to meet the standard.
Recommendations
1. 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. (III.B)
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 (III.B)
III.C Technology Resources
General Observations
The visiting team’s general observation is that the self-study report shows that the institution recognizes its shortcomings in technology resources and is making an effort to meet the standard. However, the self-study provides insufficient and possibly conflicting information, particularly with regard to the successes and/or failure of Datatel implementation.
Findings and Evidence
The team found that there are two
recent major changes related to technology resources. First, the district has become a client of
Datatel, which is a proprietary information management system serving higher
education. All hopes appear hinge on
Datatel for organizing campus data systems and maximizing their efficiency. Implementation began in 2003 and is to
continue through late fall 2005, which means at this point it should be practically
complete. However, the report hints at
problems with end-user training in use of the system, and problems with the two
campuses sharing one administrative system.
Given all of this, the statement, “Nevertheless, the implementation
processes have proceeded as planned,” seems disingenuous. The second major change in the area of technology
resources is the creation of an
To ensure that the college’s various types of technology needs are
identified, the institution relies on the Technology Committee. The Technology Committee created a Technology
Master Plan which is to be reviewed every other year. To evaluate the effectiveness of its
technology in meeting the range of needs, the institution relies on staff
surveys and the oversight of the Technology Committee. The Technology Committee plans appropriately,
but goals for staffing and equipment replacement are not fulfilled. For example, the new
The institution uses the Technology Committee, the Technology Master
Plan, and the judgment of staff in Technology Services to make decisions about
technology services, facilities, hardware, and software. The institution has a well-equipped classroom
designed for videoconferencing for distance education, and licenses WebCT as
its online education software platform.
The institution has three full-time IT support staff to maintain
technology infrastructure and equipment.
Technology users do not consider this an adequate staffing level. However, a new classified technology manager
position has been created and is expected to be filled soon.
There are many seriously obsolete faculty computers, some that are six
years old. Cascading replacement of computers to maintain currency is not yet
being accomplished; however, the need for it is addressed in the Technology
Master Plan, and the Technology Committee has recently made specific
recommendations, including budget figures, to the College Council. There is no commitment in the college’s budget
to “total cost of ownership” of technology, with no operationalized commitment
to regular replacement of outdated hardware.
The Technology Committee and Technology Services staff makes recommendations
to the College Council and the president regarding use and distribution of
technology resources. The
provisions included a robust and secure technical infrastructure, which
prompted an outside consultant, CampusWorks, Inc., to perform a security assessment
in 2002. It appears action was taken to
address the security vulnerabilities that were found in 2002 even though there
is a lack of dedicated budget funds for technology replacement. The institution uses whatever ad hoc funding
is available from year to year to purchase new hardware for student computer
labs. The older machines are passed on
to staff. Equipment selected for
distance programs has focused on video broadcast and videoconferencing. To date, two courses have been offered, two
are scheduled, and one is in development using videoconferencing
technology. There is room for expanded
utilization of this distance learning modality. The other distance learning
modality in use, online instruction, has not required significant additional technology
resources, other than training at the campus level; instead, the software
platform in use is licensed at the district level and hosted on a
district-maintained server.
The Technology Master Plan, Facilities Master Plan, and Educational
Master Plan are intended to ensure that facilities decisions emanate from
institutional needs and plans for improvement.
Although the Technology Plan is generally well-conceived and executed,
it would benefit the plan if timelines were included. More importantly, it is difficult to assess
whether technology planning is integrated with institutional planning, because
the Facilities and Educational plans are vague to the point of inadequacy and
do not appear to be based on substantial evidence.
The same individuals responsible for evaluating program and service
technology needs, the members of the Technology Committee, are the same
individuals guiding technology decisions.
As these individuals are the primary technology users and maintainers on
the campus, they are in a position to evaluate needs. Thus, technology decisions are based on
evaluation of needs. Whether
these needs are being met effectively is another question. The institution prioritizes currency in
student computer labs when making decisions about technology purchases. Other technology needs have a lower
priority. However, the new multimedia
Conclusions
The institution recognizes that it lags in technology and is attempting
to catch up. There is evidence of a recent
commitment to providing needed resources, to wit, the funding of a technology manager
position and the acquisition of multimedia and videoconferencing equipment via a
federal grant. The institution is attempting to plan for technology needs. In particular, the Technology Committee has
made progress in producing a Technology Master Plan; however, there is a need
for more specificity in planning, particularly in the area of timelines. The transition to Datatel has been disruptive
and discouraging for many and has taken the focus away from instructional
technology needs.
The team suggests that the college make a commitment to “total cost of ownership” of technology by including ongoing systematic hardware replacement costs as a regular budget item. The team also suggests that the Technology Master Plan be updated to include desired timelines for accomplishment of stated goals.
Recommendations
The team has
no recommendations.
III.D Financial Resources
General Observations
The self-study report adequately describes the college and district budget process and the allocation of financial resources. The report is less clear on the extent to which the institution engages in effective financial planning.
The college recently reorganized and established a Chief Operating Officer (COO). The COO has primary responsibility for financial planning and management although the development of a budget and the allocation of resources are under the guidance of the college president and the College Council.
The college’s annual budget for 2005-06 is $11,089,039 of which $1,163,489 is for college operations. The balance of the college’s budget primarily supports salaries and benefits for permanent staff and adjunct faculty.
The college’s enrollment declined in 2004-05 and no growth funds have been allocated for 2005-06. The visiting team observed that many classes appear to have low enrollment which may contribute to the college’s recent decline in enrollment and its concerns with inadequate funding. The decline in enrollment has further strained the college’s budget and exacerbated its relationship and dialog with the district.
The district and college have recently implemented a new financial management system, Datatel, which has provided enhanced tools for financial management. Although the conversion to the new financial management system was not without problems, it appears to have now stabilized. Both college and district staff expended considerable time and effort in ensuring a successful conversion which resulted in the college deferring planning and evaluation activities during the conversion period.
The college is audited annually by an independent auditor. The results of these audits along with internal reviews are used to assess the effective use of resources. The district has an internal auditor who provides assessments of operations, with the most recent review being conducted on the bookstore.
Findings and Evidence
The college links financial planning to its mission and goals with the College Council serving as both the college budget and planning committee. According to the process outlined, resource needs are identified through Program Review which is analyzed by the deans and the College Council. These needs then form the Education Master Plan (EMP). The link between resource allocation and the EMP is not transparent to the college community. Furthermore, there is confusion as to whether Program Reviews are being conducted systematically. The college has stated it is developing a Strategic Planning Process that will more clearly demonstrate the link between planning and resource allocation.
As part of a multi-college district, the college believes its share of resources is insufficient given the needs of a small, rural institution. This perception flavors the self-study and preempts discussion of the planning efforts in which the college is engaged. The college’s annual budget allocation is determined by the district’s Central Services. There is widespread perception among college staff that the process used in determining the college’s allocation does not reflect the needs of the college nor does it represent a fair share of available resources. The district does not have a district budget committee that oversees the allocation of resources nor is it apparent that the district seeks meaningful college input in determining allocations. Not surprisingly the district believes that it has been sensitive to the college’s needs and that the college has received an appropriate level of budget resources as compared to its sister college, Modesto Junior College (MJC). The college, however, is convinced that the district assumes the cost of many of the services provided at MJC through the Central Services budget and that district comparisons are therefore misleading in that they are not measuring allocations for comparable services.
The college has formed a Fiscal Review Task Force to better define a baseline level of resources needed to adequately fulfill its mission as a comprehensive college. The college hopes to build a case supporting its need for additional resources and that the reports of the task force will result in a meaningful dialog among district and college stakeholders on the allocation of resources.
The self-study provides little evidence that the college considers long-range financial priorities in making short-range financial plans. However, there is evidence obtained through both documents and interviews that the college does consider long-range financial priorities. Examples provided are the college’s reluctance to open new outreach centers given their concern with being able to support their operational costs over time and their reluctance to chase enrollment growth due to the level of financial support provided by the district for growth FTES. The college annually reserves approximately one percent of its budget as a contingency to cover unforeseen events. Additionally, as noted above the college has deferred implementing some new activities due to its concern over having sufficient resources to sustain the activity over time.
The college is to be commended for its development of a Budget Handbook. The handbook describes the college’s budget development process which provides the opportunity for all constituencies to participate. Both the handbook and the new Strategic Planning Process and Document should provide clearer linkages between planning and resource allocation. The college should continue its efforts to disseminate these documents and to engage the college in meaningful dialog on the connection between planning and resource allocation.
The visiting team found that the college has control mechanisms in place to ensure appropriate and effective use of its resources. Audit reports reflect no material weaknesses in internal controls. The college has been responsive to past recommendations of the external financial auditors to ensure appropriate separation of duties. The college has stated in its self-study report that evidence of the effective use of resources in supporting student learning programs and services is that 83 percent of its budget is allocated for these programs. However, the visiting team was unable to validate whether this evidence supports the college’s assertion of effectively supporting student learning programs and services.
Information is disseminated throughout the college. Minutes of the College Council, which serves as the college’s budget committee, are distributed to the entire college. The president holds an annual forum on the college budget during which any staff member may raise issues or questions. Additionally, the Chief Operating Officer provides budget management training for staff.
The district maintains an uncommitted reserve of five percent and the college maintains a reserve of approximately one percent, both of which are adequate. Sufficient cash flow is appropriately managed by the district through the use of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes as needed.
Management of external resources, including financial aid and categorical programs and grants, is both appropriate and effective. No audit exceptions have been reported in recent years. The bookstore and food service operations are effectively managed and support the college’s mission. Bookstore and food service funds are included within the college and district external financial audit and no findings have been reported in recent years.
The college foundation operates as a separate 501(c) (3) non-profit corporation. The foundation is organized in support of the college’s mission. A review of past audits reveals no material findings.
The college’s contractual agreements with external entities are administered by the district. Appropriate controls exist to ensure that contractual agreements are not entered into without appropriate district review and approval.
The district and college implemented a new financial management system, Datatel, in 2003. While the implementation of the new system presented a challenge to the college, it has improved access to financial information and has allowed for improved management of resources. A budget check function is part of the financial management system and it prevents purchase requisitions and orders from being executed if there are insufficient appropriated funds. The college reports that the new financial management system since its implementation in 2003 has undergone continuous review and revision as appropriate. During the team’s visit, the example provided in support of this review process was an issue encountered with the budget check function. The system does not compute and include sales tax when verifying that sufficient resources are available to support a purchase. This omission is in process of being corrected. Program Review has not been conducted for business services functions. Financial Aid and Health Services are undergoing Program Review in fall 2005. Although not yet part of a regular cycle of Program Review, the college intends for Program Review to be conducted on the remainder of the financial services areas in 2006-07.
The independent audit is the primary tool used by the college to assess its use of financial resources. There have been no material findings or weaknesses during the prior three fiscal years. Additionally, the college informally evaluates its use of resources and uses the findings from these reviews to improve its processes.
Conclusions
The dissatisfaction heard and observed by the visiting team with the district’s process for resource allocation has impeded and may limit the college’s ability to effectively plan. The level of dialog between the college and district over financial resource allocation has deteriorated over the last several years and the level of trust between the two has declined. There appears to be a lack of effective collaboration between the district and the college on resource allocation which has resulted in the widely held belief among college staff of unfair or disparate treatment.
The college would be served well through implementing a more formal and systematic review of its use of financial resources to provide an on-going cycle of evaluation and improvement.
Recommendations
3. The team recommends that the district and the college engage in a collaborative process involving all stakeholders to review and revise processes used for resource allocation to ensure that financial resources are allocated in a manner that is transparent and equitable and best serve the needs of students (III.D.1).
Standard IV Leadership and
Governance
General Observations
With respect to basic
decision-making roles and processes on the
Findings and Evidence
The district has undergone
substantial changes in personnel at every level of the organization in the past
couple of years, and retirements and other administrative changes have had a
significant impact on the
The self-study asserts a stark
perceived contrast between the leadership at the campus level and at the
district level. While indicating
significant support on campus for the leadership of the president, based on
survey data and on outcomes including effective budget management and a recent
college administrative reorganization, Columbia College concludes that at the
district level there is “a lack of clarity regarding the authority and
responsibility among the college presidents, vice chancellors, and the
chancellor on day to day matters.”
Further, the
The college does acknowledge the
adequacy of a governance structures in place at the district level. The
district completed a comprehensive revision of its Board Policies in 2004
resulting in clear, concise policies. The district has not yet completed the
development of administrative procedures to accompany the revised policies. The
district chancellor is drafting a process for selection and evaluation of
college presidents. The
With respect to the relationship
between
Conclusions
It is not clear from a review of the self-study or the site visit which
of the criticisms of the district office are a valid and appropriate analysis
of legitimate problems and which might be an exercise in finger-pointing in
lieu of taking proactive responsibility for activities on the Columbia College campus.
What is clear is that the strained relationship between the college and the
district is counterproductive for both the college and the district. Although
the fundamental structures for leadership and governance are in place at
Recommendations
1. 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 (IV.A; IV.B).