Taft College
advertisement
Taft College October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Submitted by West Kern Community College District 29 Emmons Park Drive Taft CA 93268 to Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges Western Association of Schools and Colleges October 2010 ii October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report This page intentionally left blank Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report iii Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................... iii Statement of October 2010 Follow-Up Report Preparation ...................................... v Certification ....................................................................................................... v Preparation Process ........................................................................................... vi Participants ...................................................................................................... vii I. Introduction ....................................................................................................1 Overview of Follow-Up Report .............................................................................. 1 II. Responses to Recommendations and the Commission Action Letter ................3 Recommendation 1: Integrated Planning and Evaluation.......................................... 3 Overview ...................................................................................................... 3 Integrated Strategic Planning Process .............................................................. 3 Planning Days and Planning Retreats ................................................................ 5 Planning Guide .............................................................................................. 5 Institutional Effectiveness Council .................................................................... 6 Other Changes to Link Planning to Budgeting .................................................... 6 Board of Trustees .......................................................................................... 7 Academic Senate ........................................................................................... 7 Taft College Foundation .................................................................................. 8 Educational Master Plan .................................................................................. 9 Evaluation of Planning Process ........................................................................ 9 Current Status: ACCJC Rubric of Characteristics of Effectiveness in Planning ....... 10 Next Steps .................................................................................................. 15 Evidence ..................................................................................................... 15 Recommendation 2: Program Review .................................................................. 17 Overview .................................................................................................... 17 Integrated Program Review Processes ............................................................ 17 Evaluation of Program Review Process ............................................................ 21 Current Status: ACCJC Rubric of Characteristics of Effectiveness in Program Review ................................................................................................ 22 Next Steps .................................................................................................. 26 Evidence ..................................................................................................... 26 Recommendation 3: SLOs .................................................................................. 28 Overview .................................................................................................... 28 Course Student Learning Outcomes ............................................................... 29 Program Student Learning Outcomes ............................................................. 29 Student Services ......................................................................................... 31 Annual Assessment Timeline and Assessment Implementation .......................... 31 New SLO Coordinator and Support ................................................................. 36 Use of Technology ....................................................................................... 36 Evaluation of Faculty .................................................................................... 37 Current Status: ACCJC Rubric of Characteristics of Effectiveness in SLOs ............ 38 Next Steps .................................................................................................. 48 Evidence ..................................................................................................... 49 Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning iv October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Table of Contents (continued) Recommendation 4: Ethics Policies ..................................................................... 51 Overview .................................................................................................... 51 Draft of Campus Wide Code of Ethics ............................................................. 52 Recommendation 5: Substantive Change Proposal ................................................ 59 III. Appendix: Chronology of Planning Council Agenda Items since October 2009 Pertaining to Program Review and Strategic Planning ...................................62 Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report v Statement of October 2010 Follow-Up Report Preparation Certification To: Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges From: Taft College 29 Emmons Park Drive Taft CA 93268 Date: October 18th, 2010 This October 2010 First Annual Follow-Report is submitted for the purpose of assisting in the determination of the institution’s accreditation status. We certify that there was broad participation by the campus community, and we believe that the Follow-Up Report accurately reflects the progress to date in meeting the recommendations as required by the Accrediting Commission. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning vi October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Preparation Process Planning for the Follow-Up Report began immediately following the October 2009 site visit by the Planning Subcommitee, in conjunction with the President/Superintendent, which discussed the nature of the report that would be submitted in October 2010. It was decided that a comprehensive, detailed report would be better than a shorter summary-style report. Consequently, it was determined that all actions taken by the Planning Council relating to the planning, program review, and SLO recommendations would be thoroughly documented in the Follow-Up Report. Actual work on the Report began at the start of the fall 2010 semester by compiling all of the information to be included in the Report. A draft was produced and reviewed by the Institutional Effectiveness Council, which by this time had replaced the Planning Subcommittee. The draft report was reviewed by the Planning Council, which is also the Participatory Governance body on campus, and was made available to the campus community for input. The report, minus the Statement of Report Preparation, was e-mailed to the Commission on October 15th, 2010. The completed report with the Statement of Report Preparation was mailed to the Commission shortly thereafter. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report vii Participants Any report of this type is the product of numerous participants who contributed directly to the report or contributed to meetings and/or documents that were used in the report. The following table shows a partial list of those who contributed to the report. Member Amber Anderson Kanoe Bandy Patti Bench Dave Berry Dr. Eric Bérubé Kamala Carlson Bill Devine Geoffrey Dyer Willy Duncan Ron Errea Sharyn Eveland Val Garcia Sandra Graham Lourdes Gonzalez Victoria Herder Carolyn Hosking Fernando Laura Dr. David Layne Rick Miranda Brock McMurray Jim Nicholas Sonja Swenson Barbara Wingler Henry Yong Title Research Analyst Professor, Athletics/Chair, Applied Technologies Division Distance Learning Coordinator Associate Professor, Information Competency/Librarian Professor/Coordinator of Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning Associate Professor, English/Co-Chair, Liberal Arts Division President, Academic Senate Associate Professor, English/Previous SLO Coordinator President/Superintendent Vice President, Administrative Services Professor, Psychology/Chair, Social Sciences Division Associate Dean, Instruction/Grant Coordinator Representative, CSEA/Academic Records Evaluator EOPS/CARE Coordinator Professor, Work Study/Chair, Curriculum Committee/SLO Coordinator Board of Trustees Accountant/CSEA Representative Associate Professor, Business Professor, Life Sciences/Chair, Math and Sciences Division Vice President, Student Services Director, Business Services Professor, Art/Co-Chair, Liberal Arts Division President, CSEA/Student Services Executive Secretary Vice President, Instruction/Accreditation Liaison Officer Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning viii October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report This page intentionally left blank Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 1 Taft College October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report T his report highlights progress made on the five recommendations given by the site visit team at Taft College's October 2009 accreditation site visit and described in that team's Evaluation Report. Activities that have been implemented to meet the recommendations are described in detail and supporting sources of evidence are cited. This report also describes plans for future activities designed to ensure that Taft College will continue to meet the recommendations and will remain in compliance with all Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) standards. Overview of Follow-Up Report In October of 2009, Taft College underwent its first accreditation site visit under the 2002 ACCJC Standards. Even at that time, Taft College faculty and staff were very much aware of the college's shortcomings in relation to the standards and were actively engaged in developing and implementing robust, sustainable processes to strengthen those areas where deficiencies were known to exist. Taft College employees were not at all surprised to receive the site visit team's recommendations in regards to integrated planning and evaluation and program review, the two major recommendations that resulted in the school being placed on warning. The other three recommendations (SLOs, Ethics Policies, and Substantive Change Proposal) were either routine (in the case of SLOs) or were easily remedied. Taft College has been proactive in not only meeting the five recommendations, but in identifying and implementing procedures to exceed the 2002 standards by transforming the culture of the college in such a way as to wholeheartedly embrace the spirit of the standards as opposed to merely meeting the letter of the recommendations. Accordingly, one year prior to its accreditation site visit, Taft College retained a consultant from the Datatel Center for Institutional Effectiveness to assist in developing integrated strategic planning and program review procedures complete with annual evaluation components allowing for continuous quality improvement of these processes. Taft College has been purposeful in developing and implementing these procedures in a collaborative, collegial way to ensure full participation by the campus community. The objective all along has been to develop procedures that not only exceed the standards, but are useful to all constituents and sustainable given the resources of Taft College. As this report indicates, Taft College has made considerable progress in achieving this objective and is well on its way to establishing the new procedures as the new cultural norm in regards to strategic planning and program review. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 2 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report This page intentionally left blank Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 3 Responses to Recommendations from the Most Recent Comprehensive Evaluation Recommendation 1: Integrated Planning and Evaluation In order to comply with accreditation standards and to improve, the team recommends that the college complete its strategic plan and use it to guide educational, human resources, facilities, technology, and financial planning. Furthermore, the team recommends that the strategic planning process be used to guide college decision-making and resource allocation. The team recommends that this integrated planning be regularly and systematically evaluated to determine its effectiveness. Finally, the team notes that completion of an educational master plan is an unresolved recommendation from 2003. Overview Since the October 2009 site visit, Taft College, working with a consultant from the Datatel Center for Institutional Effectiveness, has continued to develop and implement its revised strategic planning process. All components of the new integrated program review, unit planning, and strategic planning process have been identified by the Taft College Planning Council and are now being implemented. The process, as part of its annual cycle, generates an Educational Master Plan that is integrated with other campus plans. This Educational Master Plan will serve as a central tool for guiding decision making over a running two year period.1 Budget and resource allocation are linked to planning via a variety of methods both inside and outside the new program review/strategic planning process. Budgets are not only linked to the new program review/strategic planning process, they are central to the process. The integrated program review/strategic planning processes have built in annual evaluation components that allow for feedback by all persons directly involved. To provide resources (namely, time) allowing Taft College faculty and staff to participate in these expanded program review, unit planning, and strategic planning activities, the Planning Council approved the creation of three "planning days" per academic year, one in the fall and two in the spring, during which faculty and staff are given time and assistance to complete their program reviews. Integrated Strategic Planning Process Beginning in the fall of 2008, a framework for an integrated strategic planning process was developed by the Taft College Institutional Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 4 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Assessment, Research and Planning Office with assistance from Datatel Center for Institutional Effectiveness consultant Burt Peachy.2 By "integrated" it is meant that the strategic planning process is fully coordinated with and synchronized to (1) parallel program review processes for Instruction, Student Services, Administrative Services, and the President's Office; (2) a budget development and resource allocation cycle; and (3) an integrated annual evaluation process. The strategic planning process is being developed and rolled out in parts, each part being approved by the Planning Council prior to its implementation. At the time of this writing, almost all of the components of the strategic planning process have been developed and implemented on at least one occasion; however, a calendar for regular implementation has yet to be identified. Refer to the diagrams and description in the Annual Program Review and Unit Planning Guide for Instruction: 2010-2011 for more detail.3 Evaluate. The strategic planning process is cyclical, and as such has no "start" or "end" to the cycle. Despite that, it is useful to describe the process as an "EPI" cyclical process, or Evaluate, Plan, and Implement cycle starting with "Evaluate." Each one to three years (there is flexibility not only in the scheduling but in the content of the components), an extensive "evaluation" of the internal and external factors affecting the institution is conducted by the Planning Council. This strategic evaluation is usually conducted during a multi day retreat during which the college's Mission Statement and Strategic Plan is also reviewed. The strategic evaluation consists of the following components: Internal Factors Affecting the College External Factors Affecting the College Program Review Findings Accreditation Review Findings and Progress PEEST, SWOT, and Gap Analyses Descriptions of each of these components are contained in the Guide, a copy of which was distributed to all Planning Council members and is available on the Taft College Planning website. The first formal use of this "Evaluate" component was during the Planning Retreat of May, 2010. At that retreat, the Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning Office compiled information on internal factors (enrollment trends, success rates, student demographics, etc.), external factors (job market trends, community demographics, etc.), program review findings from previous cycles, accreditation review and other pertinent information.4 This information was reviewed by the Planning Council which then analyzed the information utilizing PEEST (Political, Educational, Economic, Socio-Cultural, and Technological) analysis, SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 5 Threats) analysis, and Gap (difference between where we are and where we want to be) analysis. Plan. The strategic evaluation component leads directly to the strategic planning component. Essentially, the PEEST analysis, the SWOT analysis, and the Gap analysis leads directly to the development of the Mission Statement and Strategic Plan. Consequently, the college's Mission Statement and Strategic Plan is derived directly from analysis of the most relevant factors impacting on the college and the community served by the college. The college's current Mission Statement and Strategic Plan5 were developed at the May 2009 Planning Retreat. Implement. The college's Strategic Plan is implemented through program review, the process of which is described in the following section under the recommendation for Program Review. Planning Days and Planning Retreats To provide time for faculty and staff to work on their Annual Program Review Reports and Unit Plans, the Planning Council discussed and approved the implementation of "planning days," days set aside during the fall and spring inservice meetings to be used specifically for working on program review and unit planning activities. The first "Planning Day" was held during fall 2010 inservice and was used primarily by Instruction to start work on their Annual Report. As the campus community becomes familiar with planning days and the program review activities become second nature, each planning day will have a "theme" focusing on one or more specific topics related to strategic planning or program review that need to receive special attention. For example, perhaps a planning day theme could be "Evaluation" that focuses on improving the program review and strategic planning processes, or perhaps a theme could be "meeting the needs of the college's students." The planning day concludes with staff completing the evaluation component of the annual program review report.6 The results of this evaluation are used by the Planning Council to improve the strategic planning, program review, and unit planning processes. Planning Guide To facilitate the first planning day, the Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning Office created the document titled Annual Program Review and Unit Planning Guide for Instruction: 2010-2011 to be used as a resource for program review and unit planning. There is a similar guide for Student Services titled Student Services Program Review Handbook: 2009-2010. During the Planning Council meeting where the Guide was introduced, it Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 6 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report suggested that the Guide for Instruction be expanded to cover all Strategic Planning activities and all program review activities within Instruction, Student Services, Administrative Services, and the President's Office. The revised Planning Guide will be made available to the campus community during the summer of 2011. Institutional Effectiveness Council An "Institutional Effectiveness Council" was created specifically to shepherd the strategic planning and program review processes.7 It was felt that, during this phase of development and initial implementation, the college would benefit by having a body dedicated to overseeing the strategic planning and program review processes so that the Planning Council could focus on actually conducting those processes. Consequently, one function of the IE Council is to develop ideas for improvements to the strategic planning and program review processes that are brought back to the Planning Council for discussion and vote. A second primary function of the IE Council is to ensure that agreed upon processes are followed. It was felt that this "enforcement" function would be necessary during implementation until the newly developed procedures become accepted practices, at which time the need for the IE Council would be reevaluated. Other Changes to Link Planning to Budgeting The importance of linking planning to budget and resource allocation has been stressed by President Willy Duncan within the Planning Council and within Cabinet meetings. Consequently, this linkage is being established within the strategic planning and program review processes and outside of those processes. For example, outside of the planning and program review processes, President/Superintendent Willy Duncan has required vice presidents to indicate using the annual Budget Development Calendar which Taft College strategic goal is associated with specific budget requests.8 If the request is such that it does not align with one of the institutional goals, the request is changed until it does align with a goal. This requires managers to think of budget, and thus resource allocation, in terms of the College's Mission and strategic goals. In another example of the linkage of budget/resource allocation to planning outside of program review, Associate Dean of Instruction Val Garcia, who is the grants coordinator, has created a form for requesting unexpended grant funds that includes a question on how the project for which the funds are being requested is aligned with the College's institutional goals.9 Additionally, the form also requests that applicants identify objective measures on the project's effectiveness. Ideally, these objective measures Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 7 will align with strategic plan measures due to the request's alignment with an institutional goal. The increase of the awareness of the importance of linking planning to budget and resource allocation has led to numerous other examples of planning activities demonstrating this linkage. Many of these examples are shown in Appendix A: Chronology of Planning Council Agenda Items since October 2009 Pertaining to Program Review and Strategic Planning. Board of Trustees The Taft College Board of Trustees demonstrates its commitment to meeting the ACCJC Accreditation Standards in a variety of ways. For example, in a retreat held August 29, 2009, the Board members established goals for the Board consistent with the Taft College Strategic Plan developed by the Planning Council at an earlier retreat.10 Several of the Taft College Strategic Plan goals explicitly state the College's commitment to staying in compliance with the Standards. The Board goals were unanimously approved at the October 6, 2009, Board meeting.11 Likewise, at the December 10, 2009, meeting, the Board approved a revised Budget Development Calendar linking the planning process with District budgetary goals. The revised strategic planning process requires that all program review reports be presented to and approved by the Board. Consistent with this process, several program review reports have already been presented to the Board. However, it is too early in the cycle of revised program review for the Board to have fully participated in the process. Likewise, the Board will be required to review and approve the Educational Master Plan once it becomes available. Academic Senate In years past, Taft College's Academic Senate has not had a very active role in either the development or implementation of strategic planning or program review processes. Recently, however, the Senate's role has changed such that the Senate has become more involved especially in the development and implementation of program review. Academic Senate President Bill Devine has made it a priority to keep the Senate informed of issues pertaining to accreditation and program review.12 Likewise, the Senate has been added to the "loop" of the program review information flow and must approve all Annual Program Review Reports yearly.13 It is expected that, as the strategic planning and program review processes continue to evolve at Taft College, the Academic Senate's role in these processes will continue to expand. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 8 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Taft College Foundation The Planning Council, at the start of the current State budget crisis, identified a number of measures to ease the impact of the crisis on Taft College students. One such measure was the creation of a Foundation. The Taft College Foundation was established for the express purpose of advancing post-secondary education by supporting the programs and activities of Taft College. Specifically, the corporation exists to provide funding for building and classroom construction, scholarships, sponsorship for books and educational materials, supplies, equipment and programs. As of September, 2009, the first full-time Foundation Director was hired for the Foundation, to provide the staff support necessary to pursue major donations and endowments within the West Kern and Bakersfield area, in addition to actively pursuing grants for non-profits. This year, the Osher Foundation created, with matching funds from the Taft College Foundation ($110,000), a scholarship endowment fund that will provide eight – one thousand dollar scholarships in perpetuity for second year students. The Taft College Foundation has garnered $94,500 toward this goal. This is a program, based on full time student enrollment that was extended to each of the 119 campuses within the California Community College system. The STEM Corporate Circle of funding was created with major donations from Chevron ($50,000), Synagro ($25,000), Sempra Energy Foundation ($27,000) and Wells Fargo Foundation ($25,000). Additional funding will be annually pursued to ensure continued program dollars for various STEM student programs. The first annual Taft College Fund drive was conducted, generating approximately $20,000 in donations from alumni. The first annual Cougar Rib-Eye Cookout was held, slated to become an annual fund raiser for the Foundation. The intent was to provide a means to showcase Taft College Campus current developments, such as the new Quad area. Sponsorships included $5,000 from TRC for expenses, $2,300 from Synagro to provide free tickets to local veterans (guests for the evening), and $1,000 from Sungard Higher Education. Special ticket prices were extended to all Taft College students and staff. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 9 Educational Master Plan The process by which an Educational Master Plan (EMP) is generated was rethought to make that process an integral, seamless part of the new strategic planning, program review, and unit planning processes. The EMP will consist of all unit plans submitted by the units defined by the Planning Council. In the past, unit plans were not required from all units. Furthermore, those units that did have unit plans were not required to submit them to the Planning Council or any other body. Consequently, unit plans were used internally for unit planning but were not coordinated at a higher level nor were they used for strategic planning purposes. As part of the revised strategic planning and program review and unit planning processes, all units are required to have an up-to-date unit plan that is an integral part of the annual program review report.14 These unit plans are submitted to the Institutional Effectiveness Council no later than the spring Planning Day, at which time they are compiled into the college's EMP. By having all unit plans in a single place and in a similar format, every committee, person, and unit on campus can see what every unit is doing to move the college's mission forward. Additionally, the President's Cabinet and Board of Trustees can get a comprehensive overview of all activities related to the college's Mission and Strategic Plan, and any resources requested by those units. The EMP will be used by the President's Cabinet to build future budgets. The first EMP under the new strategic planning and program review processes should be compiled by the start of the spring 2011 semester. The Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning Office is currently testing a web based unit plan submission process that will essentially compile all unit plans into a single web-accessible document in real time; that is, as soon as a unit plan is submitted by the author of the unit plan, the narrative is added to a database that can be queried to view all unit plans or any subset of unit plans. The Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning Office is also currently developing a website where Annual Program Review Reports can also be submitted concurrently with unit plans. This functionality was approved by the Planning Council at the September 24 meeting15 and will be available for campus use by fall 2010. Evaluation of Planning Process In this context, evaluation refers to the evaluation of the strategic planning process, not an evaluation of the internal and external factors affecting the college as part of the "EPI" cycle. Evaluation of the strategic planning process is an integral part of the strategic planning process and makes use of a survey of Planning Council members during the annual Planning Council retreat in May, 2009. A questionnaire was developed to assess all Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 10 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report components of the strategic planning process.16 The data are compiled and returned to the Planning Council almost in real time. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the Guide for reference. Using the survey data, the Planning Council evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the strategic planning process and develops strategies to address the weaknesses. For example, during the first evaluation conducted during the planning retreat in May 2009, it was determined that not everyone was using the same definitions for common planning concepts. The first Planning Guide grew out of this discussion. Likewise, planning binders, which were identified as one method of addressing this issue, were distributed to Planning Council members at the first Planning Council meeting of fall 2010.17 The binders can be used to store all agendas, minutes, and documents distributed at Planning Council meetings. Current Status: ACCJC Rubric of Characteristics of Effectiveness in Planning Referring to the diagram on page 19 of the Planning Guide, the Taft College Planning Council completed the "Evaluate" phase and the "Plan" phase of the Strategic Planning Cycle during the May 2010 Planning Retreat. The details of the Planning Retreat are described in the Guide and are available in the minutes for the two day retreat. The "Implement" phase of the Strategic Planning Cycle is part of the Program Review and Unit Planning Cycle which formally started on the August 2010 Planning Day. A complete cycle, including an evaluation of the strategic planning process, should be concluded by the spring 2012 Planning Day. The following table shows the ACCJC Rubric of Characteristics of Effectiveness in Planning and the levels of implementation with associated Taft College behaviors. For each Level of Implementation, there is a column showing (1) Sample Institutional Behaviors, (2) Taft College Behaviors as of October 2009 (the date of our most recent site visit); and (3) Taft College Behaviors Since October 2009, which is intended to portray progress since the most recent site visit. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 11 Table 1: ACCJC Rubric of Characteristics of Effectiveness in Planning by Level of Implementation for Taft College Levels of Implementation Awareness Characteristics of Institutional Effectiveness in Planning Taft College Behaviors Taft College Behaviors Sample Institutional Behaviors as of October 2009 Since October 2009 The college has preliminary Taft College has always had a (Taft College has surpassed the investigative dialogue about planning planning process that made use of "Awareness" level of implementation processes. quantitative data for decision for Planning.) making. Qualitative data have been added relatively recently. There is recognition of case need for quantitative and qualitative data and analysis in planning. Cyclical pilot projects and systematic, integrated evaluation and planning efforts existed within The college has initiated pilot various divisions and units for projects and efforts in developing decades. However, those efforts systematic cycle of evaluation, were not well integrated into the integrated planning and institutional level strategic planning implementation (e.g. in human or efforts. Program reviews within the physical resources). instructional area are good examples of this lack of integrated planning. Planning found in only some areas of college operations. There is exploration of models and definitions and issues related to planning. There is minimal linkage between plans and a resource allocation process, perhaps planning for use of "new money" The college may have a consultantsupported plan for facilities, or a strategic plan. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Levels of Implementation Development Proficiency 12 Characteristics of Institutional Effectiveness in Planning Taft College Behaviors Taft College Behaviors Sample Institutional Behaviors as of October 2009 Since October 2009 The Institution has defined a Taft College has had an informally (Taft College has spent the last two planning process and assigned defined planning process for to three years in the Development responsibility for implementing it. decades. Within the last year or so, level of implementation in Planning: that planning process has been We can answer "Yes" to each of the refined and more formally defined. bullets under the Sample of The Institution has identified Institutional Behaviors column.) quantitative and qualitative data and Quantitative and qualitative is using it. indicators of success have been in use for the last eight years. Planning efforts are specifically Planning efforts are specifically linked to institutional mission and linked to the college's mission and goals. goals through the new program and resource allocation procedures. The Institution uses applicable Quantitative data such as course quantitative data to improve success rates have been used to institutional effectiveness in some improve programs since around areas of operation. 2002. The use of institutional effectiveness Governance and decision-making data in governance and decision processes incorporate review of making processes has been institutional effectiveness in mission sporadic in the past. However, the and plans for improvement. newly created strategic planning process makes use of institutional effectiveness data. Planning processes reflect the participation of a broad constituent There has always been broad base. participation in Taft College's planning efforts. The college has a well documented, Taft College's documentation of its The new strategic planning process ongoing process for evaluating itself planning process is not well has built in evaluation component in all areas of operation, analyzing developed; likewise, it does not that publishes results and allows and publishing the results and extend to all areas of operation improvement. planning and implementing although the college is making improvements. progress toward this end. Component plans at present are mostly standalone pieces. Although The institution's component plans The new strategic planning process are integrated into a comprehensive they presented to the Planning for generating an Educational Master plan to achieve broad educational Council, they are not integrated into Plan will incorporate all component Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Levels of Implementation 13 Characteristics of Institutional Effectiveness in Planning Taft College Behaviors Taft College Behaviors Sample Institutional Behaviors as of October 2009 Since October 2009 purposes, and improve institutional a larger planning effort. plans. effectiveness. Human, physical, technological, and financial resources are effectively Because all Units on campus will The institution effectively uses its utilized to achieve the college's generate Unit Plans and these Unit human, physical, technology and broad educational purposes. Plans will receive annual updates, financial resources to achieve its However, SLOs are not presently and SLOs are part of Instructional broad educational purposes, integrated into these efforts. Annual Reports, this criterion will be including stated student learning achieved. Assessment results pertaining to outcomes. SLOs have only recently been documented. The college is in the The new strategic planning process process of identifying institutional and program review process The college has documented assessment results and level key success indicators. includes documentation of all results, communicated matters of quality which are posted in the EMP as well Longitudinal data to assess program assurance to appropriate as online. effectiveness and progress toward constituencies (documents data and achieving goals have been used analysis of achievement of its since around 2002. educational mission). Although program review has been conducted for decades and the The institution assesses progress The new strategic planning process results used for program toward achieving its education goals has longitudinal measures. improvement in instructional and over time (uses longitudinal data and Currently, insufficient resources will student services areas, the program analyses). make measuring them problematic. review results have not been well integrated into strategic planning efforts. The institution plans and effectively Program review in all areas of incorporates results of program campus functioning is the foundation SLOs per se have only recently been review in all areas of educational for the new strategic planning integrated into program review. services: instruction, support process. services, library and learning resources. Program review processes are ongoing, systematic and used to assess and improve student learning and achievement. The new program review process is intended to be ongoing, systematic, and incorporates both SLOs and student achievement data. A complete cycle will not be concluded until spring 2012. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Levels of Implementation Sustainable Continuous Quality Improvement 14 Characteristics of Institutional Effectiveness in Planning Taft College Behaviors Taft College Behaviors Sample Institutional Behaviors as of October 2009 Since October 2009 The institution uses ongoing and Taft College has recently identified Ongoing and systematic evaluation systematic evaluation and planning the need for ongoing and systematic is built into the planning process. to refine its key processes and evaluation of key processes and has improve student learning. taken measures to implement those evaluations. There is dialogue about institutional The dialogue regarding institutional Dialogue about institutional effectiveness that is ongoing, robust effectiveness has been ongoing effectiveness has been sparse and pervasive; data and analyses since around 2002 with the because the focus has been on are widely distributed and used Partnership for Excellence initiative. developing and implementing throughout the institution. Data and analyses have been procedures. available although sometimes sporadic due to lack of resources. There is ongoing review and The new strategic planning process adaptation of evaluation and The evaluation and planning is designed to adapt to internal and planning processes. processes have certainly been external changes though built in adapted in the last one to two years. evaluation components. A consistent and continuous focus There is consistent and continuous on student learning is not yet SLOs and student achievement are commitment to improving student permeated throughout the institution the foundation of program review, learning; and educational although it certainly has been a and program review is the effectiveness is a demonstrable priority within various instructional foundation of strategic planning. priority in all planning structures and and student services units. Both processes have built in processes. evaluation components that allow them to continuously improve. Compared to the "Sample Institutional Behaviors" in regards to effectiveness in planning, it is clear that Taft College is currently transitioning out of the "Development" level of implementation and has positioned itself solidly in the "Proficiency" level of implementation. Given that the College has just arrived at this level, it will take some time for individuals and groups to adjust to and otherwise determine their new roles. Likewise, given the State budget crisis and consequent lack of resources, Taft College has demonstrated its dedication to sustaining planning efforts at the Proficiency level by pursuing alternate sources of funding, primarily grants. It is expected that the transition from Development to Proficiency is the largest in terms of cultural change, and that the transition from Proficiency to Sustainable, Continuous Quality Improvement will be mostly a matter of continuing has already been implemented. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 15 Next Steps The next task for Taft College in regards to implementing its strategic planning process is to start filling in the details of the framework that has been created and to "live" that process. The Institutional Effectiveness Council (IEC) that was recently created has met once at the time of this writing, although the predecessor to this committee, the Planning Steering Subcommittee, had met numerous times since forming in fall 2008. There are several minor issues and a few major issues that need to be worked out by the IEC so that the strategic planning process can be implemented smoothly and seamlessly. For example, a calendar of when key strategic planning events will be addressed needs to be created and widely publicized. Differences in program review procedures between Administrative Services, Instruction, Student Services, and the President's Offices need to be ironed out so that program review and strategic planning at the institutional level are synchronized. The specifics of how and when strategic action plan budget requests are prioritized needs to be fleshed out and approved by the Academic Senate and Planning Council. No doubt there are many issues that have not yet been encountered which will need to be addressed as implementation of the new strategic planning process continues. The Planning Council, the IEC, the Division Chairs, the Academic Senate, the Curriculum Committee, and numerous other groups need to learn how these new procedures will affect them and they need to understand and adjust to their new roles, however big or small, as Taft College implements its new strategic planning processes. Evidence 1. Planning Guide for Instruction p10 2. Contract with Datatel 3. Planning Guide for Instruction 4. Website documents for Planning Retreat 5. Mission Statement and Strategic Plan 6. Annual Program Report Template 7. IE Council Charter 8. Annual Budget Calendar 9. Grant Request Proposal Example 10. Board of Trustees Goals 11. Board Minutes 12. Academic Senate Minutes 13. Planning Guide for Instruction p10 14. Unit Plan Template 15. Planning Council Minutes 16. Evaluation Questionnaires 17. Planning Binder Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 16 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Given the hot, dry climate of the southern San Joaquin Valley, Taft College's Facilities Committee felt that a large "water feature" added to the landscaping would be a refreshing focal point for students and staff. After much discussion by the campus community, it was agreed that a fountain in the quad, with seating around the circumference and a large bronze cougar mascot in the center, would be an ideal structure around which students could relax and socialize between classes. The fountain is expected to be completed by October, 2010. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 17 Recommendation 2: Program Review In order to comply with accreditation standards and to improve, the team recommends that the college build on the last two years of revitalized program review and ensure that all programs in all areas of the campus are regularly and systematically reviewed. The team further recommends that program review be integrated into the college's planning process. The team also recommends that the college regularly and systematically evaluate program review to determine its effectiveness. Overview The Taft College Planning Council identified all programs in all areas of campus functioning, which are categorized into Instruction, Student Services, Administrative Services, and the President's Office. Program review processes were modified or developed, and are being implemented for all of these areas. For Instruction in particular, SLOs and Student Achievement Outcomes (SAOs) are the basis for program review. The revised program review processes are integrated into strategic planning processes and are tightly linked to budgets. The program review processes have an integrated annual evaluation component which is used to improve the processes. The new program review process was implemented at the fall 2010 planning day in August, 2010. Integrated Program Review Processes The beginning point for all program review processes is the identification by the Planning Council of campus "functional units" and programs.1 Functional units, or simply units, are the smallest organizational structures on campus and are the entities responsible for reviewing the programs within those units. Each unit has an identified "unit lead," the person responsible for seeing that all program review activities are conducted and documented. Programs are defined as activities with an identifiable, substantial outcome for students. The obvious example of a program is an instructional program that terminates with a degree or certificate. In many cases, a unit will be responsible for administering one program. For example, the Financial Aid Office administers the financial aid program. In other cases, "programs" are more nebulous and may be defined as the primary functions of the unit under consideration. For example, the Institutional Research Office has several primary functions, none of which directly impacts students. In all cases, the units review their programs and produce two documents on an annual cycle: (1) an Annual Program Review Report, and (2) a standardized Unit Plan, although these documents may soon be replaced by the use of a Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 18 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report web form submitted online. The Annual Program Review Report and Unit Plan are standardized across campus areas so that each area is using the same reporting format, although the program review processes may differ somewhat. A process was defined where units would review data relevant to the programs within those units, complete annual program review reports, complete annual unit plans, and forward those reports and unit plans to the Institutional Effectiveness Council for review and incorporation into an Educational Master Plan. Detailed descriptions of the processes for Instruction and Student Services are given in the corresponding Guides. Instruction. The revised program review process within the Instruction area incorporates four major changes from the previously used program review process: (1) the cycle was changed from a five to six year cycle to an annual cycle; (2) the content was modified and reduced to a manageable amount for an annual cycle; and (3) the process was tightly integrated with the strategic planning process, unit planning processes, the budget and resource allocation processes; and (4) an annual evaluation component was built into the process. Prior to the implementation of the revised program review process for Instruction, program review was conducted on a five to six year cycle. Although this five to six year cycle was found to be adequate for program improvement within most Instructional divisions, it was impossible to link program review to strategic planning and an annual budget cycle. After much reflection and discussion within the Planning Council, it was resolved to move the college to an annual program review process so that program review and unit planning could be linked to an integrated strategic planning process and annual budget cycle. To achieve this annual program review process, the content of the program review within Instruction was carefully reconsidered to reduce the content to a core set of key indicators for program performance: SLO content for courses and programs, and "student achievement outcome" (SAO) content, including course enrollment trends, course success rates, English, ESL, and Math improvement rates, declared majors, degrees and certificates earned, and other relevant data deemed necessary for specific programs. The SLO content was approved by the Academic Senate. The annual program review report and unit plans for Instruction2 requires programs to Provide a Mission Statement; Provide a program description; Provide an annual update (what happened in the last year); Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 19 Respond to questions on course and program SLOs; Respond to the SAO data enumerated above; Provide a summary of Major Findings; Provide recommendations for the Program, including requests for resources; Provide an evaluation of the program review process; and Create a Unit Plan for the upcoming year. If the unit's Unit Plan indicates any goals that require resources above and beyond the unit's base allocation funding, they are required to submit a more detailed "Strategic Action Plan" (SAP) which is a key document linking program review, strategic planning, and budgeting.3 SAPs are collected and evaluated by the Planning Council. It is expected that, in the future, SAPs will be prioritized and budgets developed based on the information contained in the SAPs. Unit Plans will be collated and incorporated into the college's Educational Master Plan.4 Programs are free to continue to conduct more comprehensive program review using a variety of data sources, and in fact such comprehensive program review may even be required. The schedule and process for conducting more comprehensive program reviews would need to be worked out between the program, the Planning Council, and the Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning Office. All completed Annual Program Review Reports are currently posted on the Taft College Planning website.5 Student Services. Student Services has had an effective program review process for a number years that is described in the document "Taft College Student Services Program Review Handbook: 2009-2010," available for download on the Taft College Planning website. The Student Services program review process is similar to the process developed for Instruction with a few minor differences. In the Student Services model of program review, Program Review Teams are appointed by the Vice President of Student Services, who also prepares the schedule of programs undergoing review. The program review is conducted by staff running the program, using a template developed by Student Services, and the resulting program review report is audited by the Program Review Team, who responds to the report. At this point in the process, the Student Services program review process converges with the Instruction and Administrative Services program review process: Annual Unit Plans and, if necessary, SAPs are generated and forwarded to the Institutional Effectiveness Council. Annual unit plans and annual reports are then incorporated into the Educational Master Plan. Student Services programs are currently on a six year cycle for comprehensive review and an annual cycle for updates. The annual update Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 20 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report component is currently being modified to make the annual report and unit plans the same as those for Instruction and Administrative Services. The Annual Program Review Reports and Unit Plans will be incorporated into the Taft College Educational Master Plan. Administrative Services. The program review process for units within Administrative Services begins with identifying "Administrative Unit Outcomes" (AUOs) for each unit by reviewing job descriptions for all positions within each unit. Major AUOs were identified by the Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning Office and reviewed by the Administrative Services units, many of which added one or more AUOs. A questionnaire was developed to measure each unit's perceived effectiveness in achieving its AUOs, and a survey using this questionnaire was administered to a broad sample of campus employees during the summer of 2010. The survey results were returned to the Administrative Services units, who were instructed to review the results and develop a unit plan for the following year, focusing on improving one or more of the AUOs. In many ways, the program review process for the Administrative Services units is the simplest to conduct. AUOs are well defined, although they may be difficult to measure directly. Surveys conducted to measure the AUOs are problematic—namely, they are not primary measures of effectiveness and thus subjective—but they are faster and easier to conduct and give a fair approximation of primary measures. The Administrative Services staff recognize that subjective, anonymous survey responses are not ideal for use in program review; however, the benefits of speed and ease outweigh the drawbacks of a loss of accuracy and objectivity. At a Planning Council meeting, Administrative Services staff suggested that they collect and utilize primary data as measures of effectiveness in conjunction with survey data. It is expected that future iterations of this process will be scheduled to bring the Administrative Services program review into synchronization with Instruction and Student Services. President's Office. The program review process developed and implemented for the President's Office is exactly the same as for the Administrative Services: AUOs were identified, questionnaire items were developed to assess those AUOs, a survey was conducted, and the staff within the President's Office was asked to develop a unit plan based on the outcome of that survey. Primary measures of effectiveness will eventually be developed for the President's Office as well as all of Administrative Services. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 21 Evaluation of Program Review Process A systematic evaluation component is built in to the program review process and currently consists of two open ended questions that are appended to the end of the Annual Program Review Report required of all units: (1) In this cycle of program review, what aspects of the program review and unit planning process worked best and why? and (2) In this cycle of program review, what aspects of the program review and unit planning process would you change and why?6 The qualitative responses to these two questions will be compiled by the Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning Office each year and brought back to the Planning Council for discussion on how those processes can be improved. It was felt that this method was best suited for use during the formative phase of development and implementation. After a few cycles of program review and unit planning have been completed, quantitative questions will be added to the evaluation so that the various aspects of the program review and unit planning processes can be improved using measureable indicators. The evaluation component, since it is conducted on an annual basis, allows rapid evolution of the program review and unit planning processes to respond to the needs of the institution. As described in the section under Strategic Planning, the evaluation of program review has already produced some tangible results that will be incorporated into the next cycle of program review and unit planning. A similar annual evaluation component is built in to the strategic planning process. Taft College's first Planning Day had mixed results with several issues, all of which were discussed during the evaluation. The following table shows the responses to the two questions asked during the evaluation. What went well? Having the dedicated time to work on program review and unit plans, especially in Instruction Having SLO Coordinator floating Having IR staff floating Having President floating Having available facilities (computer rooms) Relatively simple format Engaged, great dialogue Stimulated more frequent meetings More credibility to process Getting excellent results to use as examples What should we change? More consistent, reliable technology More examples/templates Graphs/figures instead of tables for Student Achievement Data st Maybe have Planning Day as 1 day of inservice instead of last day Do all planning in spring, or start in spring and finish in fall Change inservice to 5 days in fall instead of 3 days so more time is available Administrative Services needs more data—Survey data insufficient One day is not enough Instructions not clear Results were inconsistent—some people did not understand, others rushed Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 22 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report The Planning Council and Institutional Research Office have already made changes to the program review process based on the results from the evaluation. For example, computer rooms will be reserved in advance and Research Office staff will be "stationed" in those rooms instead of being "on call." The PDF submission process for Annual Program Review Reports and Unit Plans has been changed to an online submission process to provide more consistent, reliable technology. Templates will be provided from actual Annual Reports and Unit Plans. Discussions have begun about adding more Planning Days and/or inservice days. And, Unit Leads have requested additional data to use in their program-specific reviews. Current Status: ACCJC Rubric of Characteristics of Effectiveness in Program Review For the fall 2010 Planning Day, the Instructional Units were directed to complete the following components of the Annual Program Review Report: (1) Mission Statement; (2) Program Description; (3) Annual Update; and (4) the SLO portion of the Report. Administrative Services Units were directed to complete the entire Annual Report, which did not include SLO data. Student Services Units were directed to refrain from submitting anything due to the ongoing nature of program review within Student Services and until the Institutional Effectiveness Council could meet. All Units were informed that complete Annual Program Review Reports and Unit Plans would be required by the end of the spring Planning Day in January 2011. At the time of this writing, Annual Program Review Reports and/or Unit Plans have been submitted by 58 percent of Instructional Units and 33 percent of Administrative Units. These Annual Reports and Unit Plans will be evaluated by the Institutional Effectiveness Council and recommendations regarding procedures will be brought back to the Planning Council. Several of the Annual Reports selected by the Institutional Research Office have been circulated to the Academic Senate and Administrative Services Units as being exemplary Reports. In May of 2009, the Taft College Planning Council adopted the ACCJC rubric on evaluating the effectiveness of program review, strategic planning, and SLO implementation as a "road map" leading to sustainable, continuous quality improvement in these three areas. The following table indicates Taft College's current level of attainment for program review using this rubric. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 23 Table 2: ACCJC Rubric of Characteristics of Effectiveness in Program Review by Level of Implementation for Taft College Levels of Implementation Awareness Development Characteristics of Institutional Effectiveness in Program Review Taft College Behaviors Taft College Behaviors Sample Institutional Behaviors as of October 2009 Since October 2009 There is preliminary investigative Taft College was at the “Awareness” (Taft College has surpassed the dialogue at the institution or within level of implementation around "Awareness" level of some departments about what data 2000-2001 at the time the implementation.) or process should be used for Coordinator of Institutional Research program review. position was created and filled. Data elements for program review in There is recognition of existing instruction were identified and practices and models in program program review templates were review that make use of institutional created. research. The first cycle of program review in the instructional divisions was implemented. There is exploration of program review models by various Program review in student services departments or individuals. followed shortly afterward, but the data elements were identified by SS. The college is implementing pilot program review models in a few programs/operational units. Program review is embedded in Program review in the instructional Program review using quantitative practice across the institution using divisions using the original templates and qualitative data is now qualitative and quantitative data to developed in 2001 continued up to embedded in all Units across the improve program effectiveness. present. campus. Dialogue is extensive within divisions; however, that dialogue Dialogue about the results of Dialogue about the results of program review is evident within the was not extended to the Planning program review within programs has program as part of discussion of Council until recently. always been evident at Taft College. program effectiveness. The Senate has only recently become involved in program review. This linkage is not yet fully Leadership groups throughout the Leadership of the program review institution accept responsibility for developed. framework has been provided program review framework primarily by the Planning Council Appropriate resources are now being development (Senate, Admin. Etc.) and a handful of individuals on allocated. campus. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Levels of Implementation Proficiency 24 Characteristics of Institutional Effectiveness in Program Review Taft College Behaviors Taft College Behaviors Sample Institutional Behaviors as of October 2009 Since October 2009 Program review is currently being linked to strategic planning and Appropriate resources are allocated What constitutes "appropriate to conducting program review of budgeting through a revamping of resources" is still being considered meaningful quality. the strategic planning process. due to the recent implementation of the program review processes. Student learning outcomes have recently been incorporated into program review. Development of a framework for The linkage between program review linking results of program review to results and planning for planning for improvement. improvement is built in to the process. Development of a framework to align results of program review to resource allocation. Program review processes are in place and implemented regularly. Results of all program review are integrated into institution- wide planning for improvement and informed decision-making. The program review framework is established and implemented. Dialogue about the results of all program reviews is evident throughout the institution as part of discussion of institutional effectiveness. Results of program review are clearly and consistently linked to Program review processes are in place, but have not been implemented regularly. The program review framework is in place but needs to be strengthened. The new strategic planning process will systematically incorporate program reviews, which will be conducted systematically. Dialogue on program review has been extensive within units conducting program review, but the mechanisms to extend these dialogues to the institutional level are in development. This rubric has been shared with the Planning Council and other committees and will be used as a guide to assess institutional effectiveness in regards to program review. A framework to align program review results with resource allocation is in place but is still too new to evaluate. Program review processes are now in place for all Units and are scheduled to be implemented regularly. The program review processes in place is built upon a foundation of results to be used for improvement and informed decision making. The new program review framework is established and is being implemented. The dialogue about the results of all program reviews is beginning to take place as the process rolls out. The newly developed processes for program review link planning and Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Levels of Implementation Sustainable Continuous Quality Improvement 25 Characteristics of Institutional Effectiveness in Program Review Taft College Behaviors Taft College Behaviors Sample Institutional Behaviors as of October 2009 Since October 2009 institutional planning processes and resource allocation; however, the resource allocation processes; process is still too new to college can demonstrate or provide demonstrate or provide specific specific examples. examples. The institution evaluates the effectiveness of its program review processes in supporting and improving student achievement and student learning outcomes. Program review processes are ongoing, systematic and used to assess and improve student learning and achievement. The institution reviews and refines its program review processes to improve institutional effectiveness. The results of program review are used to continually refine and improve program practices, resulting in appropriate improvements in student achievement and learning. Evaluation mechanisms using student learning outcomes and student achievement are in place. Taft College is moving in the direction of sustainable, continuous quality improvement. Consultants from the Datatel Center for Institutional Effectiveness were retained and tasked specifically with assisting the college to develop a cyclical strategic planning process that incorporates program review, is linked to budgeting, is sustainable, and is useful. (The mechanisms for all three bulleted statements under the "Sustainable, Continuous Quality Improvement" level are in place in the newly implemented program review processes.) Taft College is currently at the "Development" level of implementation for program review and is transitioning to the "Proficiency" level. As can be seen in the table above, a year and a half ago, the College was transitioning from the "Awareness" level of implementation to the "Development" level. Subsequently, a lot of progress was made, but clearly a lot more progress still needs to be made. The Taft College Planning Council is using the above rubric to not only assess its current progress in the implementation of program review, but to plan for future implementation. It is expected that the College will be firmly within the "Sustainable, Continuous Quality Improvement" level of implementation for program review by 2011-2012, given that sufficient funding is available. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 26 Next Steps Taft College is committed to not only meeting the ACCJC standards and recommendations from its October 2009 site visit, it is committed to establishing a culture of evidence-based decision making built on a foundation of sustainable, useful program review. The college community recognizes the value of useful program review, which has already led to tangible results like the creation of the welding and energy programs. Likewise, the college leadership demonstrates its dedication to fostering an environment in which program review is central to student learning and institutional improvement by providing necessary resources to ensure that the revised program review processes continue to evolve to best meet the needs of the community of learners served by the college. For example, the Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning Office has gone from 1.0 FTE to 3.5 FTE over the last several years. The next steps for implementation of the program review process will be for the Institutional Effectiveness Council to evaluate the process to date, identify issues that need to be resolved, and bring recommendations for resolving those issues back to the Planning Council. Evidence 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. List of Functional Units Annual Program Review Report and Unit Plan Templates Strategic Action Plan Template Reference to EMP in Guide Planning Website PR Reports Evaluation Questionnaires Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 27 Taft College was one of only a few schools in the country awarded a several million dollar grant to enhance its Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) programs. Part of the grant funds was used to build a "wet lab," shown in this photo, and a greenhouse that will be used in several innovative multidisciplinary programs aimed at boosting student engagement in STEM areas. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 28 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Recommendation 3: SLOs The team recommends that the college build on recent efforts to reach a proficiency level in the development and assessment of student learning outcomes by 2012 and establish a timeline to do so. Specifically, the team recommends that the college Complete the development of student learning outcomes for all courses Develop student learning outcomes for all programs Develop and implement timelines for the continuous and regular assessment of all course, program and institutional student learning outcomes Use those assessments as occasions for regular dialogue about improving learning at the college Ensure that faculty and others directly responsible for student progress toward achieving student learning outcomes have, as a component of their evaluation, effectiveness in producing those learning outcomes. Overview Through use of inservice time, work of the Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Steering Committee (SLOASC); paid SLO assessment teams; revised program review procedures; a new SLO Coordinator and increased support for that position; technology; and significant dialogue in instructional divisions, Planning Council, and the local Academic Senate, Taft College has made significant progress toward meeting this recommendation since October of 2009. Faculty have authored course learning outcomes for 240 courses (80%)1 offered in the fall of 2010. Conversations that were only beginning to occur in 2009 regarding the definition of program SLOs have facilitated the writing of 22 program learning outcomes for certificates and degrees (79%).2 The timeline for annual SLO assessment approved by Taft College’s Planning Council in late 20093 has been integrated into new program review processes, and new assessments have been completed.4 Assessment results have been shared and discussed in a variety of venues, including faculty reports, the fall 2009 and spring 2010 SLO Assessment Teams, division meetings, and planning day. Changes to instruction and changes to assessments have resulted from completed assessments. Faculty now have, as a component of their self-evaluation, an opportunity to report and evaluate their use of student learning outcomes,5 which has been accepted not only by administration but by the Faculty Association (Taft College’s chapter of CTA). Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 29 Course Student Learning Outcomes At the time of this writing, Taft College Faculty have authored 240 course learning outcomes (80%). This is an improvement of 42% since October of 2009. This leaves only 48 course SLOs more to be completed for courses taught during the current academic year. A significant amount of time during the January, 2010 in-service was allocated for each division to work on completing course SLOs, drafting program SLOs, aligning PSLOs with courses, and drafting assessment plans for the next year. Because different instructional areas were at different levels of progress, some divisions primarily focused on writing course SLOs during the allotted days and in the weeks that followed. Some adjunct faculty attended these SLO work sessions as well, helping to draft SLOs in areas that only they taught. As a result, in the first week alone Taft College faculty had already drafted 78 new CSLOs and 10 new PSLOs.6 By October of 2010, these figures have gone up as a direct result of faculty effort. As a result of these new SLOs, the SLOASC has been very busy reviewing new SLOs, providing feedback, approving SLOs7 and finally sending them forward to the Curriculum and General Education Committee for addition to the course outline of record. In an effort to expedite the review and approval process of course SLOs, the new SLO Coordinator currently sends SLO packets to committee members prior to meeting for initial review.8 Currently, the SLO Coordinator is sending bi-monthly reports of the current status of course SLO development to all division chairs so that they can disseminate this information to faculty. Program Student Learning Outcomes At the time of this writing, Taft College has 22 program student learning outcomes for certificates and degrees (79%), institutional SLOs, 64 % of SLOs for student services programs, and has laid the groundwork for administrative unit outcomes by creating mission statements for many administrative units on campus. Although institutional student learning outcomes have been in place at Taft College since 2007, Mary Allen had presented to Taft College faculty on assessing program SLOs and integrating them into program review in 2007, and a summer in-service workshop was conducted on program SLOs in 2009, until January of 2010, competing interpretations of the word ―program‖ as it would pertain to Taft College’s local SLO culture and a lack of a clear set of guidelines for creating and implementing program SLOs and assessing them had hampered progress in this area. However, discussions in the SLOASC9 and Academic Senate10 Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 30 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report resolved this issue. Areas of student services had already been determined; administrative units were being formed as a result of ongoing discussions in the Planning Council to lay the groundwork for a new, improved program review, and instructional divisions decided to define PSLOs as the attitudes, skills, and knowledge a student possesses upon completing a given certificate or degree. However, there is an ongoing discussion that has occurred regarding both the development and assessment of general education SLOs and as to whether or not they should be differentiated from institutional SLOs. Program SLOs for certificates and degrees are published in the current 20102012 Catalog and Student Handbook. A relatively unique feature of Taft College’s approach to instructional PSLOs is that the college has incorporated and built on Mary Allen’s curriculum map which aligns courses with PSLOs and indicates appropriate levels of proficiency of the PSLOs within courses comprising a program. The Applied Technology Division was the first to incorporate this model into its program review, and the model has been integrated into Taft College’s new Annual Program Review Report template. Using Allen’s matrix to align courses and program outcomes has resulted in changes in the business course offerings and majors. For example, the short-hand courses were inactivated and removed from the major, a capstone class was added to the major, and the title of the program was changed from secretarial studies to administrative services to better reflect the content and outcomes of the program. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 31 Student Services As noted in the Institutional Self Study Report in Support of Reaffirmation of Accreditation, Taft College’s Student Services took the lead in drafting program SLOs as early as 2007, revising their SLOs as Taft College’s Institutional SLOs took shape. Student Services departments complete annual reviews,11 and are currently working to better implement SLOs into their review process. Student Services faculty create unit plans designed to align with Taft College’s institutional SLOs.12 Additionally, various departments in Student Services have revised or are revising their SLOs.13 Disabled Student Program Services has assessed its SLOs for 2009-2010, and, and Monitored Academic Probation Program has assessed its SLOs twice. 14 Annual Assessment Timeline and Assessment Implementation In November of 2009, Taft College’s Planning Council approved15 the cycle for annual Program, Certificate, Degree, and Course Assessment Reports. The cycle includes a specific timeline that delineates activities planned for over five semesters, and is intended to repeat and improve for perpetuity. The table and image below are excerpted verbatim from the document that the Planning Council approved. Spring 2010 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Draft assessment plans for programs, certificates, and degrees during January in-service. Divisions report status of assessment plans during fall in-service. In January in-service, results from assessments are examined by program. Faculty making up program interpret results and create an action plan to improve the outcomes. Divisions report status of assessment plans during fall in-service. In January in-service, results from assessments are examined by program. Data are compared with previous year. Results from assessments are interpreted and discussed. Faculty should meet as programs throughout the semester to finalize their assessment plans and validate shared assessments. Faculty conduct assessment in Fall of 2010 according to assessment plans. Faculty continue with assessment and implement action plans to improve outcomes. The assessment plan is revisited. Programs may elect different means of assessment. Programs continue assessing SLOs forever, reviewing the results and revising assessment plans annually. Fall 2012—Absolute Deadline The document stipulates that assessment must occur at all required levels (program, certificate, degree, and course) annually, but does not indicate to Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 32 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report what extent (e.g. the number of assessments in each area by each faculty member). Instead, the responsibility of determining who will assess which SLOs each year is left in the hands of the divisions. To support this effort, administration, the Planning Council, the Staff Development Committee, as well as the Academic Senate authorized the use of existing inservice days to be dedicated to SLO work during every inservice permanently thereafter. The timeline became an integral component of the then emergent annual program review process. The Planning Council, working largely through its new Institutional Effectiveness Council, developed the annual cycle for program review integrating the existing SLO timeline above. Specifically, per the document, assessments of SLOs at all levels must be completed prior to the January 2011 inservice so that SLO data can be used to plan program improvements for the upcoming academic year. The cycle then reiterates in order to gauge the effectiveness of improvements based on SLO data. The ultimate goal of the cycle is to improve student outcomes, and since the SLO assessment results are a central component of the new program review process, a link between SLO assessment results, unit planning, strategic planning, and the forthcoming educational master plan has been mapped. During the January inservice, the SLO Coordinator requested assessment plans to be completed by the end of the spring 2010 semester for the fall 2010 semester from all instructional divisions. Due to the varying degrees of progress in writing course and program SLOs, some divisions promptly complied with this request as others used the time to collaboratively write course and program SLOs. By the end of spring of 2010, division chairs and departments had sent the SLO coordinator assessment plans for the Math/Science Division, the English Department, the Applied Technology Division, and the Physical Education Department.16 Despite the fact that SLO coordinator reminded divisions of this timeline throughout the semester at an Instructional Cabinet Meeting and Academic Senate, by the end of the semester, assessment plans were still lacking from the Social Sciences, Learning Support, and Liberal Arts divisions (although members of two of these divisions have completed assessments since January of 2010). This may be owed in part to the fact that there was no template provided for these plans. Rather, the SLO coordinator simply asked divisions to indicate who would be assessing what in advance of completed Annual Program Review Reports. Another goal of the spring 2010 semester, per the ―Annual Cycle for Course, Certificate, Program, and Degree Assessment‖ document was validation of shared assessments by collaborating faculty. Information regarding Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 33 reliability and validity of assessment were publicly discussed solely in SLO Assessment Team meetings—no other forum or venue has discussed these issues at Taft College, and for most faculty, the current challenges at the forefront of attention are completing the writing of SLOs and assessing them—not validating or refining them. However, two instructors in the area of Physical Education invested a significant amount of time in determining, testing, and calibrating a rubric with which to assess a psychomotor outcome for two different sections (men’s and women’s) of intercollegiate soccer (see completed assessment reports for PHED 1542 in evidence item 4). Barring this impressive exception, more information, discussion, and work are needed to examine the validity and reliability of SLO assessments so that the data these assessments yield will be more meaningful, valid, and actionable. However, the frequency and number of SLO assessments, as well as faculty’s understanding of them and competency completing them, are continually increasing. Since October of 2009, course SLO assessments have been completed in the following areas: English; Astronomy; Spanish; Recreation; Health; Early Care, Education and Family Studies; Math; Economics; Drama; Art; Philosophy; Physical Education; Anatomy; and Criminal Justice Administration.17 Some of these assessments have occurred as members of the fall and spring SLO Assessment Teams completed their reports; some were follow up assessments of previous assessments; and some were done by faculty who simply took the initiative to assess. Two English instructors and a math instructor are developing a program SLO assessment for the fall 2010 semester, but at this date, no academic certificate/degree SLOs (most of which were written in January of 2010) have been assessed. As reflected in the Institutional Self Study Report in Support of Reaffirmation of Accreditation, the primary emphasis on assessment of instructional SLOs to date has been on course SLOs—the fact that program SLOs for certificates and degrees have been defined and that instructional areas (English, math, business administration) have planned to assess program SLOs in the fall of 2010 is initial progress toward Taft College meeting its SLO recommendation by fall of 2012. The current SLO coordinator hopes that these efforts will provide a model for assessing instructional program SLOs in the Taft College environment, and that during inservice of January 2011 the assessment process employed by these groups can be evaluated and optimized. An apparent and important need at this juncture, which becomes more possible as faculty gain momentum and competency in SLO assessment, is the use of assessment results to plan and implement changes for improvement to the outcomes. English 1000, English 1500, Economics Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 34 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 2210, Psychology 1500, Speech 1511, Spanish 1601, and an ESL course 18 have altered assessments in an effort to validate them or changed instructional methodology in course as a result of assessment data. Additionally, many positive, tangible changes (such as changes to programs themselves as a result of course to program SLO alignment and the inclusion and addition of assignments with more explicit criteria and rubrics linked to targeted outcomes via new assessments) have occurred because of SLO assessment efforts, but these benefits have manifested because of assessment design, not from studying and interpreting the results in order to plan interventions and changes to improve the outcomes. This is an area where Taft College is currently weak and also a goal that is now in closer reach than ever before because of the enormous progress the institution has made in the last three years. The new annual program review and unit planning processes and the central role of SLO assessment data in these new processes provide a clear framework to achieve these goals, perhaps as early as the end of spring of 2011, but a need for training in and dialog about transforming completed, actionable assessment data into effective practices that will improve the outcomes is apparent. Also, it is difficult to gauge the extent and magnitude of those few changes that have occurred because they have happened solely at the course level. With Taft College’s new program SLOs, institutional SLO assessment initiative, planning and SLO days in inservice, and annual program review cycle, the goal of widespread improvement based on completed SLO assessment data is now within reach—provided the institution honors its new policies and timelines and evaluates them in the process of doing so. Another issue is the alignment of SLOs as it pertains to assessment. Although instructional faculty have begun to understand the relationship between course SLOs and certificate and degree program SLOs, the relationship between these two levels and institutional SLOs has yet to be clearly defined or adequately explored. Although the course SLO template that was implemented in summer of 2008 facilitates alignment between course outcomes and institutional outcomes (see Business 1051 SLOs on next page), not all program SLOs at Taft College have been aligned clearly with institutional SLOs, and, moreover, the assessment practice relating these three tiers of instructional SLOs is still not actualized. In recognition of this gap, a pilot project is being initiated by the new SLO coordinator. At the October 4 Taft College Academic Senate meeting, the SLO coordinator presented a plan19 to assess one portion of Taft College’s institutional SLO for communication. The plan includes a draft of a rubric meant to be broad enough to assess the ISLO in many disciplines in order to render a snapshot of college wide competence in written communication. At the meeting, the SLO coordinator requested feedback regarding the proposal Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 35 and the rubric. In just five days, at the time of this writing, one assessment of the ISLO for communication have been completed in Information Competency.20 The SLO coordinator hopes to garner completed assessments from thirty class sections in order to create a statistically valid representation of the outcome. Additionally, fruition of this project could potentially ignite campus wide dialog to improve learning outcomes at all levels. Results of assessments have been shared, and the SLO coordinator, Staff Development Committee, Planning Council, and Academic Senate have helped to develop more forums for faculty to do so. Dialogue from assessments of SLOs has occurred primarily in three separate venues: Division Meetings, SLO Assessment Team sessions, and fall 2010 Faculty Reports.21 Participants in SLO Assessment Teams were required as a term of service to report their findings from completed SLO assessments to their divisions.22 However, these teams, authorized in the summer of 2008, have completed their planned and allocated iterations and funding; these SLO Assessment Teams were a transitional, educational endeavor meant to not only improve learning outcomes but give faculty guided experience in assessment. Now that the teams are no longer being offered, it is crucial that faculty adhere to the assessment plans that they submitted. During Faculty Reports (a semesterly, required inservice event for all faculty), at Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 36 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report the request of the SLO coordinator, nine faculty ―champions‖ shared SLO work they had completed with all faculty in attendance. The SLO coordinator has expressed a desire to ingrain this practice into Faculty Reports permanently, and based on the approval of planning days, agreement to alter the inservice calendar to allow for more planning days, and campus wide acknowledgement of the necessity to meet accreditation recommendations, the permanent institutionalization of SLO reports during Faculty Reports appears to be an achievable goal. New SLO Coordinator and Support Taft College’s first SLO coordinator served for two years, initiating and supporting much of the preliminary work on SLOs. He stepped down upon the completion of the spring 2010 term, and the new SLO Coordinator Victoria Herder assumed her new responsibilities. She is also the Co-chair of the Curriculum and General Education Committee, Vice President of the Academic Senate, and Taft College’s Articulation Officer. As such, she is perfectly and uniquely poised to coordinate SLOs campus wide. To provide assistance and to be more visible across campus, the Office of Institutional Research, Assessment, & Planning has reassigned two individuals to assist the SLO coordinator on an as needed basis to provide clerical and technical support in tracking and publishing SLO information. Additionally, Geoffrey Dyer, Taft College’s first SLO coordinator, is now the Liberal Arts representative on the Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment Steering Committee, the Academic Senate secretary, and he works closely with the new SLO Coordinator to explain and clarify events and documents from the last two years. Use of Technology In order to be more visible and have campus wide dialog, in concert with The Office of Institutional Research, Assessment, & Planning, the SLO Coordinator has implemented a web based tracking system (CS Track) for course outlines of record, SLOs, and assessment timelines (see next page). Only a few actual courses have been uploaded as of yet, but the system appears to be functional, and SLOs and course outlines of record are being uploaded into the system currently. The CS Track system is designed to not only store and make visible current SLOs and CORs, but to organize and document campus wide dialog regarding these items in order to ensure transparency and accountability through a discussion board. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 37 Evaluation of Faculty The evaluation process for Taft College Faculty members is a collective bargaining item which can only be altered through mutual agreement by the Taft College Faculty Association and the Taft College Administration and then approved by the Taft College Board of Trustees. The evaluation procedures were reviewed and updated during the spring 2009 semester. In the tenured faculty self-evaluation portion, there is an optional item for student learning outcomes. Taft College is currently pilot testing a new student evaluation of instructor and course questionnaire that includes several questions on SLOs. The intent Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 38 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report of the evaluation is to provide context for how well the students understand the intent and execution of SLOs in the specific section of the course being evaluated. The previous version of the student evaluation of instructor and course questionnaire contained numerous questions on the instructor and only one question on the course. The revised pilot questionnaire contains the same instructor questions, but has numerous questions regarding the course. Because student evaluation is required for all instructors, the results of the questionnaire can be used by all instructors to gauge how the instructor is communicating the SLOs to the students. The pilot test is scheduled to conclude at the end of the fall 2010 semester, after which the results of the pilot test will be made available to the Academic Senate and Planning Council to determine if the questionnaire should be utilized in all instructor evaluations. Current Status: ACCJC Rubric of Characteristics of Effectiveness in SLOs The following table shows Taft College's current status in the level of implementation of SLOs compared to the ACCJC Rubric of Characteristics of Effectiveness in SLOs. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 39 Table 3: ACCJC Rubric of Characteristics of Effectiveness in Student Learning Outcomes by Level of Implementation for Taft College Levels of Implementation Awareness Characteristics of Institutional Effectiveness in Student Learning Outcomes Taft College Behaviors Taft College Behaviors Sample Institutional Behaviors as of October 2009 Since October 2009 There is preliminary, investigative As early as 2002, Course SLOs Faculty are well versed in discourse dialogue about student learning were drafted and added to Course of outcomes assessments; outcomes. Outlines. conversations, trainings, policy implementation, and assessment efforts have all occurred and changed since 2002. There is recognition of existing practices such as course objectives and how they relate to student learning outcomes. Darlene Pacheco’s SLO presentation at inservice in 2002 explored the link between course objectives and SLOs. Course SLOs were revised by faculty beginning in 2008. Using learning objectives from the CORs, Bloom’s Taxonomy, and a more practical definition of assessment, faculty wrote new course SLOs that were manageable, broader than learning objectives, and which represented the accomplishment of many objectives. The relationship and difference between outcomes and objectives has been discussed in multiple training sessions; Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment Steering Committee (SLOASC) reviews SLOs for approval and uses objectives listed on COR as one criterion to approve SLOs Since October of 2009, more faculty have focused on aligning PSLOs with courses using a matrix. There is exploration of models, definitions, and issues taking place by a few people. Faculty attended Mary Allen’s inservice presentation on SLOs and Program Review in 2007. There is campus wide dialogue and activity regarding outcomes assessment and alignment of SLOs Pilot projects and efforts may be in progress. eLumen was piloted in 2007. SLO assessment teams launched in Summer of 2008, have continued every semester. Annual assessment cycle is in its first year since approval. Institutional assessment effort began in fall of 2010. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Levels of Implementation Development 40 Characteristics of Institutional Effectiveness in Student Learning Outcomes Taft College Behaviors Taft College Behaviors Sample Institutional Behaviors as of October 2009 Since October 2009 The college has discussed whether Taft College began with course level Course SLOs, program SLOs, to define student learning outcomes SLOs in 2002. Student Services SLOs, and at the level of some courses or institutional SLOs have been Institutional SLOs were drafted and programs or degrees; where to defined; only a few remain on the approved in 2007-2008. begin. course and program levels. In 2009, faculty began drafting Administrative units have begun program SLOs. drafting outcomes. College has established an Discipline appropriate faculty are SLO coordinator alerts division institutional framework for definition responsible for writing course SLOs. chairs of number of written SLOs of student learning outcomes (where every two weeks to bring the New SLOASC committee, approved to start), how to extend, and timeline. numbers for course and degree by local senate in May of 2009, will SLOs up to 100%. help target program assessments in advance of divisions’ program reviews. College has established authentic assessment strategies for assessing student learning outcomes as appropriate to intended course, program, and degree learning outcomes. Authentic assessment was topic of Janet Fulks and Sue-Granger Dickson’s discussion at Taft College’s Academic Senate meeting in January, 2009. Authentic Assessments are in place in dental hygiene, computer science, art, cell biology, chemistry, and English. Calculus and English are two disciplines that use authentic assessments (assessments that simulate real world experience and have explicit criteria). Existing organizational structures (e.g. Senate, Curriculum Committee) are supporting strategies for student learning outcomes definition and assessment. Academic Senate, Faculty Association, and Administration had a voice in authorizing the SLO Assessment teams. Planning Council approved annual cycle for assessment. SLOASC drafts SLO policies and forwards them to Academic Senate. SLOASC approves SLOs and sends them to Curriculum and General Education Committee. Leadership groups (e.g. Academic Senate and administration), have accepted responsibility for student Academic Senate approved SLOASC committee in May of 2009. SLOASC will report to Senate and SLOASC committee, as a subcommittee of the General Education and Curriculum Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Levels of Implementation Proficiency 41 Characteristics of Institutional Effectiveness in Student Learning Outcomes Taft College Behaviors Taft College Behaviors Sample Institutional Behaviors as of October 2009 Since October 2009 learning outcomes implementation. Curriculum; will feed assessment Committee, meets monthly. data to planning through program Academic Senate regularly has SLO review agenda items. Academic Senate approved modification to Program Review template to include SLOs in 2009. Academic Senate and Planning Council worked together to define SLOASC committee in 2009. Appropriate resources are being allocated to support student learning outcomes and assessment. Participants were of SLO assessment teams funded by grant funds. In service time and senate agendas have been devoted in part to SLOs. New SLOASC Committee will meet as working committee, as professional commitment of faculty. Regular inservice time is now used for SLO work. SLOASC members serve on committee as part of professional commitment. Faculty and staff are fully engaged in student learning outcomes development. Faculty from all divisions have participated in SLO Assessment teams. Counselors and adjunct instructors have participated and completed SLO Assessment Reports. Faculty from all divisions have participated in writing and assessing of SLOs (including some adjunct faculty). Administrative units are progressing on writing AUOs. Student learning outcomes and authentic assessment are in place for courses, programs and degrees. Faculty have identified assessments for SLOs and completed assessments on the course level. Instructors have changed their teaching as a result of the assessments. 80% of course SLOs and 79% of certificate and degree program SLOs have been written. SLO template includes existing examples of assessment from courses and programs. Results of assessment are being used for improvement and further alignment of institution-wide Math and ESL departments have done SLO assessment reports with multiple instructors and sections New Annual Program Review Report document designed to use SLO assessment data as primary Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Levels of Implementation 42 Characteristics of Institutional Effectiveness in Student Learning Outcomes Taft College Behaviors Taft College Behaviors Sample Institutional Behaviors as of October 2009 Since October 2009 practices. assessing the same SLO. evidence for decision making; these Successful integration of SLO data are scheduled to be completed for into program review will make the the first cycle in January of 2011. assessment results more useful and Assessments in English, economics, widespread. psychology, speech, Spanish, and ESL have resulted in altering assessment to make more reliable or changes in method of instruction. These improvements are proportionately few compared to the number of courses and focus only on courses. More improvements based on the results of assessment are needed by fall of 2012. There is widespread institutional dialogue about the results. Instructors share their completed Assessment Reports with their divisions. Completed Assessment Reports posted on Taft College SLO Webpage. Completed assessments have been shared with instructional divisions, SLO Assessment Team members, and all faculty in Faculty Reports during in-service. Decision-making includes dialogue on the results of assessment and is purposefully directed toward improving student learning. Currently, improvements based on completed assessment only happen at the course level. To move forward, SLO assessment data from programs should be linked to planning through Program Review. Currently, decision making based on the results of assessment is not taking place on a widespread level. New unit planning cycle in Annual Program Review Report document, strategic action planning process, and emergent Educational Master Plan can facilitate this in spring of 2011 if faculty complete scheduled assessments, complete Annual Program Review Report, and follow unit plans. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Levels of Implementation 43 Characteristics of Institutional Effectiveness in Student Learning Outcomes Taft College Behaviors Taft College Behaviors Sample Institutional Behaviors as of October 2009 Since October 2009 Appropriate resources continue to be allocated and fine-tuned. Creation of new committee and authorization of summer 2009 program SLO in service are examples of Taft College focusing its existing resources on progressive SLO work. Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Steering Committee (SLOASC) has met for one year and now begins its second; committee assignment counts as contractual professional commitment for members. Significant inservice time has been was used in January and August for SLO work; per the “Annual Cycle for Course, Certificate, Program and Degree SLO Assessment” document (approved in November of 2009) and the adoption of campus wide Planning Days, inservice time will continue to be used to discuss assessment results and unit plan based on the results. The link between SLO assessment data, program review, unit planning, and strategic action planning allows for the allocation of resources based on SLO assessment results—this loop is yet to be successfully closed. Evaluation of the existing process and completion of Annual Program Review Reports in January of 2011 will facilitate the first complete iteration of this process. Per the agreement between Academic Senate, Faculty Association, and administration, the last paid SLO Assessment Team (spring of 2010) has been offered. In Taft College’s existing structure, Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Levels of Implementation 44 Characteristics of Institutional Effectiveness in Student Learning Outcomes Taft College Behaviors Taft College Behaviors Sample Institutional Behaviors as of October 2009 Since October 2009 despite the allocation of inservice time, the execution of SLO assessments must happen during the semester as an added responsibility of faculty. Comprehensive assessment reports exist and are completed on a regular basis. 26 completed Individual Assessment Reports in 2008-2009; 8 more underway currently. These are the product of SLO Assessment Team participants. Specific SLO assessments that represent programs need to be targeted and executed in advance of Program Review; this is part of the charter of the SLOASC. Course student learning outcomes are aligned with degree student learning outcomes. Course SLOs are aligned with institutional SLOs. More program SLOs need to be written. Since October 2009, SLO Assessment Reports have been completed in various disciplines at the course level as a result of SLO Assessment Teams, the new annual assessment cycle, and faculty taking initiative to reassess SLOs. Faculty have planned to complete more SLO assessments during fall of 2010 in order to integrate results into completed Annual Program Review Reports in January of 2011. Information Competency instructor has assessed Institutional SLO (communication). One Student Services program has reassessed, and others have planned to assess. Certificate and Degree SLOs have not yet been assessed. Course and program SLOs are aligned with institutional SLOs through template for course and program SLOs. Course to program matrices have been used by many programs to indicate appropriate levels of mastery of PSLOs in different Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Levels of Implementation Sustainable Continuous Quality Improvement 45 Characteristics of Institutional Effectiveness in Student Learning Outcomes Taft College Behaviors Taft College Behaviors Sample Institutional Behaviors as of October 2009 Since October 2009 courses within a program; the matrix template is also a component of the Annual Program Review Report document. Relationship between levels of SLOs through assessment has yet to be fully explored. Students demonstrate awareness of goals and purposes of courses and programs in which they are enrolled. SLO webpage is public to students. Many instructors print SLOs on syllabi. More student awareness of goals and purposes of courses and programs is needed. A student representative on the new SLOASC, a collaboration with the Psychology Club, or a project with the Associated Student Body are all avenues that the SLO coordinator should explore. Student learning outcomes and assessment are ongoing, systematic and used for continuous quality improvement. At present, SLO assessments need to be more structured and purposefully executed. The emphasis up until spring of 2009 has been on educating faculty through hands-on experience (SLO assessment teams) and connecting SLOs to assessment. In the future, specific assessments should be targeted and executed in advance of SLO webpage has not been updated for several months; SLO publication on web is transitioning to new, homegrown CS Track system. Program SLOs published in current catalog SLOs printed on syllabi. New course evaluation pilot project asks students to answer questions relating to SLOs to better gauge their awareness of SLOs they are responsible for demonstrating. This will be implemented in fall of 2010. SLOASC still does not have student representative. More student involvement in SLO processes is needed. Varying course SLOs have been assessed every semester since summer of 2008. New annual cycle for assessment is designed as ongoing, permanent cycle. Location of SLO data in new Annual Program Review Report is designed to link assessment results with unit planning for improvement. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Levels of Implementation 46 Characteristics of Institutional Effectiveness in Student Learning Outcomes Taft College Behaviors Taft College Behaviors Sample Institutional Behaviors as of October 2009 Since October 2009 program review. This is an area for improvement. Dialogue about student learning is ongoing, pervasive and robust. SLO discussions have occurred in division meetings, Academic Senate, division chairs’ meetings, and at the Planning Council. SLO conversations, resolutions, and work have occurred and continue to occur in a wide variety of forums (Planning Council, Academic Senate, Division meetings, and SLOASC). Evaluation and fine-tuning of organizational structures to support student learning is ongoing. At present, Taft College is building a structure for assessing program SLOs through Program Review. The organizational structure to support SLOs needs to be expanded. Strategic Action Plan proposal form asks authors to align proposals with institutional SLOs before submitting proposals to Planning Council. SLO assessment data has central function in new annual program review document. Student learning improvement is a visible priority in all practices and structures across the college. Individual Assessment Reports; faculty evaluations; Student Services internal reviews; and the use of internal and external scans by IAR&P, planning, and divisions; are all examples of efforts across Taft College to bolster and improve student learning. Supplemental Instructional Assistants, the Clubhouse (facility for students to use SIAs), and tutors in the library are programs dedicated to bolstering learning. Regular inservice time is dedicated to SLO work and unit planning for improvement based on results; inservice calendar is being modified to provide appropriate days/hours for this work prior to both spring and fall semesters. SLO component of faculty evaluation gives faculty opportunity to evaluate effectiveness in improving SLOs. Annual assessment cycle emphasizes improving outcomes based on assessment results. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Levels of Implementation 47 Characteristics of Institutional Effectiveness in Student Learning Outcomes Taft College Behaviors Taft College Behaviors Sample Institutional Behaviors as of October 2009 Since October 2009 Strategic Action Plan proposals align plans with institutional SLOs. Administrative units are developing AUOs. Learning outcomes are specifically linked to program reviews. Taft College’s local Academic Senate approved a modification to the existing Program Review template in spring 2009; the template incorporates SLO assessment data, program SLO alignment, and a field for faculty to interpret the SLO data and request resources for improvement. Part of the charter of the new SLOASC is to target assessments in advance of divisions’ program reviews. The data from these assessments will be fed to IAR&P in advance of Program Review to populate the SLO section of the Program Review template. Completed Program Reviews, with SLO Assessment data interpreted, will be brought to the Planning Council. New Annual Program Review Report uses SLO assessment data as evidence to inform unit planning (this process will complete for the first time in January of 2011). New Annual Program Review Report asks instructional units to align PSLOs with courses in matrix. If plans for improvement based on SLO assessment data in program review require significant resources, SAPs for budget allocation are also required. Taft College is clearly in the development tier of the ACCJC Rubric of Characteristics of Effectiveness in SLOs. The fact that most assessments have occurred on the course level and the sparseness of documented changes for improvement based on assessment results are the most significant evidence that the institution is not currently demonstrating proficiency. Additionally, the framework provided by the new Annual Program Review Report and increasing frequency of assessment of SLOs make the goal of reaching proficiency more achievable than ever before. If faculty and staff adhere to the processes and timelines Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 48 discussed and approved by the Planning Council and Academic Senate, Taft College will be proficient, based on the above rubric’s definition, by the end of spring, 2011. Next Steps It is vital that individuals at Taft College complete assessments during the current semester as planned so that during the January, 2011 inservice the data from completed assessments can be used to plan for improvement as a component of program review. Additionally, emphasis and training on using assessment results to improve course, certificate, degree, program, and institutional outcomes need to occur in local Academic Senate meetings prior to inservice and, if possible, during inservice. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 49 Evidence 1. All Course SLOs 2. All Program SLOs 3. Proposal for Annual Program, Certificate, Degree, and Course Assessment Reports 4. All IARS and Assessment Report Forms since last October 5. Contract Teaching Faculty Self Evaluation Program (see section 2.l.) 6. SLO Update—Last Week, This Week—The Future! (PowerPoint Delivered to Taft College Academic Senate on January 15, 2010 by Geoffrey Dyer) 7. Official Policy for Drafting/Revising and Approving Course and Program Student Learning Outcomes 8. SLO/COR (email from SLO Coordinator to SLOASC Representatives), September 20, 2010 9. Taft College SLOASC Notes, September 11, 2009; Taft College SLOASC Notes, December 4, 2009; Taft College SLOASC Notes, January 8, 2010 10. SLO Update—Last Week, This Week—The Future! (PowerPoint Delivered to Taft College Academic Senate on January 15, 2010 by Geoffrey Dyer) 11. Taft College Counseling Annual Program Update, April 15, 2010 12. Taft College Yearly Action / Operational Planning Document (student services) 13. Matriculation SLO Data Report 14. Monitored Academic Progress Program Individual Assessment Reports, 2008 and 2009, MAPP Attachment Anonymous; Assessment Report for DSPS 2009-1010 15. Planning Council Minutes, November 20, 2009 16. Assessment Plans from Applied Technology, English, Math, Math/Science, and PE. 17. See all completed assessment reports. 18. Emails and Documents Regarding Changes for Improvement as a Result of SLO Assessment 19. Taft College’s Institutional SLO . . . Write Clearly and Effectively 20. Assessment Results from ISLO Assessment in Information Competency 21. ―Program Review, or How to Make SLO Progress for Improvement,‖ PowerPoint delivered by Dr. David Layne at Taft College Faculty Reports, August 19, 2010. 22. Internal Recruitment Announcement: Spring SLO Assessment Team Member Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Heating and cooling lines are being laid between the recently constructed state-of-the-art centrifugal chilled water cooling plant, seen in the upper center of this photo, and the newly refurbished Technical Arts building. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 50 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 51 Recommendation 4: Ethics Policies In order to comply with accreditation standards and to improve, the team recommends that the college develop ethics policies for all staff. Overview The Academic Senate of Taft College reviewed the 2009 site visit recommendations of the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges visiting team. Seeing the item on the need for a code of ethics at Taft College, the Academic Senate created a Code of Ethics Subcommittee with participants Academic Senate President Bill Devine, Chair of Social Sciences Division Sharyn Eveland, EOP&S Coordinator Lourdes Gonzalez, Counselor Candace Duron, Associate Professor of Science David Reynolds, and Associate Professor of Business Greg McGiffney. This committee began its process in January of 2010 with a series of meetings needed to generate a unique blueprint for Taft College's own faculty code of ethics. We shared all of our ideas, went through a process of organizing our vision into distinct categories, and then created a first draft that was brought back to the Senate for approval. President/Superintendent Willy Duncan had also started his own process to address this issue, designating Jana Peters, Director of Human Resources, to compile or create a campus-wide code of ethics. She contacted Bill Devine, Academic Senate President, and he informed her that we had this first draft completed, and he shared it with her. On March 1, 2010, Bill sent the following message to Jana: Attached is the first draft of the faculty code of ethics for Taft College, created by the Academic Senate Code of Ethics Subcommittee. The group used a holistic process to create the four categories of ethics and discussed their meaning and significance. I then crafted the definitions you see in the document, and the committee has approved them. I want to get your feedback on the document before the next Academic Senate meeting on April 5th, when the final draft will be presented to the membership for their feedback. Jana Peters made some recommendations for minor changes, which Bill Devine incorporated into the final draft presented to the Academic Senate on April 5, 2010. The faculty code of ethics for Taft College passed with unanimous approval at that meeting. It was then submitted to the Taft College Board of Trustees, Willy Duncan, President/Superintendent, and Jana Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 52 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Peters, Director of Human Resources. It is the understanding of the Academic Senate that our document will be included in the campus-wide code of ethics. Draft of Campus Wide Code of Ethics Copied below is the current draft, at the time of this writing, of the campuswide Code of Ethics to be included in the Taft College Policies and Procedures Manual as Administrative Procedure 3050. It is one policy with a general statement in the beginning applicable to all employees followed by a separate section for each classification: 1) faculty, 2) management, and 3) classified. The current draft is complete for faculty and management. The section for classified is still in a rough draft form and is not included here. It is expected that the complete policy on the campus-wide code of ethics will be approved at the next Board of Trustees meeting in November, 2010. AP 3050 Institutional Code of Ethics Reference: Accreditation Standard III.A.1.d I. A Definition of Ethics Ethical behavior is often defined as ―right‖ or ―good‖ behavior as measured against commonly excepted rules of conduct for a society or for a profession. The ethical person is often described in absolute terms as one who is fair, honest, straightforward, dispassionate and unprejudiced. If, however, one is inconsistently fair or honest, one loses credibility and is perceived to be unethical. The ethical person must be conspicuously consistent in the exercise of integrity to sustain the credibility that is an expectation of office. II. Importance of Ethics The credibility of faculty and staff depends upon whether they are perceived as honest men and women. If integrity contributes to credibility, then ethical behavior is a single prerequisite to successful teaching, management, giving of services, etc.. When people are convinced that public institutions are administered by honest individuals, questions and demands for public accountability rarely arise. Statements of ethical standards do not necessarily ensure ethical behavior. Yet public statements of intent surely create an expectation that public officials will indeed act with integrity in the public interest. III. Expectations for Ethical Behavior Faculty and staff shall be committed to the principles of honesty and equity. They shall not seek to take away the freedoms of faculty, staff and students for any reason. At the same time, they shall not willingly Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report permit the rights and privileges of any member of the college community to override the best interest of the public served by the college. As appointed leaders of the college community, faculty and staff shall exercise judgments that are dispassionate, fair, consistent and equitable. They shall exhibit openness and reliability in what they say and do as leaders. They shall confront issues and people without prejudice. They shall do everything they can to demonstrate commitment to excellence in education and without compromise to the principles of ethical behavior. IV. Faculty Code of Ethics A. Professional Development/Best Practices 1. B. Taft College values the professional development of the individual faculty member as a foundation for ethics. Becoming the best educator that we can be requires conference attendance, study of the latest articles from professional journals, writing and communicating with our peers, and taking the time to assess our own teaching strategies and practices and their outcomes. Support of Institution 1. Colleagues/Faculty: Taft College values honest dialogue between faculty, between faculty and administration, between faculty and all other employees as a foundation for an ethical institution. While respecting our academic freedom on the one hand, on the other hand we have a duty to the institution to maintain the integrity of the college’s educational function and its mission and goals. By serving each other with both constructive criticism and moral support, we can establish a respectful work environment where all feel empowered to achieve their best. 2. Diversity: Taft College values America’s multicultural society as an ethical foundation for social understanding and growth. Understanding and teaching the value and strength that comes from all our social differences, while respecting both law and morality, creates a culture that can more peacefully negotiate conflict by minimizing the mitigating effects of ignorance, stereotypes, and prejudice. An educated citizenry goes hand in hand with tolerance of those whose beliefs or backgrounds we may not share but who we recognize as having rights equal to our own. 3. Governance of the Institution: Taft College values shared governance as the ethical requirement for maintaining the integrity of the community college’s role in society. Faculty must play their part in the decision-making process that governs the growth and development of the college. To do Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 53 54 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report otherwise is to abdicate our responsibility to our country, our state, our county, our students, and ourselves. Our role in governance means we must do more than teach; we must contribute to the formation and growth of our institution and to the fulfillment of its most ideal state. C. Support of Student Growth 1. D. Integrity/Character 1. V. Students: Taft College values the development of our student’s knowledge, empowerment, and sense of responsibility as the means by which we secure an ethical future for our country and our world. They are the seeds of our society’s future, but supporting student growth is more than a metaphor where we water them with facts or shine the light of truth upon them; our goal is to develop critical thinkers whose understanding of what is right and good is tempered by the insight that human limitation can blind us to the nature and substance of the greatest good, that there are many viewpoints from which to view an issue or conflict, and that sometimes even being right and being good are antithetical. Our mission at Taft College includes developing students who respect individual rights, understand diverse viewpoints, and are good global citizens with the skills, knowledge, and ethics to build a better future for humanity. Personal behavior: Taft College faculty value ethical personal behavior, recognizing that while we have personal freedoms and rights, we also represent the college in our classroom, on our campus, and in our community. We want to make sure we model behavior consistent with our role as educators, exemplifying a positive example for the students we teach. To behave with integrity, we must adhere to the laws of our society. To demonstrate character, we must do what is right even when no one else is looking. To err is human and we faculty are eminently human, but the goal of our personal, public behavior should be to set a proper standard by which we would be proud to be seen by others, flattered to be emulated by those we teach. Educational and Classified Administrator Code of Ethics A. Responsibilities of Administrators 1. Administrators respond to many constituencies including: Elected or appointed governing boards; colleague administrators, faculty and staff; and the students and the community. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report B. C. D. E. Responsibility Statement Guidelines with Respect to the Governing Board 1. Keep the Governing Board informed so that it can act in the best interest of the District and the public. 2. Act in the best interest of the District. 3. Be guided by the principles and policies established by the Board. 4. Represent the Board in official statements only when formally designated to do so. Responsibility Statement Guidelines with Respect to the Profession 1. Improve performance through participation in professional activities in order to inform colleagues about the developments in education in general and in the community college district in particular. 2. Encourage and assist new professionals toward growth and effectiveness. Responsibility Statement Guidelines with Respect to Faculty and Staff 1. Develop a climate of trust and mutual support through the established shared governance process. 2. Foster openness by encouraging and maintaining two-way communications. 3. Encourage, support and abide by written policies and regulations and to communicate clearly to all staff members the conditions of employment, work expectations and evaluation regulations. 4. Provide opportunities for professional growth. 5. Challenge unethical behavior in a timely manner. Responsibility Statement Guidelines with Respect to Students 1. Provide and protect student access to the educational resources of the community college district. 2. Protect human dignity and individual freedom, and assure that students are respected as individuals, as learners, and as independent decision-makers. 3. Invite students to participate in the established shared governance process. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 55 56 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report F. G. 4. Protect students from disparagements, embarrassment, or capricious judgment. 5. Keep foremost in mind at all times that the college district exists to serve students. Responsibility Statement Guidelines with Respect to the Community 1. Remain continuously informed of the characteristics, preferences and educational needs of the local community. 2. Be sensitive to individuals from diverse backgrounds. 3. Encourage and stimulate communications with community groups. Rights and Due Process—An administrator in the community college district should have the right to: 1. Be considered for employment without regard to race, sex, religion, creed, age, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation. 2. A Clear written statement of the philosophy, goals and objectives of the District. 3. A Written contract identifying terms and conditions of employment. 4. Work in a setting of institutional support and a climate of professional respect. 5. Be assigned authority commensurate with responsibilities and resources adequate to carry out assigned functions. 6. Act independently within the scope of authority to carry out responsibilities assigned. 7. Perform duties and carry out responsibilities without disruption or harassment. 8. Be provided with legal and financial protection from liability in carrying out duties of the position. 9. Participate in formulating and implementing institutional policy at a level appropriate for the position held. 10. Speak for the institution at the level of assigned authority. 11. Participate in professional associations. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report VI. 12. Confidentiality regarding personnel matters. 13. Participate in and to be supported at an appropriate level in activities providing for professional growth such as career advancement and promotion, sabbatical leaves, other leaves, and conference attendance. 14. Loyal support from supervisors for the proper performance of work assigned. 15. Be evaluated in a professional manner on a regular and systematic basis, and to receive adequate notice of dissatisfaction with performance or action to terminate in accordance with existing statutes. 16. Due process in accordance with written regulations which are communicated to the administrator prior to appointment. Classified Staff Code of Ethics Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 57 58 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report As Taft College renews its strategic planning and program review procedures, it is also renewing its facilities with complete remodels or new constructions of every structure on campus. Here, the old Technical Arts building is being refurbished into a more student-friendly classroom building. For example, the old building had faculty offices scattered in various locations, including offices at the back of classrooms that required visitors to walk through a classroom to reach the office. The refurbished building will have a "faculty row" where all faculty offices are located together and will be accessible without interrupting any classrooms. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 59 Recommendation 5: Substantive Change Proposal The team recommends that the college file a substantive change proposal with the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) for programs where 50% or more of the courses are approved to be offered in a distance education mode. At the time of the accreditation site visit in October 2009, Taft College had not submitted the appropriate documentation for substantive changes to the Commission for many years. The recommendation by the site visit team to submit a Substantive Change Proposal prompted a review of processes used to identify and submit required Substantive Change Proposals; appropriate committees and procedures have been identified for future submissions. In regards to this specific recommendation, Vice President of Instruction Henry Yong and Coordinator of Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning Dr. Eric Berube contacted the Commission via a conference call to ascertain the appropriate course of action. Based on the information obtained during that call, a comprehensive list of certificates and degrees offered by Taft College was generated that shows which certificates and degrees can be obtained by taking 50% or more of classes via distance learning. The following table compiled by Distance Learning Coordinator Patti Bench indicates, for each certificate and degree, whether that certificate or degree can be obtained by completing 50% or greater distance learning courses. T.O.P. Code Unit 1. Behavioral Sciences (ECE, Psychology, Sociology) 1305.00 1305.20 1305.20 0501.00 0502.00 2. Business 0505.00 0506.30 T.O.P. Title Local Title Child Development/Early Care and Education Early Care, Education & Family Studies Children with Special Needs Early Intervention Assistant I Children with Special Needs Early Intervention Assistant II Business and Commerce, General General Business Accounting Accounting Business Administration Business Administration Management Development and Supervision Management Certificate or Degree >= 50% by DL? C D Yes Yes C Yes C Yes D Yes C D Yes Yes D Yes C D Yes Yes Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 60 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report T.O.P. Code Unit 0514.00 0514.00 0514.30 3. Communications and Foreign Languages (Journalism, Speech, Spanish) 0602.00 Computer Information Systems 0702.00 5. Dental Hygiene 1240.20 6. Direct Support 0809.00 7. Energy (Energy Technician, Industrial Health & Safety) 0956.70 4. 8. 9. English Language & Literature (English, Reading, ESL) Health and Physical Education 0706.00 0999.00 1501.00 0835.00 0836.00 10. Life Science 0401.00 11. Mathematics (Math, Statistics) 1701.00 12. Physical Science 1901.00 13. Social Sciences (CJA, Anthropology, Economics, Geography, History, Political Science, Recreation Studies, Social Science) 14. Technology (Welding 2105.00 2105.10 T.O.P. Title Local Title Office Technology/Office Computer Applications Office Technology Office Technology/Office Computer Applications Administrative Services Court Reporting Court Reporting Journalism Journalism Computer Information Systems Information Management Computer Science (transfer) Computer Science Dental Hygienist Dental Hygiene Special Education Direct Support Education Industrial and Occupational Safety and Health Industrial Health & Safety Other Engineering and Industrial Technologies Energy Technology English English Physical Education Physical Education Recreation Recreation Biology, General Life Science Mathematics, General Mathematics Physical Sciences, General Physical Science Administration of Justice Criminal Justice Administration Corrections Criminal Justice Administration: Corrections Certificate or Degree >= 50% by DL? D Yes C D Yes Yes C D No No D No C D Yes Yes D No C D C D No No Yes Yes C D No No C D No No D Yes D No D No D No D Yes D No D Yes C D Yes Yes 2201.00 Social Sciences, General Social Science D Yes 0948.00 Automotive Technology Automotive Technology D No Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report T.O.P. Code Unit Technology, Automotive Technology) 0948.00 0948.00 0954.30 0956.50 15. Visual and Performing Arts (Art, Music, Drama, Humanities/ Philosophy) 1002.00 1030.00 T.O.P. Title Local Title Automotive Technology Automotive Engine Performance Automotive Technology Automotive Electricity & Electronics Petroleum Technology Petroleum Technology Welding Technology Welding Technology Art (Painting, Drawing, and Sculpture) Art Graphic Art and Design Graphic Design 61 Certificate or Degree >= 50% by DL? C No C No C D No No D No D No C No This table will be included with the Substantive Change Proposal to be submitted to the ACCJC in the near future. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 62 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Appendix: Chronology of Planning Council Agenda Items since October 2009 Pertaining to Program Review and Strategic Planning Following is a list presenting Planning Council meeting dates and the items discussed and/or acted upon during those meetings relating directly to program review, strategic planning, or any of the specific recommendations in Taft College's 2009 Evaluation Report pertaining to program review or strategic planning. Other pertinent committee meetings in which related program review or planning activities were discussed or acted upon are included in the chronology as well. October 2, 2009 Technology program review reports reviewed and approved by Planning Council; Discussion on identification of all programs at Taft College as first step in revised program review process. October 16, 2009 Discussion on next steps for revision of program review process; Continued discussion on identification of all programs at Taft College. November 6, 2009 Discussion on identification of all programs at Taft College continues; Discussion of how to tie grant application and projects to budget and strategic planning leads to reconstitution of Grant Committee. November 20, 2009 List identifying all units and programs is approved by Planning Council; Planning Council approves embedding SLOs into program review; Annual cycle for SLOs is approved; Budget Calendar for 2010-2011 is presented and approved; The concept of "Budget Efficiency Study Sessions" is discussed; The impact of grants on the College's budget and planning processes is discussed. December 4, 2009 The purpose of the Budget Efficiency Study Sessions is elaborated; Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 63 Two Grant Review Sub-Committees are created, each tasked with studying and making recommendations on linking various aspects of grants to planning and budgeting. January 8, 2010 Taft College's responses to impending state budget cuts is discussed; A timeline for implementation of the revised program review and strategic planning processes is fleshed out; The online Strategic Action Plan (SAP) submission process is demonstrated and tested using a "real" example (the process was developed prior to October 2009); The notion of combining grant application and SAP processes is discussed. January 22, 2010 Second SAP is submitted by SLO Coordinator and discussed by Planning Council. Planning Council approves SAP; Third SAP is submitted, discussed, and approved; An integrated program review process based on SLOs and student achievement data is presented; Strategic planning process is discussed in terms of SAPs and Key Success Indicators (KSIs). An evaluation process for strategic planning is presented, discussed, and approved. February 26, 2010 A new Course Evaluation Form for collecting data to be used in program review is discussed, and a vote is taken to pilot test the form in the Applied Technologies Division. The pilot test is conducted, and it is decided that the pilot test will continue to fall 2010; The STEM project develops a Mission Statement linked to the College's Mission Statement which is approved by the Planning Council. A discussion of Mission Statements ensues; The process by which new programs are implemented is discussed, but no consensus is reached on this issue; The Grants Budget Subcommittee reports on the sustainability of current grants; The results from two open forum Cost Efficiency Forums are presented and discussed. The discussion will continue into future meetings. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 64 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report March 26, 2010 The grant application and review process is modified to use the SAP submission process; A grant application is discussed for its impact on faculty, staff, and students; "Planning Days" to provide faculty and staff with time to work on program review reports and unit plans are introduced, discussed, and approved by the Planning Council. The process of program review within Instruction, Student Services, and Administrative Services is discussed, but no consensus on this issue is reached at this time. April 9, 2010 The Planning Council discusses and approves the creation of an Institutional Effectiveness Council to oversee the program review and strategic planning processes and to put together the Educational Master Plan; A discussion on required resources for program review leads to a discussion on potential reorganization. A Reorganization Committee is created to investigate the issue of reorganization; The template for annual program review for Instruction is reviewed and approved by the Planning Council; The Open Forums on Efficiency and Cost Reduction Strategies synthesized lists are presented and reviewed, and subcommittees are created to report back to the Planning Council with recommendations. April 15, 2010 The Reorganization Committee identified by the Planning Council in their April 9 meeting convenes to discuss what reorganization might look like. The meeting is inconclusive. It is suggested that the College go through a cycle of program review to see if resources are sufficient with the current organizational structure. April 23, 2010 The Reorganization Committee provides an inconclusive report. No actions are taken at this time. It is suggested that the College go through a cycle of program review and revisit the issue if necessary; Budget Efficiency Subcommittees begin their reports and recommendations; Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 65 The Planning Council receives its first ever self evaluation instrument. The results will be reviewed at the Planning Retreat in May; A program review process for Administrative Services is introduced and discussed. May 7, 2010 (Planning Retreat) President Willy Duncan announces he will meet with Department Chairs to review timeline and process for departmental budgets. Part of the revised process will be that each request for funding must be linked to a College goal; An SAP that was submitted is discussed, leading to a related discussion on the criteria for submission and approval of SAPs; The data collected from the evaluation questionnaire are reviewed, areas of weakness are identified, and strategies and actions to improve the strategic planning process are identified. May 8, 2010 (Planning Retreat) The Planning Council generates numerous ideas to improve the functioning of the Planning Council, evaluating the process of strategic planning, and increasing meeting effectiveness; The Planning Council identifies specific measures for Key Success Indicators for the various College goals they would like to see implemented first; The logistics for conducting the first "Planning Day" at Taft College are discussed. June and July 2010 The Planning Council was scheduled to meet twice during the summer session. However, due to circumstances, these two scheduled meetings were canceled. To make up for this, two additional meetings were scheduled for August. July 29, 2010 The Cost Efficiency Subcommittee for the Bookstore reported their findings and recommendations for budget actions. The Planning Council discussed and approved the recommendations; The IAR&P Office distributed binders and copies of the "Planning Guide for Instruction," which were two of the recommendations resulting from the evaluation of the strategic planning process during the May Planning Retreat. The Guide and its contents were discussed, and Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 66 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report further recommendations to combine all strategic planning and program review guides into a single document were approved; The questionnaire to be used for collecting data for the Administrative Services program review was distributed to Planning Council members; The Planning Council determined the agenda for the spring Planning Day; The Planning Council discussed the submission of an SAP submitted for a "planning facilitator" position. No action was taken at this time. August, 2010 The survey to collect data for the Administrative Services program review was conducted. August 17, 2010 ("Plan to Plan" Meeting) List of Unit Leads updated and approved; Template for program review reports and unit plans distributed and discussed; Program review processes for Instruction, Student Services, and Administrative Services reviewed; Objectives to be achieved at spring Planning Day discussed and approved; Planning Day PowerPoint presentation for faculty and staff reviewed by Planning Council members. August 18, 2010 (Special Meeting of Planning Council to set Agenda for Planning Day) Planning Council reviews content of Annual Program Review Reports and Unit Plans and discusses program review process for Instruction and Administrative Services. Student Services will be reviewed at a future date. August 20, 2010 (Planning Day) Inservice general session gives overview of program review process for Instruction. The importance of participation is stressed; Planning Day conducted during spring inservice. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report 67 August 26, 2010 President/Superintendent Willy Duncan meets with Administrative Services Unit Leads to review the expectations for Annual Program Review Reports for the fall 2010 semester. September 10, 2010 New online version of Annual Program Review Report and Unit Plan submission form demonstrated; Program review and SLO annual cycle reviewed and discussed; Examples of good Annual Program Review Reports submitted during Planning Day distributed to Planning Council. Same examples are distributed to Academic Senate; Informal evaluation of Planning Day by Planning Council members. September 24, 2010 Formal evaluation of program review process by Planning Council; Planning Council reviews draft of First Annual Follow-Up Report to ACCJC; Report to Planning Council on progress made on meeting accreditation recommendations using ACCJC rubric as a "road map," followed by discussion of next steps; Demonstration and discussion of online submission process for Annual Program Review Reports and Unit Plans. Planning Council approves new process as a result of evaluation conducted earlier. September 27, 2010 At the Division Chairs meeting, the issue of reorganization for efficiency is again raised. It is suggested that the Reorganization Committee, which at this point in time has met only once, be reconvened to further explore the issues surrounding reorganization. It is pointed out that reorganization within any Division would have consequences on other Divisions and create workload and pay issues that must go through the Faculty Association. No actions are taken. Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning 68 October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Taft College October 2010 First Annual Follow-Up Report Taft College Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning
