s
s
INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
Los ANGELES COMMUNITT COLLEGES
OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR
TO:
Members of the Board of Trustees
FROM:
Adriana D. Barrera, tnterim Chanceiior
DATE:
February 19, 2014
SUBJECT: BOARD LETTER FOR FEBRUARY 26,2014 MEETING
Board Meeting Location
Next week's Board meeting will be held at the Educational Services Center. The meeting times and locations
are as foiEows:
Meetings
nstitutjonai Effectiveness & Student Success Committee
Time
11:30 a.m.-1:00p.m.
Location
Board Room
Break
1:00p.m.-1:15p.m.
Facj!ities Master P!anning & Oversight Committee
1:15 p.m,-2:15 p.m.
Break
2:15 p.m.-2:30 p.m.
Convene Public Session
2:30 p.m.
Board Room
mmediately Foiiowing
Hearing Room
Recess to Closed Session
Public Session
Board Room
institutional Effectiveness & Student Success Committee Meeting (Veres Chair. Field Vice Chair
Svonkin Member)
The committee will meet from 11:30 a.m, to 1:00 p,m. in the Board Room. For the committee's agenda refer to
Attachment A.
Facilities Master Planning & Oversight Committee Meeting (Veres Chair, Svonkin Vice Chair. Moreno Member)
he committee will meet from 1:15 p,m. to 2:15 p.m. in the Board Room. For the committee's agenda refer to
Attachment B.
Confidential Matters
The attached correspondence is confidential and should not be shared with other persons.
»
Office of General Counsel
o Enciosed for your review Is the District-related Litigation Report, peter to Attachment C)
o Enclosed for your review i:s the Bond-related Litigation Report. (Refer to Attachment D)
»
Human Resources
.
EncEosed for your review is information pertaining to March 1:5 Materials. Due to its size, this
document will be sent via U.S. mail.
Other Matters
.
Chancellor's Office - Endosed for your review is Los Angeies Pierce College Strategic Master Plan for
2014-2017 which wi!l be presented for your approva! as a recommendation from the Chanceltor, CH1.
(Refer to Attachment E)
Please let me know should you have any questions regarding the meeting.
ft
*
?t
'<».
8P
Sff
ne
'in.
e
LOS ANGELES COIVIIVIUNiTY COLLEGE DISTRICT
770 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213/891-2000
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS & STUDENT SUCCESS COMMITTEE
Educational Services Center
Board Room ~ First Floor
770 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Wednesday, February 26,2014
11:30a.m.-1:00p.m.
ATTACHMENT "A"
Committee Members
Steve Veres7Chair
Mona Field, Vice Chair
Scott J, Svonkin, Member
Bobbi KEmble, Staff Liaison
Feiicito Cajayon, Staff Liaison
Renee D, Martinez, ColSege President Liaison
Agenda
(Items may be taken out of order)
ROLL CALL
PUBLiC SPEAKERS*
REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Accreditation Follow-up Reports
» Los Angeies Pierce College
.
Los Angeles Southwest College
»
Los Angeles Mission College
.
Los Angeles Valley College
V. FUTURE INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTiVENESS & STUDENT SUCCESS COMMiTTEE MEETING DATES
V. NEWBUSiNESS
VI.
SUMMARY--NEXT MEETING..,....,.,........,....,.,,..,....,,..,..,..,.,,.,"...,.,,,,,,,.,.,,..,.,,.,.,..,,.,.,..,...,..,.,,,,.steveVeres
VII. ADJOURNMENT
^Members of the pubilc are allotted five minutes time to address the agenda issues.
if requested, the agenda shall be made availab!e in appropriate alternate formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of
the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U S,C. Section 12132), and the rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. The
agenda sha!l include information regarding how, for whom, and when a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, including
auxjiiary aids or services may be made by a person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in
the public meeting,
To make such a request, please contact the Executive Secretary to the Board of Trustees at 213/891-2044 no iater than 12 p.m. (noon) on
the Friday prior to the Committee meeting.
Executive Summary of Follow Up Report for Los Angeles Pierce College
Presented to the Institutional Effectiveness and Student Success Committee
February 26, 2014
Report Preparation
The Pierce College Accreditation Steering Committee served as the primary committee structure for the
formation of the timeline, the initial development of the document, and the editorial commentary before
its completion. The finalized report was then vetted and approved by the Pierce College Council and the
Academic Senate on January 23, 2014 and February 10, 2014 respectively.
Summary of Recommendations
1. “ …formalize the integration of college plans as they contribute and align to an overarching
institutional plan. “
2. “…assess its student learning outcomes processes and make necessary modification to ensure
authentic assessments, to demonstrate student achievement, and to provide for widespread
institutional dialogue.”
3. “…fully develop, implement, and assess internal control mechanisms for the expenditures of
grants and specified funds align with the mission and goals of the college…”
College Actions
•
•
Pierce College developed a new Strategic Master Plan with a planning calendar to formalize and
integrate the College plans with a larger overarching institutional plan, which was reviewed by
the Board’s Institutional Effectiveness and Student Success Committee on January 29, 2014. We
seek Board approval of the SMP at the February 26, 2014 meeting.
College adopted a definition of authentic assessment and reinforced the concept through multiple
venues, including:
Annual Leadership Retreat
Opening day activities
Department Workshops
College Outcomes Committee assessment reports and workshops
•
The College developed and refined procedures, applications and manuals to ensure proper
sequence of process and alignment with the College’s Strategic Master Plan.
Remaining Actions
•
•
Revise the Educational Master Plan 2012-2017 and other plans to align them with the new SMP
Engage in authentic assessment in all areas of the College and use the results to fund
improvements.
•
Provide additional workshops and training of employees in the application of established
fiscal procedures.
Los Angeles Pierce College
Accreditation Follow-Up Report
March 15, 2014
Pierce College
6201 Winnetka Avenue
Woodland Hills, California 91731
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges,
Western Association of Schools and Colleges
March 15, 2014
To: Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges,
Western Association of Schools and Colleges
Certification of Follow-Up Report
From:
Kathleen F. Burke, Ed.D.
Los Angeles Pierce College
6201 Winnetka Avenue
Woodland Hills, CA 91371-0002
We certify that there was broad participation in the preparation of this report by the
college community; and, we believe the Follow-Up Report accurately reflects the nature
and substance of this institution.
Signatures:
Kathleen F. Burke, Ed.D.
President, Los Angeles Pierce College
Date
Miguel Santiago
President, Board of Trustees,
Los Angeles Community College District
Date
Adriana Barrera, Ph.D.
Interim Chancellor,
Los Angeles Community College District
Date
Gus Sandoval
President, Associated Students,
Los Angeles Pierce College
Date
1
Kathy Oborn
President, Academic Senate,
Los Angeles Pierce College
Date
Donald Sparks
Chapter President, AFT Faculty Guild, Local 1521,
Los Angeles Pierce College
Date
Henry Chang
Chapter President, AFT Faculty Guild, Local 1521A,
Los Angeles Pierce College
Date
Marco De la Garza
Teamster Representative, Local 911,
Los Angeles Pierce College
Date
Rudolfo Covarrubias, Local 99
Los Angeles Pierce College
Date
Sharon Baker
Supervisory Employees Representative, Local 721,
Los Angeles Pierce College
Date
2
Dean Kinzel
Building and Trades, Local
Los Angeles Pierce College
Date
Greg Gilbertson
Faculty Accreditation Coordinator
Los Angeles Pierce College
Date
Margarita Pillado, Ph.D.
Faculty Accreditation Coordinator
Los Angeles Pierce College
Date
Earic Peters
Accreditation Liaison Officer
Los Angeles Pierce College
Date
3
Table of Contents
Certification
p. 1
Table of Contents
p. 4
Statement on Report Preparation
p. 5
Recommendation 1
p. 8
In order to fully comply with the Standards, the College needs to review, update, and
further integrate its various institutional plans, and formalize the integration among
these plans as they contribute and align to an overarching institutional plan. (I.B.3)
Recommendation 2
p. 11
In order to meet the Standard on student learning outcomes, the team recommends
that the College thoroughly assess its student learning outcomes processes and make
necessary modification to ensure authentic assessments, to demonstrate student
achievement, and to provide for widespread institutional dialogue. (II.A.1.c; II.A.2.i)
Recommendation 3
p.14
In order to fully comply with the Standard, the College should fully develop,
implement, and assess internal control mechanisms for the expenditures of grants and
specified funds including the Associated Student Organization trust accounts and the
Foundation to ensure these activities align with the mission and goals of the college.
(III.D.2.d; III.D.2.e)
4
Statement on Report Preparation
The Follow Up Report was a collaborative effort involving faculty, staff, and administrators.
The Pierce College Accreditation Steering Committee (ASC) served as the primary
committee structure for the formation of the timeline, the initial development of the
document, and the editorial commentary before its completion. The committee met monthly
during the fall semester reviewing material appropriate to the responses in the Follow Up
Report. Membership consisted of representatives from the Institutional Effectiveness Office,
Academic Affairs, Student Services and Administrative Services. Throughout the fall
semester of 2013, various members consulted with appropriate participatory governance
committees to gather relevant evidence and narrative content. The finalized report was then
vetted and approved by the Pierce College Council (PCC) and the Academic Senate on
January 23, 2014 and February 10, 2014 respectively. The Institutional Effectiveness
Committee of the Board reviewed the Follow Up Report at its regular meeting on February
26, 2014, and a recommendation for approval was made to the full Board. On March 12,
2014, the Board of Trustees approved the Follow-Up Report at it regular meeting.
Accreditation Steering Committee
Kate Astor, Office of Institutional Research
Wendy Bass, Faculty Distance Education Coordinator
Anna Davies, Vice President of Academic Affairs
Greg Gilbertson, Faculty Accreditation Coordinator
Karen Murray, Senior Administrative Assistant
Kathy Oborn, Academic Senate President
Earic Peters, Vice President of Student Services
Margarita Pillado, Faculty Accreditation Coordinator/ Vice President of Curriculum
Rolf Schleicher, Vice President of Administrative Services
Ishaque Suleman Instructional Assistant Assistive Technology
Donna-Mae Villanueva, Dean of Academic Affairs
Response to Recommendation One was guided by the Strategic Planning Taskforce, the
Pierce College Council Executive Committee and the Academic Senate Executive
Committee.
Strategic Planning Taskforce
Kate Astor, Office of Institutional Effectiveness
Kathleen Burke, President of Pierce College
Lyn Clark, Chair, Pierce College Council
Anna Davies, Vice President of Academic Affairs
David Follosco, Dean of Student Services
Greg Gilbertson, Faculty Accreditation Coordinator
Larry Kraus, Associate Vice President of Administrative Services
Joe Perret, Treasurer of the Academic Senate
Earic Peters, Vice President of Student Services
Anfe Robinson, Director of Financial Aid
Rolf Schleicher, Vice President of Administrative Services
5
Phyllis Schneider, Director of Child Development Center
Curtis Smith ASO Advisor/Assessment Director
Mia Wood, Outcomes Coordinator, Secretary of the Academic Senate
Pierce College Council Executive Committee
Kathleen Burke, President of Pierce College
Henry Chang, Chapter Chair of AFT Staff Guild,
Lyn Clark Chair, Pierce College Council
Anna Davies, Vice President of Academic Affairs
Izzy Goodman, Vice President of Academic Policy (an Academic Senate office)
Greg Gilbertson, Faculty Accreditation Coordinator
Kathy Oborn, Academic Senate President,
Earic Peters, Vice President of Student Services
Rolf Schleicher, Vice President of Administrative Services
Curtis Smith, Vice Chair, Pierce College Council
Don Sparks, Chapter President, AFT Faculty Guild, Local 1521
Academic Senate Executive Committee
Kathy Oborn, President
Izzy Goodman, Vice President Academic Policy
Joe Perret, Treasurer
Mia Wood, Secretary
Margarita Pillado, Vice President of Curriculum
Response to Recommendation Two was informed by the College Outcomes Committee, the
Curriculum Committee, and the Academic Senate Executive Committee.
College Outcomes Committee
Mia Wood, College Outcomes Committee Chair
Kate Astor, Office of Institutional Effectiveness
Beth Benne, Health Center Director
Monique Cleveland, English/ESL Department
Jeff Favre, Media Arts Department
Dale Fields, Physics and Physical Sciences Department
Loralyn Frederick, Student Services
Clay Gedimon, Library Department
Larry Kraus, Associate Vice President of Administrative Servces
Sheryl Nomelli, History Department
Curriculum Committee
Margarita Pillado, Curriculum Committee Chair
Elizabeth Atondo, Articulation Coordinator
Kristine Ayvazyan, Admissions and Records
Giselle Bulwa, Senior Secretary
Beth Cheung, Industrial Technology Department
6
Donna Covarrubias, International Student Admissions Advisor
Mike Flowers, Academic Affairs
Tom Fortune, Industrial Technology Department
Teresa Frost, Admissions and Records
Miriam Gottlieb, Special Services Department
Barbara Hambly, Histroy Department
Jodi Johnson, English Department
Anne LeBarbu, Modern Languages Department
Tesi Low, Life Sciences Department
Connie Moffatt, Art Department
Shilo Nelson, Health, Kinesiology, and Athletics Department
Paula Paggi, Library Department
Skip Perkins, Music Department
Cristina Rodriguez, Counseling Department
Emmanuel Sabaiz, English Department
Ben Smith, Math Department
Chad Snow, Psychology Department
Becky Yates, Agriculture Department
Adrian Youhanna, Anthropology and Geography Department
Donna Mae Villanueva, Dean of Academic Affairs
Response to Recommendation Three was addressed by the vice president of Administrative
Services and the associate vice presidents of Administrative Services. Additional counsel
came from the Foundation and the vice president of Student Services.
Rolf Schleicher, Vice President of Administrative Services
Earic Peters, Vice President of Student Services
Larry Kraus, Associate Vice President of Administrative Services
Bruce Rosky, Associate Vice President of Administrative Services
Floriya Borzenkova, Senior Program Director of the Foundation
Kathy Zanghi, Accounts Manager of the Foundation
7
Recommendation 1
In order to fully comply with the Standards, the College needs to review, update, and
further integrate its various institutional plans, and formalize the integration among
these plans as they contribute and align to an overarching institutional plan. (I.B.3)
The Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) produced a strategic plan 1.001 in
late spring 2013. This plan is the cornerstone for the College’s new Strategic Master Plan
(SMP). Previously, the college operated with the Educational Master Plan (EMP) as the
guiding plan, but this focus on educational programs did not easily account for operational
services provided by Administrative Services. In order to capture all of the college’s
operational objectives, the concept of the new Strategic Master Plan provides the College
with an inclusive overarching plan, allowing for Academic Affairs, Student Services as well
as Administrative Services to each align their respective plans with the Strategic Master Plan.
1.002
The president of Pierce College presented the Completion, Accountability, Partnerships, and
Student Success (CAPS) concept at our annual Opening Day on August 22, 2013. 1.003
The CAPS concept is a two-fold approach to planning: First, it regulates the planning cycle
and its three phases of operation: planning, implementation and plan assessment to an annual
calendar. Secondly, it provides opportunity for the four divisions of the college (Office of
the President, Academic Affairs, Student Services and Administrative Services) to integrate
their plans with a larger overarching college plan. Moreover, this plan aligns with the
District’s Strategic Plan.
The CAPS concept was vetted at the Pierce College Council where it passed unanimously. It
was again presented to and endorsed by the Academic Senate. 1.004 1.005 The development
of the plan was initiated by a taskforce with representatives from the three divisions:
Academic Affairs, Administrative Services, and Student Services and consisted of faculty,
staff and administration. The Pierce College Council chair, who also served as the chair of
the
taskforce, scheduled weekly Monday meetings and presided over the collaborative efforts of
the taskforce and the production of the plan. With the Los Angeles Community College
District’s plan as the model document for goal setting of the taskforce, objectives and
measurements were discussed at length and established in the working document.
The acronym CAPS addresses the following through a series of operational college goals:
Completion
Increase student completion of degrees and certificates, and college transfer requirements.
Increase the number of entering students who complete the matriculation process during the
first semester.
Increase the long-term persistence rates of students.
Ensure equitable access to education.
8
Accountability
Improve financial reporting processes for more accurate budgetary forecasting, allowing for
fiscal stability.
Improve operational efficiencies and processes along with internal cash controls.
Improve campus wide health, safety, and security through enhanced risk-management
practices.
Improve facilities oversight of both bond-related and state-funded alterations and
improvements.
Increase self–auditing to ensure compliance with program requirements.
Develop and implement professional development programs for faculty and staff.
Continue to meet FTES base and attempt to grow the College’s student FTES enrollment to
2006 levels and then increase 5% per year.
Partnerships
Develop and enhance revenues generated through grants, entrepreneurial ventures and
community partnerships.
Expand productive sustainable community alliances.
Foster partnerships with business and industry.
Student Success
Address the basic skills needs of underprepared students in developmental and introductory
courses.
Enhance customer service interfaces considering timely responses and quality of experience.
Maintain a robust and reliable information technology infrastructure with current computing
equipment for the entire college population.
Support faculty and staff by maximizing the effective use of technology, enabling academic
innovation in instructional delivery.
Provide a learner–centered environment that promotes active learning and student
engagement.
Increase student awareness and use of student support services and programs.
9
Increase student participation in Associated Student Organization (ASO) activities and
participatory governance committees.
The finalized Strategic Master Plan was approved by the Pierce College Council on
December 12, 2013 and Academic Senate on December 9, 2013. 1.006 1.007 It was
considered by the Institutional Effectiveness Committee of the Board on January 29, 2014
and a recommendation for approval was made to the full Board. On ,February 26, 2014, the
Board of Trustees approved the Startegic Master Plan. To ensure integration and alignment
of all plans with the Strategic Master Plan, the College Planning Committee will provide
oversight and will monitor the timely sequence of planning, implementation and assessment
of each committee plan in accordance with the planning calendar. 1.008 To ensure
implementation, assessment and evaluation of all planning documents occurs, training of
committee chairs with responsibility for institutional plans will begin in spring of 2014.
Appendices
R1.001 Los Angeles Community College District Strategic Plan
R1.002 Pierce College Strategic Plan
R1.003 Opening Day Presentation CAPS
R1.004 Pierce College Council Minutes/ CAPS
R1.005 Academic Senate Minutes/CAPS
R1.006 Pierce College Council Minutes /Strategic Plan
R1.007 Academic Senate Minutes/Strategic Plan
R1.008 College Planning Committee minutes
10
Recommendation 2
In order to meet the Standard on student learning outcomes, the team recommends
that the College thoroughly assess its student learning outcomes processes and make
necessary modification to ensure authentic assessments, to demonstrate student
achievement, and to provide for widespread institutional dialogue. (II.A.1.c;
II.A.2.i)
Pierce College hosts an Annual Leadership Retreat before the beginning of each fall
semester. This retreat consists of department chairs, deans, Student Learning Outcomes
coordinators, union representatives, Senate Executive Committee members, Pierce
College Council Executive Committee members, vice presidents of Administrative
Services, Academic Affairs and Student Services, the management of Information
Technologies, and of Facilities departments and the president of the college. 2.000
2.001
One of the focal points during Pierce College’s Annual Leadership Retreat was the
discussion of authentic assessment and the need for a college wide definition, which led
to the adoption of the following statement by Jon Mueller, who is a Professor of
Psychology at North Central College in Illonois: 2.002
Authentic assessment is a form of assessment in which students are asked to perform
tasks that demonstrate meaningful application of essential knowledge and skills.
The definition was then presented at the annual Pierce College Opening Day on August
23, 2013. This daylong event consists of presentations from the Academic Senate, unions,
and the president of the College and is attended by faculty, administration and classified
staff. 2.003 Faculty met with their respective departments and discussed authentic
assessment as it relates to the discipline, evaluated and planned the assessment cycle,
assigned a department liaison to interface with the College Outcomes Committee (COC),
and evaluated past assessment activities and action plans. To aid the dialogue, faculty
were assigned the following discussion topics:
I. Summary of departmental discussion on authentic assessment in relation to each of
the discipline:
II. Assessment cycle planning
III. 2013-2014 timeline for reviewing current course and program reports for completion
(especially robust summary and action plan sections):
IV. Fall 2013 departmental assignments (faculty assigned as a liaison with the College
Outcomes Committee representative from your area):
V. Evaluation of past assessment activities in terms of the college’s adopted definition of
authentic assessment (e.g., review the use of uniform assessment or diverse assessments,
and how those assessments are written for a discipline):
11
VI. Evaluation of past action plans (i.e., how past action plans have helped with gains in
student achievement of outcomes)
To further strengthen the SLO assessment process, the College Outcomes Committee is
revising the SLO addendum to incorporate the authentic assessment definition. Additionally,
the inclusion of the SLO coordinator in the curriculum approval process should provide
additional guidance in the linkage of student learning outcomes to the course outline of
record. 2.004
Furthermore, in achieving goals of the Strategic Master Plan, in particular objective 5b Ensure
active learning and applied knowledge and skills are examined through authentic assessment ); the Annual
Program Plan is the document which ties assessment and planning to resource allocation.
The College Outcomes Committee is active in the annual review and evaluation of the
General Education Learning Outcomes (GELO) 2.005 2.006 ,which serve also as the
institutional learning outcomes, and provides oversight on discipline-level outcomes.
An excerpt from the GELO report:
Appendix 2: Samples of Authentic Assessment Departmental Discussion Results
Life Sciences
I.
Summary of departmental discussion on authentic assessment 8/22/13
The Life Sciences department is generally satisfied with the definition of authentic
assessment as adopted at the 2013 leadership retreat. We discussed how many of our
courses directly prepare students for biology-related careers. The biology major
courses give students the skills needed to work in laboratories, to be successful in the
field, or to prepare students for additional studies in biology or medicine. The
anatomy, microbiology and physiology courses train students who will go on to
become allied health professionals such as nurses. The critical thinking skills taught
in our non-majors courses such as introductory biology help our students become
productive citizens and consumers as they interpret biology information presented by
the mass media and in real world settings such as a courtroom.
The Life Sciences department discussed several ways in which authentic assessment
is used to evaluate our courses, and we generated new assessment ideas as well. In
introductory biology, we assess several important skills, including the ability of a
student to use a microscope, and the ability of a student to take data and create a
meaningful graph. In physiology, we require students to interpret data presented in
graph form, such as a hemoglobin dissociation curve. In microbiology, we assess the
ability of the student to isolate bacteria using a streak plate method (a standard lab
technique), and in doing so, train the student to properly label the petri plate and
properly handle a sample of bacteria. All of these skills are directly relevant to
hospital work. In many of our classes, faculty require students to read biology articles
from the mass media or listen to guest speakers or read case studies, followed by a
12
written analysis or group discussion. The students then demonstrate that they can pull
relevant biology information from these sources while evaluating the quality of the
research in the source by addressing what was left out of a research study, if the study
was done properly, and other questions about the research.
Also noted in the College Outcomes Committee report:
The College Outcomes Committee is currently, and has plans to continue, following
up on the results of both the GELO and authentic assessment reviews and evaluations.
These follow-ups include action plans for reviewing the next assessment cycle. In
addition, the committee is working toward further incorporating Service Area
Outcomes (SAOs) into the institution’s outcomes work.
Additionally, the College Outcomes Committee coordinated a Pierce College Assessment
Day in November of 2013. 2.007 This biannual event provides opportunity for discussion of
assessment across disciplines. Faculty share their findings and compare notes on assessment
results and methods of assessment. The Academic Senate in partnership with the College
Outcomes Committee has scheduled additional workshops for the spring of 2014. 2.008
Appendices
R2.000 Leadership Retreat Presentation
R2.001 Leadership Retreat Agenda
R2.002 Authentic Assessment worksheet
R2.003 College Convocation and Professional Development Day
R2.004 Senate minutes 12/09/13 – SLO coordinator and Curriculum
R2.005 GELO report
R2.006 Senate Minutes 10/21/13 outcomes report
R2.007 College Workshop Assessment Date flyer
R2.008 College Outcome Committee Agenda Spring Assessment Date
13
Recommendation 3
In order to fully comply with the Standard, the College should fully develop,
implement, and assess internal control mechanisms for the expenditures of grants and
specified funds including the Associated Student Organization trust accounts and the
Foundation to ensure these activities align with the mission and goals of the college.
(III.D.2.d; III.D.2.e)
1. Internal control mechanisms for the expenditures of grants to be
administratively managed to ensure alignment with the College mission and
goals.
Pierce College is developing several internal controls for expenditure of grants to ensure
alignment with the College mission and goals. Administrative Regulations of the Los
Angeles Community College District (LACCD) AO-16 and AO-17 regulate how grants,
bequests, trusts, donations, and gifts will be accepted from both District and college auxiliary
organizations. 3.001 3.002
The Business Office and Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual issued in 2012,
contains specific instructions and procedures for grant expenditures. 3.003 This includes
references to direct payment transactions and setup of grants. The College is currently
revising the grant application to include participatory governance bodies to ensure proper
sequence of process and alignment with the College’s Strategic Master Plan. 3.004
Currently, the vice president of Administrative Services and the Budget Committee provide
oversight and assessment of expenditures through the review of quarterly reports.
Furthermore, grant expenditures require the signatures of both the vice president of
Administrative Services and the president of Pierce College. A flow chart has been designed
to clarify responsible parties and the sequence of approvals from the initiation of the grant
through senior staff approval. 3.005
Additionally, the Grants Committee, which is a sub-committee of the Educational Planning
Committee and reports to the Academic Senate, is developing a Grants Handbook that will
be a resource for applicants and provide guidance through the process. Furthermore, Pierce
College is committed to filling the position of an associate dean of grants to provide
additional oversight, ensure compliance with grant objectives, as well as assurances of a
grants alignment with the College’s mission and goals.
Grants that originate through the Pierce College Foundation follow a similar process. The
Foundation convenes a finance committee, prepares and forwards the grant request along
with a statement reflecting that the grant aligns with both the Foundation’s and College’s
mission and goals to the Foundation Board. Final approval resides with the College
president.
Beginning January 2013, the Business Office has been tasked with administering grant
expenditures to ensure compliance with the Administrative Regulations of the Los Angeles
Community College District. 3.006
14
2. Internal controls for expenditure of Associated Students Organization
(ASO)/College trust accounts to be administratively managed to ensure
alignment with the College mission and goals.
LACCD Administrative Regulations S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5, regulate and define management of
Associated Student Organization funds. Non ASO trust funds are regulated by
Administrative Regulation AO-14. 3.007 3.008 3.009 3.010 3.011
The 2012 Business Office and Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual contains specific
instructions and procedures on how ASO trust fund accounts (pp.49 - 50), and non ASO trust
accounts and expenditures are conducted and managed. The College adopted a new trust
account application in March 2013 for creation of trust accounts in the Business Office. This
form is actively being used and will be modified to reflect alignment with the College’s
mission and new strategic goals. The ASO trust expenditure document is being reviewed and
will also be modified to reflect alignment with the College’s mission and new strategic goals.
3.012 3.013
Recommended changes to applications, forms, and other documents are discussed broadly
among several participatory governance committees, including the Pierce College Council,
Budget Committee, ASO officers, ASO advisors, ASO club presidents and Department
Council to ensure alignment with the College’s mission and strategic goals. Implementation
is scheduled for spring of 2014. Training for end users, including ASO officers, ASO
advisors, ASO club presidents, and Department Council (Non-ASO Trust accounts) is
scheduled for February 2014.
3. Internal controls for expenditure of funds from the Pierce College Foundation
are administratively managed to ensure alignment with both the Foundation’s
and College’s mission and goals.
The new Foundation Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual 3.014 developed with
consultation from the vice president of Administrative Services and the associate vice
president of Administrative Services contains specific instructions and procedures regarding
Foundation expenditures. Pages 13 and 14 of the manual state the following:
The Foundation makes several different types of expenditures in carrying out its
operations. The Board of the Foundation has primary responsibility for ensuring that
there is accountability for all disbursements made. ……
……The College president does not direct specific disbursements but is responsible
for ensuring that the overall system for disbursing funds is sufficiently controlled.
Some of the disbursements that the Foundation may make include:
• Purchase of supplies and equipment
• Purchase of professional services
• Payment for Instructional Educational Grant Awards
• Payment for scholarships
• Rental of equipment or facilities
• Making reimbursements to employees
15
•
•
•
•
Paying for travel
Payroll
Reimbursements to the College or District
Payment of credit card bills
To ensure that disbursements are authorized and made within approved guidelines the Foundation shall follow the specific procedures outlined, obtain required
approvals and use predesigned disbursement forms. The forms facilitate the
processing of transactions and provide documentation that the transaction was
completed as intended
The Foundation shall use a uniform Request for Funds (RFF) form in order to
document authorization and ensure proper accounting for disbursements. The RFF
form shall indicate to whom the check will be made payable, a description of items or
services received or a reason for the disbursement. Original receipts shall be attached
if the check is for a reimbursement. The RFF will also provide the account to be
charged.
District Board Rules define the responsibilities of the college president and the vice president
of Administrative Services regarding oversight of auxiliary organizations, including the
College Foundation. Specific audit and oversight responsibilities of the college president are
defined in the Board Rules Chapter XIII, Article I, Sections 13106 and 13109.12. The roles
and responsibilities of the vice president of Administrative Services are defined in Chapter
XIII, Article I, Sections 13107 and 13109.12. 3.014a
To ensure alignment with College goals, the president of Pierce College has stated
responsibilities and functions on page seven in the Foundation Accounting Policies and
Procedures Manual:
1. Primary liaison for bringing the goals of the College to the Foundation for the
purpose of developing mutual programs.
2. Responsible for reviewing the overall goals, budget and finances of the
Foundation to ensure that the organization is operating within the general scope
of its intended purpose. Confers with Foundation if there are any issues or
concerns about the overall plans or operations.
3. Serves on the Board of the Foundation as a non voting ex officio member
The Foundation procedures and processes continue to be standardized resulting in similar
forms used both by the College and the Foundation. In addition, a “process flow matrix” will
be created to clarify the process and appropriate procedures for grant applicants and
recipients. The College’s vice president of Administrative Services approves all funds
expended by the Foundation.
16
4. Internal cash controls for collection and distribution of funds on the campus
need to be administratively managed.
Administrative Services introduced the Policy and Procedure Guide for Fundraising 3.015
which was approved by administration and introduced to the management team, participatory
governance bodies, department chairs, and other end users in early spring of 2013. The
Policy and Procedure Guide for Fundraising directs users to fundraising applications 3.016
and other related documents which are posted on the Pierce College website. Throughout the
spring of 2013 and again in fall of 2013, associate vice presidents and deans met with
department chairs to discuss the policies and procedures. Questionnaire forms 3.017 3.018
were created allowing various users and review teams to better understand current practices.
Follow-up discussions with department chairs and program managers regarding best
management practices have led to improved cash management procedures at the program
level. Additionally, two workshops were held in the fall of 2013 to review forms and
understand the sequence of process and procedure. 3.019
As addressed earlier, LACCD Administrative Regulations provide definition and scope to
College procedures. LACCD Administrative Regulations B-12 3.020 specifies cash /check
directives.
The Business Office and Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual issued in 2012
contains specific instructions and procedures on internal cash controls including how they
will be managed. Both the Foundation and the Business Office manage and provide
administrative oversight for internal cash controls and trust fund accounts within their
respective areas.
Appendices
R3.001
R3.002
R3.003
R3.004
R3.005
R3.006
R3.007
R3.008
R3.009
R3.010
R3.011
R3.012
R3.013
R3.014
R3.014a
R3.015
R3.016
Administrative Regulations AO-16
Administrative Regulations AO-17
Business Office and Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual
Grant application Form
Grant Process Flow Chart
Business Office Grant Set Up Support Activities College
Administrative Regulation S-2
Administrative Regulation S-3
Administrative Regulation S-4
Administrative Regulation S-5
Administrative Regulation AO-14
The 2012 Business Office and Accounting Policies and Procedures manual
Trust Account Application
Foundation Accounting and Procedures manual
LACCD Board Rules Chapter XIII
Policy and Procedure Guide for Fundraising
Fundraising Applications
17
R3.017
R3.018
R3.019
R3.020
Questionnaire Forms
Cash Management Matrix
Cash Management Procedure Guide
LACCD Administrative Regulations B-12
18
Accreditation Executive Summary
In March 2012, an Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) evaluation team conducted a comprehensive evaluation site visit to Los
Angeles Southwest College (LASC). The final evaluation team report contained six recommendations to help the College come into compliance with Accreditation
Standards. At its June 2012 meeting, the Commission voted to issue a sanction of Probation to the College. As a result of this sanction, the Commission directed
the College to submit a Follow-Up Report by March 15, 2013, and to show that it resolved the six recommendations.
In March 2013, the College submitted a Follow-Up Report to the Commission, describing the actions that it took to fulfill the requirement to resolve the six
recommendations (Follow-Up Report, March 15, 2013). In April 2013, members of the evaluation team returned to the College and met with staff on April 16,
2013.
2013 Visiting Team Findings
The team found that two of the six recommendations were fully met. The College was then directed to fully resolve the deficiencies cited in College
Recommendations 3, 4, 5 and 6 as noted in the chart below:
Recommendation
3
4
5
6
Issues to Address
• Review the parity of services provided to students in distance education as compared to students on campus
• Library should regularly update its collections in consultation with discipline faculty
• Implement a cycle of instruction, assessment, and program improvement through appropriate learning resource
and instructional areas of the college
• Identify a sustainable funding source for the acquisition and maintenance of learning resource materials
• Review all aspects of professional development
• Fully utilize the established consultative committee structure through the documentation and widespread
communication of dialogues and decisions affecting the college
At its June 2013 meeting, the Commission concluded that the College resolved two of the six recommendations it addressed in the Follow-Up Report and that it
had partially implemented one of the four remaining recommendations. The Commission acted to place the College on Warning and directed the College to
prepare and submit a second Follow-Up Report, this time describing the resolution of the four remaining recommendations and asking it to address how the
College was in full compliance with the Standards cited in the July 3, 2013 letter from the Commission.
Our second Follow-Up report includes the actions taken to resolve the recommendation, an analysis of results achieved to date, additional plans and evidence that
supports the college’s responses to the recommendations. What follows on the next four pages are charts of where the College was with respect to each of the four
recommendations in 2012 and 2013. The third column indicates the tremendous amount of progress that Southwest has made on resolving the four outstanding
recommendations since the last Follow-Up visit.
2012 Accreditation Evaluation Response Status Chart
Recommendations
#3 In order to meet the
Standard, the team
recommends the College
review the availability of
appropriate,
comprehensive, and reliable
services to all students. In
particular, the team urges
the College to review the
parity of services provided
to students in distance
education as compared to
students on campus.
(IIB.3.a)
Where We Were
March 2012
•
•
•
•
Inadequate counseling
and other student
services to distance
education students
Where We Were
March 2013
•
•
Individual evaluations
overdue
Learning outcomes not
integrated into planning
for program
improvement
Need to improve
communication among
all student service
organizations and
groups
•
•
Student surveys, focus
groups, and gap analysis
completed
Implemented Ask-ACounselor, Tutor Trac,
SmartThinking and
Student Lingo based on
identified gaps for
distance education
students
Library closures on
short notice to students
College partially meets
the standard from the
2012 report
Where We Are
March 2014
•
•
•
•
•
•
College has addressed
the gap analysis findings
for distance education
students
College has assessed
new services designed
to provide parity of
services and made
improvements based on
an assessment of
services
College has allocated
ancillary hours and
hourly librarians for
additional library
support
All evaluations have
been completed
Student Services
communication has
been strengthened
All learning outcomes
have been integrated
into Program Review
planning for program
improvement
1|Page
2012 Accreditation Evaluation Response Status Chart
Recommendations
#4 In order to meet the
Standard, the team
recommends that the library
regularly update its print and
online collections in
consultation with discipline
faculty. (II C.1.a). The team
further recommends that, to
meet the stated Student
Learning Outcome in
Information Competency, the
College implement a cycle of
instruction, assessment, and
program improvement
through appropriate learning
resource and instructional
areas of the College (IIC.1.b).
Finally, the team recommends
that a sustainable funding
source be identified for the
acquisition and maintenance
of learning resource
materials. (IIC.1, II.C.2,
IIID.1.a)
Where We Were
March 2012
•
•
•
•
•
•
Where We Were
March 2013
Print collection is old
and in need of updating
•
Information
competency in flux
•
No regular planned
schedule of
instructional delivery in
effect
•
No documented
acquisition guidelines in
place
Information
competency instruction
dependent on requests
from individual faculty
members only
No sustainable funding
source identified for the
acquisition and
maintenance of learning
resource materials
•
Where We Are
March 2014
Library collection
updated
•
Library has not
completed the
assessment cycle using
assessment results to
develop and implement
program improvements
and does not meet the
standard section
•
College has allocated
significant resources to
the library
5 year Acquisition Plan
for purchasing library
materials is in place
•
College has augmented
library collection budget
by an additional
$250,000 in order to
continue the updating of
the print collection
Librarians continue to
maintain a regular cycle
of instruction,
assessment and
program improvement
relative to Library
Science courses and the
information competency
instruction orientations
to meet the institutional
student learning
outcome in information
competency. The
assessments continue to
be strengthened
Program has been made
towards integrating
information competency
into the overall college
curriculum rather than
the college relying solely
on one department (the
Library) to meet an
institutional SLO
2|Page
2012 Accreditation Evaluation Response Status Chart
Recommendations
#5 In order to meet the
Standard, the team
recommends the College
reviews all aspects of
professional development,
including key elements of peer
review, self-reflection, and
continuous review of
appropriate pedagogy for the
student population. In
particular, the completion of
faculty evaluations
systematically and at stated
intervals; engagement in
dialogue addressing staff and
faculty professional
development on various
teaching pedagogies and
strategies to meet the diverse
learning styles of its diverse
student population. (IIIA.1.b)
Where We Were
March 2012
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Significant numbers of full
and part-time faculty
evaluations overdue
No practice to ensure that
all evaluations remain
current
Where We Were
March 2013
•
•
•
Staff development plan
outdated
No comprehensive
planning process for staff
development in place
Classified staff feelings of
marginalization with
respect to professional
development
No systematic assessment
of staff and professional
development completed
Staff and Professional
development activities not
aligned with strategic
goals and directions of the
College
•
Based on the evidence, all
evaluations are current
Staff development plan still
out of date
During spring 2013, college
offered an array of flex
activities focused on
developing engaging
pedagogy for our student
population
College partially meets the
standard
Where We Are
March 2014
•
•
•
•
•
•
Based on the evidence, all
evaluations are current
Process is in place in the
Office of Academic Affairs to
ensure that all evaluations
remain current
Comprehensive planning
process in place for staff
development
Classified professional
development in place
Staff and Professional
Development systematic
assessment in place
Staff development plan
updated
3|Page
2012 Accreditation Evaluation Response Status Chart
Recommendations
#6 In order to meet the
Standard, the team
recommends the College fully
utilize the established
consultative committee
structure by documenting
actions and recommendations
in agendas, minutes, and other
official tools to ensure that
dialogues and decisions
affecting the College are
communicated widely and
clearly across the campus
constituencies. (IVA.3)
Where We Were
March 2012
•
•
Unclear how planning
drives new ideas and
how outcomes are
assessed
Lack of documentation
of communication
among campus
constituencies in
minutes, agendas and
dissemination of
information
Where We Were
March 2013
•
•
•
•
•
Evidence suggests major
College committees are
canceled with limited
communications and
quorum is not always met
due to poor attendance
College held several
retreats and workshops
leading to establishment
of templates for meeting
agendas and minutes
Regular communication
through the Office of the
Public Information Office
and regular and
continuous assessment of
consultative committee
structure occurring
Where We Are
March 2014
•
•
•
Committee websites are
regularly updated with
agenda minutes and
other relevant
documents
Links and highlights of
committee meeting
minutes emailed to the
campus committee
Very few committee
meetings canceled or
didn't meet their
quorums during the fall
2013 semester
Well organized and
accessible documents
available for all
governance committees
College has made
significant progress but
only partially meets the
recommendation and the
standard
4|Page
Los Angeles Southwest College
Follow-Up Report
to the Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges
March 15, 2014
Certification Page
TO:
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
FROM:
Yasmin Delahoussaye, Ed.D.
President, Los Angeles Southwest College
1600 W. Imperial Highway
Los Angeles, CA 90047
We certify that there was broad participation in the production of the 2014 Accreditation
Follow-Up Report by the College community, that the report accurately reflects actions taken
by the College and District to address the recommendations, and that the report was
presented to the Board of Trustees for review prior to submission.
Miguel Santiago, President, Board of Trustees
February 26, 2014
Adriana Barrera, Chancellor, L.A. Community College District
February 26, 2014
Dr. Yasmin Delahoussaye, President, Los Angeles Southwest College
February 26, 2014
Dr. Lawrence Bradford, Accreditation Liaison Officer
February 26, 2014
Dr. Allison Moore, President, Academic Senate
February 26, 2014
Jerome Robertson, Chair, AFT College Staff Guild – 1521A
February 26, 2014
Dr. Sandra Lee, LASC Chapter President, AFT Faculty Guild – 1521
February 26, 2014
Lamont Jackson, President, ASO
February 26, 2014
James Bradley, Local 99 SEIU
February 26, 2014
Lynn Bebelle, Local 721 Supervisory
February 26, 2014
Nicholas Brown, Local 45 Crafts
February 26, 2014
Stephanie Brasley, Teamsters
February 26, 2014
1
Statement of Report Preparation
This Follow-Up Report is intended to address Commission concerns identified in a letter to
the College President dated July 3, 2013. Specifically, the purpose of this report is to
demonstrate that the College has taken corrective action to fully resolve the deficiencies cited
in College Recommendations 3, 4, 5, and 6 during the last evaluation team visit on April 16,
2013. Additionally, it addresses how the College is in compliance with Standards II.B.3.a,
II.C.1.b, III.A.1.b, and IV.A.3 as noted in the team report. Listed below are the Accreditation
Response Team members who worked on each of the College recommendations:
College Recommendation 3: Availability of Services to all Students
Dr. Patrick Jefferson
Vice President, Academic Affairs
Trudy Walton
Vice President, Student Services
Dr. Oscar Cobian
Dean, Student Services
Sabrena Turner-Odom
Student Success Center Director
Kim Carpenter
Registrar
Celeste Phelps
Learning Disability Specialist
Danny Brown
ASO representative
College Recommendation 4: Library Services
Dr. Yasmin Delahoussaye
College President
Shelley Werts
Department Chair, Library
Linda Brady
Librarian
Mellanie Reeve
Adjunct Faculty Member
Stephanie Brasley
Dean, Academic Affairs
Ralph Davis
Counselor
Catherine Azubuike
Department Chair, Nursing
Pamela Sanford
Associate Vice President, Administrative Services
Lamont Jackson
ASO representative
College Recommendation 5: Professional Development and Faculty Evaluations
Dr. Patrick Jefferson
Vice President, Academic Affairs
Alistaire Callender
Director, Staff Development
Vice President, Academic Senate
Casaundra Walker
Scheduler
Dr. Tangelia Alfred
Dean, Academic Affairs
College Recommendation 6: Documentation of Actions and Recommendations
Dr. Allison Moore
President, Academic Senate
Tamura Howard
Faculty Co-Chair, Strategic Planning Committee
Phillip Briggs
Dean, Institutional Effectiveness
Miya Walker
Public Information Officer
Felicia Duenas
Dean, Resource Development
Jerome Robinson
Chapter Chair, AFT Staff Guild 1521A
2
To ensure widespread College involvement in the Follow-Up Report, the Accreditation
Response Team formed sub-committees and developed a timeline and work plans.
Throughout the spring, summer, and fall semesters the College worked on addressing the
recommendations, updating the Board of Trustees, faculty, administration, staff, and
students on the College’s progress.
On November 25, 2013, the Follow-Up Report was sent out via email with a request for
review and feedback to all campus constituents. A second request for review and feedback
was sent out via the President’s bi-monthly newsletter in December 2013. Comments and
corrections were reviewed and integrated into the document by the chairs of each subcommittee. On February 6, at Spring Flex Day, another update was given to faculty, staff
and students urging all to contribute their feedback.
The final draft of the Follow-Up Report was presented to the College community, the
Academic Senate, and College Council. All constituent employee unions, and the College
Council reviewed and approved the final draft. On March 12, 2014, the Board of Trustees
voted to approve it during its regular meeting.
Yasmin Delahoussaye, Ed.D.
Interim President
Los Angeles Southwest College
3
Follow-Up Report Introduction
In March 2012, an Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC)
evaluation team conducted a comprehensive evaluation site visit to Los Angeles Southwest
College (LASC). The final evaluation team report contained six recommendations to help the
College come into compliance with Accreditation Standards. At its June 2012 meeting, the
Commission voted to issue a sanction of Probation to the College. As a result of this
sanction, the Commission directed the College to submit a Follow-Up Report by March 15,
2013, and to show that it resolved the six recommendations.
In March 2013, the College submitted a Follow-Up Report to the Commission, describing the
actions that it took to fulfill the requirement to resolve the six recommendations (Follow-Up
Report, March 15, 2013). In April 2013, members of the evaluation team returned to the
College and met with staff on April 16, 2013.
At its June 2013 meeting, the Commission concluded that the College resolved two of the six
recommendations it addressed in the Follow-Up Report and that it had partially implemented
one of the four remaining recommendations. The Commission acted to place the College on
Warning and directed the College to prepare and submit a second Follow-Up Report, this
time describing the resolution of the four remaining recommendations and asking it to
address how the College was in full compliance with the Standards cited in the July 3, 2013
letter from the Commission.
This second Follow-Up report includes the actions taken to resolve the recommendation, an
analysis of results achieved to date, additional plans and evidence that supports the college’s
responses to the recommendations that follow. Appendix A includes a chart of where the
College was with respect to each of the four recommendations in 2012, 2013 and 2014.
4
Responses to Commission Action Letter
Recommendation 3: Availability of Services to All Students
In order to meet the Standard, the team recommends that the College review the availability
of appropriate, comprehensive and reliable services to all students. In particularly, the team
urges the College to review the parity of services provided to students in distance education
as compared to students on campus. (IIIB.3.a)
Actions Taken to Resolve the Recommendation
The College has used research and analysis (C3-1 Link to Survey Results) to assess its
services in relation to student needs, and has designed and implemented appropriate
interventions in the services offered in Counseling, Online Matriculation Process, Academic
Services, Services to Student Athletes, and Career Services. These interventions assure a
greater availability of comprehensive and reliable services to all students.
Counseling
In spring 2013, the College began providing online counseling to improve access to
counseling and advising for both online and face-to-face students. Students can make
counseling appointments online (E-SARS), send emails to an online counselor through AskA-Counselor and E-Advising, or contact their own counselor through the portal system. The
College established a comprehensive structure for both land-based and online students to
access counseling services at Los Angeles Southwest College, which consists of the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
Ask-A-Counselor
E-SARS
E-Advising
Contact Your Counselor
Online Matriculation Process
Ask-A-Counselor
In an on-going effort to ensure parity between on campus students and online students to
access counseling and advising support, a pilot program using the email account of
AskACounsleor@lasc.edu was implemented. Ask-A-Counselor (AAC) is now an ongoing
service available and promoted to all students. Primarily, AAC allows students who are
enrolled off-campus/online to email any quick-question inquiries and a counselor will
provide an answer (usually within 24-48 hours). The AAC pilot program was initially
evaluated in March 2013 and the results were used to improve and enhance the service. In
addition, a regular evaluation schedule was developed to ensure continued improvement and
5
success (C3-2 Evaluation Schedule for Ask-A-Counselor; C3-3 Evaluation of AACC).
Highlights of the evaluation results are listed further below in this section.
The AAC pilot program ran between February 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013 with approximately
305 emails received and responded to. AAC was marketed to the entire LASC community
via posters, email blasts, the web page, and the marquee. While the goal was to encourage
students to use this service, many inquiries were also received from students within the
LACCD, outside of the District, and internationally (e.g., the Philippines, Belize, and various
Asian countries).
The AAC pilot program at that time is not designed to complete Student Education Plans
(SEP), or conduct personal or career counseling. Students inquiring about these services are
encouraged to contact the Counseling office and schedule an appointment. Many students
had inquiries regarding associate and certificate programs, general education requirements
for programs and transfer institutions, schedule of classes, current catalog, etc.
In support of LASC students, all of these items are available on the college website
(www.LASC.edu) in a Word document or in PDF format. However, students were still
emailed the item they were requesting along with the link to the web address for future
reference. Counseling assistance was by far the largest area of inquiry. Students who wanted
assistance with educational plans. While AAC was not designed to complete student
educational plans, it should be noted that the District’s new Student Information System,
provided through PeopleSoft, will have an online SEP component and is projected to be
operational in January 2015.
Ask-A-Counselor Survey Results
As stated above, the AAC service was first evaluated through electronic means for the pilot
activity period of February through June 2013 (C3-3 Evaluation of AAC). A second
electronic assessment was completed in July 2013. An email was sent to approximately 300
students to ask them to complete a survey (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/RQFGX6K).
The survey questions asked were as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
How did you hear of the Ask-A-Counselor service?
Was the response time to your question adequate?
Were you satisfied with the answer to your question(s)?
Would you recommend the Ask-A-Counselor service to other students?
Would you use the Ask-A-Counselor service again?
Are you a student who primarily takes courses on-line (Etudes) and/or in ITV?
Finally, please let us know what we can do to improve the Ask-A-Counselor service.
6
Of the students who responded to the July 2013 survey (C3-4 AAC Survey Results), the
common themes in the responses for improvements that could be made to AAC were the
following:
1. The need for students to be able to create online educational plans. In response, online
educational plans will be operational in January 2015. District Office IT staff are
currently working on configuring the new Student Information System and online
educational plans are a top priority.
2. The need for more evening counseling appointments to be provided to students. In
response, the College increased the availability of evening counseling appointments
to four evenings a week (Monday through Thursday) until 7:00 p.m.
3. The need for students to be able to schedule online counseling appointments. In
response, the College implemented E-SARS (an online counseling appointment
system).
4. The need for students to be able to obtain career and major counseling online. In
response, students were told about Personal Development 20. This online class allows
students to have in-depth major counseling and to take a series of career assessment
tests. For students not wanting to take a class, major questions can be asked through
the AAC service and the College has now launched an online career assessment
through the Career Center (See page 17, Eureka Online Career Services).
A subsequent counseling survey was developed to assess Ask-A-Counselor, E-Advising, and
E-SARS. This survey was posted on the LASC website from December 2013 – January
2014. To increase the level of participation, the College offered an opportunity to enter a
drawing for a $25 LASC gift card. As a result of the drawing, 340 students completed the
Counseling Survey. The report provided the Counseling Department with valuable
information related to the level of awareness of these online resources and the level of
satisfaction with these resources.
Of the 340 student respondents, only 30 percent indicated they had used Ask-A-Counselor.
Of the students who indicated that they used AAC, 65 percent of them were either very
satisfied or satisfied. Moreover, 48 percent indicated they planned to use the service in the
future. Students who were satisfied indicated that the system allowed them to talk to a
counselor without having to physically come to the campus.
E-SARS
In September 2013, Los Angeles Southwest College implemented E-SARS, an online
scheduling system for the General Counseling office. Students received an email message
and text message in October 2013 through Blackboard Connect to inform them of the
availability of E-SARS to schedule counseling appointments online. Moreover, students were
7
also reminded about Ask-A-Counselor and E-Advising to ensure that students were well
informed about all of these online services.
The College is actively marketing these online services. December 2013 through January
2014, the General Counseling office included questions regarding E-SARS, E-Advising, and
Ask-A-Counselor in its department survey for students (C3-5 Counseling Department
Survey). This will allow the department to determine the interest in, awareness of, and
student needs regarding each of these services.
E-SARS Survey Results
In November 2013, the College surveyed students to assess their level of satisfaction with the
system. Of the 340 student respondents, only 13 percent indicated they had used E-SARS
despite receiving information that the system was in place. However, of the users, 72.8
percent indicated a likelihood of using this service again in the future and 63.7 percent
indicated they would recommend this service to other students. The comments related to ESARS indicated surprise that it was easy to schedule an appointment with a specific
counselor and the convenience of not having to come on campus to schedule an appointment
was mentioned several times (C3-6 ESARS Report).
E-Advising
The E-Advising system allows students to send a message to the Counseling Department that
is then answered in a timely manner. The system allows the Counseling Department to
monitor how many questions have been submitted, time of the submission, and the response
from the Counselor. This has been effective in allowing students to ask open questions to a
counselor at any time. Since January 1, 2013, there has been a 100 percent counselor
response rate (C3-7 E-Advising Report).
The E-Advising Report includes student name, date/time of the inquiry, the question asked
by the student, and the counselor’s response to the question. The responses indicate
counselors are providing detailed responses and an opportunity to contact the counselor for a
follow-up discussion either in person, via email, or on the phone.
E-Advising Survey Results
The General Counseling office prepared a satisfaction survey of E-Advising to determine
how students became aware of this system, ask for recommendations for improvement, and
inquire whether students are distance education students or land-based. The survey was
posted on the LASC website in December 2013 through January 2014. The recommendations
in the survey will be used by the General Counseling Office to improve the services and
create marketing plan to inform more students on how to use it (C3-8 E-Advising Survey;
C3-9 Counseling Department Program Review).
8
Of the 340 student respondents, only ten percent had used E-Advising and 75 percent of
these users were very satisfied with the service. The results of the survey were reviewed and
the following actions were developed by the Counseling Department to respond to the survey
findings:
•
•
•
Increase marketing of online counseling services by working with Public Information
Officer to place direct links to these services on the LASC webpage. According to the
survey results, 70 percent of respondents indicated they learned about these services
through the College website. Additionally, printed flyers will be posted in key offices on
campus such as Academic Affairs, Financial Aid, and Matriculation to inform students of
these counseling services. Moreover, these services are now detailed in the new student
orientation. Before the start of the spring 2014 semester, the Public Information Officer
will send a text message blast to all students to inform them of these counseling services.
The Counseling Department requested the survey be reposted on the College webpage
and another drawing for a $25 gift card be available to students. An email message was
sent to all students who had previously used Ask-A-Counselor, E-Advising, and E-SARS.
The purpose of reposting the survey was to elicit more responses from students who may
have used these services. Many of the respondents of the initial survey had not used the
survey. Students responded to the survey by viewing it on the website despite an
unfamiliarity with these services. The survey was reposted January 14, 2014 through
January 27, 2014.
One of the issues the group identified with Ask-A-Counselor is that the counselor’s email
response will sometimes go to students’ spam messages. Thus, the student does not
receive a response to the message. The group wants to direct more students to EAdvising because the system allows for a tracking system for questions and responses.
These responses do not go to spam message box. However, Ask-A-Counselor has a
demonstrated high rate of usage and responses as it is easy to use.
9
Contact Your Counselor
Besides sending an email directly to AskACounselor@lasc.edu and E-Advising, students
also have the option of using a separate email program called JotForm that is accessible from
the Counseling webpage: http://www.lasc.edu/students/counseling/contact_counselor.html.
The College has also taken action to promote JotForm (a free online form creation program).
JotForm includes a drop down menu (“Contact Your Counselor”) with the Counselors’
names and their specific program or department: General Counseling, EOPS, DSPS, TRIO
Scholars, TRIO STEM, Nursing, PASSAGES, and Matriculation. Students were able to
email their Counselor directly with a question or inquiry. This JotForm is monitored by
several counselors who ensure responses are provided to all inquiries.
If a student does not have an assigned counselor (“Not sure who your Counselor is”), they
can send an email directly to the AskACounselor@lasc.edu account for a response. Of the
over 300 emails received, almost 50 were sent via the JotForm account. This service is
especially useful for students enrolled in categorical programs who are unable to come on
campus to meet with their designated counselor. Below is a snap shot of “Contact Your
Counselor” from the LASC website.
10
Online Matriculation Process
To further ensure parity between on campus students and online students, the College has
also reviewed and updated its matriculation process to ensure that online receive the same
quality and access to services as campus based students. LASC uses the following process to
help online students engage in the matriculation process:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
LASC Website: The LASC homepage provides a detailed matriculation plan at
http://www.lasc.edu/students/matriculation/matriculation_process.html. This includes
the “8 Steps to Becoming a LA Southwest Student”, as well as online orientation
procedures.
Enrollment: A student can enroll in the College without ever stepping foot on
campus. If support is needed, students can find help through telephone assistance
provided by Admissions and Records during office service hours. In addition,
applicants can email the office (Admissions@lasc.edu) if further assistance is
required. For assistance with the admissions application website, users have a toll free
number provided that assists them to obtain usernames and passwords, and provides
trouble shooting help.
Orientation: Currently the College uses face-to-face orientations. When students
apply to the College, they are provided with a matriculation plan which includes the
times and dates of orientations. Los Angeles Southwest College is in the process of
developing a comprehensive online orientation system to effectively inform new and
continuing students of the programs, services, and critical deadlines of the College.
The College signed a contract with a company already used by several colleges in the
District called “Cynosure”. The Cynosure online orientation system will be able to
connect to the District’s new Student Information System to report all students who
have completed orientation as part of Student Success Act (SB1456) (C3-10
Cynosure Contract).
Financial Aid: The LASC website includes updated information on completing the
financial aid process:
http://www.lasc.edu/students/financial_aid/applying_for_financial_aid.html.
Students are able to complete the tasks associated with applying for financial aid
online: The Financial Aid staff are available to provide assistance by telephone.
Moreover, Financial Aid staff are also able to answer email inquiries via LASC
Financial Aid staff (lascfinaidstaff@lasc.edu).
Counseling: See Ask-A-Counselor (AskACounselor@lasc.edu).
Registration: The registration process takes place online via the Student Information
System. Eligible students are instructed to enroll in classes online using the Student
Information System at anytime on or after their assigned registration appointment
time and date. Students can use the online registration system anywhere they have
access to the internet. Students who need to contact faculty to request to be added to
11
•
•
•
closed online courses may also complete this entire process online. The process is
documented in the online schedule of classes.
Drop classes: All drop transactions can take place online via the Student Information
System: https://eweb2.laccd.edu/WebStudent/signon.asp.
Grades: All students can review their unofficial transcript or term grades via the
Student Information System: https://eweb2.laccd.edu/WebStudent/signon.asp.
Transcripts: Students can request official transcripts using an online service provided
by the National Student Clearinghouse to which LASC subscribes. Distance
education students also have the option of requesting official transcripts in writing,
the same as on campus students (https://eweb2.laccd.edu/WebStudent/signon.asp).
Academic Support
Smarthinking
Access to Smarthinking (http://www.lasc.edu/smarthinking.html) was purchased in October
2012 and became operational on November 15, 2012. This program was implemented for all
online and land-based students to provide significant interactive tutoring sessions for all
students anytime and anywhere. This is a 24/7 program that provides trained tutors in various
subject areas. With Smarthinking, students will have access to ten hours of free online
tutoring per semester and can purchase additional time as needed.
Operationally, students connect with an e-instructor, schedule live online tutoring sessions,
submit written work to an online writing lab, and receive responses using an online
whiteboard. Tutors with postsecondary degrees engage students in the areas of writing,
reading, mathematics, natural sciences, business, English for speakers of other languages,
Spanish, Nursing and Allied Health, computers and technology.
Smarthinking Survey Results
A survey was conducted during spring 2013 and fall 2013 to assess the effectiveness of the
online program. A total of 43 students completed the survey. Thirty-seven percent of
respondents indicated they used Smarthinking one to three times during the semester, while a
total of 33 percent responded that they used the online service more than seven times
throughout the semester. The most prevalent use of Smarthinking was use of the online
writing lab (38.1%). Moreover, 31 percent of respondents also found it highly useful for
submitting questions. The three most popular subjects in which students used Smarthinking
were English (25%), Essay Center (25%), and Mathematics (19.2%). All respondents appear
to strongly agree their overall experience with Smarthinking was helpful in improving their
overall academic performance.
Per the survey, 63 percent of respondents strongly agreed that Smarthinking helped them
understand course subject matter better. Also, 71 percent of respondents agreed that
12
Smarthinking had been well publicized with a total of 20.7 percent stating that they heard or
learned about Smarthinking through the LASC website. Based on survey results, it appears
that students do use and benefit from Smarthinking as an online tutoring tool.
Recommendations for future use of Smarthinking include increasing the number of students
acquainted with the online system by having Student Success Center (SSC) program
assistants promote it in classrooms during the first week of the semester as well as in the
Student Success Center when student ask for tutoring. Another recommendation is to more
aggressively promote Smarthinking to students in academic subjects other than English and
math. One way this will be accomplished is by having the subject tutors in the Student
Success Center recommend Smarthinking to the students they tutor. Additionally,
Smarthinking will continue to be included in the new student orientation that will help
promote this service to new students on campus. Finally, only ten percent of “online only”
students used the Smarthinking tool. In order to encourage more online students to access
Smarthinking a link will be included in the Etudes Learning Management System shell for all
online classes and online faculty will be encouraged to recommend Smarthinking as a
valuable resource. In September 2013, the LASC Academic Senate approved the Distance
Education Committee’s request to pre-load a navigation link button into all Etudes shells that
will link to all student services offered by the College, including Smarthinking and Student
Lingo (C3-11 Link from Distance Education Coordinator).
Promotion of online tutoring was accomplished in a number of ways:
1.
Prior to the fall 2013 semester, all faculty were notified via email of the
availability of Smarthinking. Faculty received an email with the Smarthinking
flyer attached, which they were encouraged to add to their course syllabi (C3-12
Link to Sample Syllabus).
2.
Online student notification via District issued email to every enrolled student (C313 Student Flyer)
3.
Additionally, faculty was asked to consider making Smarthinking a mandatory
activity in their courses (C3-14 Sample Email, Flex Day Agenda, and Sample
Activity).
4.
During Fall 2013 Flex Day, Smarthinking was reintroduced to faculty, and they
were invited to stop by the SSC to navigate the program before introducing it to
their students (C3-15 Invitation, Flex Day Agenda, Flyers, and Sample Email).
5.
Email reminders were sent to faculty during the first week of the semester and
then bi-weekly to remind them of the benefits of Smarthinking, most importantly
13
that students could access it 24 hours per day, 7 days per week (C3-16 Samples
of Emails, and Flyers).
6.
The Student Success Center staff spent many hours promoting online academic
support services available at the College.
a. The first week of fall 2013 and spring 2014, staff promoted Smarthinking and
Student Lingo by visiting classrooms. Students who utilized the SSC received
flyers with log-on instructions and were offered assistance logging in and
navigating the online resources (C3-17 Student Flyer, Student Success
Center, and Computer Instructions).
b. During the second week of the semester, SSC staff set-up a table at a central
location on campus to further advertise the benefits of Smarthinking and
Student Lingo.
c. SSC brochures have been distributed across campus and SSC staff is
mandated to attend all student events on campus to advertise these resources
to students (C3-18 Schedule of Student Success Center Activities).
7. All computers in the SSC have a small notification attached informing students of the
availability of Smarthinking and Student Lingo that includes log-in instructions (C319 Screenshot of the Information on the Computers).
a. The SSC has on display several poster-size advertisements of Smarthinking
and Student Lingo (C3-20 Sample of the Poster).
8. Student clubs and organizations have been asked to place the SSC on their agendas in
order to promote these resources (C3-21 ASO Agenda).
Smarthinking Usage
As of October 2013, usage of Smarthinking had increased by 362 students over the previous
year. All programs and departments on campus will be continuously reminded and
encouraged to utilize these services through personal visits, emails, and at committee
meetings.
Student Lingo
Student Lingo is a series of interactive online workshops that focus on helping students
achieve their academic, personal, and career goals. Student Lingo was purchased to
maximize land-based and online students’ access to learning support services 24 hours a day,
seven days a week. The series of 26 online workshops provides ADA transcripts, printable
resources, and action plans within the following four areas:
14
•
•
•
•
personal management
learning support
reading and writing; and
academic and career exploration.
Six of these workshops are provided in Spanish. As a supplemental tool, the Student Success
Center provides instructor-led Student Lingo workshops as well. Students access these
workshops online and instructors in the College’s major Student Success Center also provide
technical assistance to those students accessing Student Lingo.
On November 19, the Student Success Center director received an email with the subject
line: Please help us share the secrets of your Student Lingo success. The College was
congratulated on being a school that had the highest numbers of Student Lingo users in the
last few months. The director was asked if she would be willing to share the secret of this
success with other Student Lingo clients in order to help them increase their Student Lingo
usage (C3-22 Email to Sabrena Turner-Odom from Kristen Seldon).
Student Lingo Survey Results
A survey was conducted during spring 2013 and fall 2013 to assess the effectiveness of the
online program. A total of 45 students completed the survey. Student respondents overall
level of satisfaction with the use of Student Lingo appears to be positive. Per the survey,
45.5 percent of respondents strongly agreed that it was easy to access and participate in the
workshops, 39.5 percent agreed the activities made the workshops engaging and 46.5 percent
strongly agreed the information presented in the workshop(s) helped improve their skills.
Student respondents rated the workshops as Excellent to Above Average (32.6%). A total of
75 percent of student respondents agreed that Student Lingo was well advertised with 31
percent disclosing that they learned about it through the LASC website. The percentage of
students who stated that they would use it in the future is 40.9, and 47.5 percent stated that
they would recommend it to other students. Recommendations for future use of Student
Lingo include having students practice and become familiar with the online tool at new
Student Success workshops developed for the spring 2014 and promoting Student Lingo
during new student orientation as a proactive approach to helping students become familiar
with how to prepare to succeed in an academic setting.
Student Athletes
Los Angeles Southwest College provides supplemental academic support to its student
athletes through tutoring and mentoring and the offering of various support services. Athletes
began getting support from a designated Athletic Counselor beginning in fall 2012. This has
continued in each subsequent semester.
15
Currently, the basketball teams require their athletes to participate in mandatory study
sessions. In addition to the academic support athletes received through the Student Success
Center, football players began attending other support services offered by the Shelter 37
Institute for Aspiring Leaders during the spring 2013 semester. LASC has partnered with
Shelter 37 Institute for Aspiring Leaders, a non-profit organization that offers students a
variety of academic and life skills. The Athletics department started working with Shelter 37
in the spring of 2013. The program integrated a values-based curriculum. A host of
methodologies are used to reach students such as multimedia, social media, and group
learning. Workshop sessions are 75 minutes each. Basketball players began to use these
services in the month of October 2013 before their official start date for practices (C3-23
Program Documentation and Brochure, Web Link, Information Flyer, Sign-in Sheets).
The workshops that students attended were as follows:
•
•
•
School Success
Life Skills
Personal Health and Wellness
The School Success workshops covered the following topics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identifying your learning strengths and weakness and knowing how to use them
Getting organized and staying organized
Positive Student habits/skills
Resisting impulses
Staying focused
Being resourceful and advocating for yourself
College planning calendar
Scholarship options
The stated purpose of the workshop sessions were as follows:
•
•
•
•
To allow students to tap into their knowledge base and expand on it
To debunk the myths associated with pop culture and fads about athletes and
academic success
To introduce or re-introduce students to a non-sterile/ non-lecture learning
environment
To engage students in active listening and learning processes through group learning
Workshop structure
The workshops are held at a neighboring off campus site near the College, and are facilitated
by professionals from varying career fields and backgrounds. Students sign in for each
workshop that they attend (C3-24 Program Brochure).
16
Students were offered an opportunity to receive additional services other than the academic
workshops. The additional workshops that students attended are as follows:
•
•
Life Skills
Personal Health and Wellness
Counselor Assigned to Student Athletes
Los Angeles Southwest College hired a new Counselor, Mr. Ralph Davis, in the fall of 2012.
A portion of the counselor’s full-time assignment was devoted to athletics (0.2 assignment).
From summer 2012 to fall 2013, Mr. Davis had 176 contacts with student athletes via
appointment or walk-in counseling in the general counseling department. Mr. Davis also
conducted group presentations with men’s football and women’s basketball. He met with
men’s football on October 15, 2013 and spoke to 76 players. He met with women’s
basketball on October 23, 2012 and spoke with ten players. His work with the athletes is
ongoing (C3-25 Sign-in Sheets).
17
EUREKA Online Career Services
Los Angeles Southwest College’s Career Center currently uses EUREKA Career SelfAssessments to help students explore career options. In January 2014, the Career Center
created an online account that will allow all students to access and complete an online career
assessment and services remotely. Currently, land-based students are able to complete the
career assessment in the Career Center. Online students will be able to access EUREKA.org
which includes the following career information areas:
Dashboard is the homepage after logging in to EUREKA. The dashboard provides step-bystep instructions to make exploration of the system easy.
Self Assessments allow students to learn about their True Colors personality traits as it relates
to career options including
•
Occ-U-Sort – explores work preferences and aptitudes to find occupations and careers
that may be of interest
18
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Microskills – students will learn how their transferable skills relate to jobs and
careers.
CAREERS allows students to search for detailed career and occupational information
including
Full Occupation with over 2,500 occupational titles with details on wages, duties,
skills, etc
Brief Occupation provides short description of Eureka occupations
Job Search Guide provides tips, suggestions and valuable information about how to
start a job search
Military Occupations
Occupations in Spanish
Education provides descriptions of college and other training programs and where they can
find them, is used to find college majors, short-term training programs, colleges and
universities, and scholarships and financial aid awards.
My Planner is a personal storage area for topics, schools and other information that may be
of interest to the students.
Students will be able to access Eureka off-site with the following procedures:
The Eureka icon below was placed on the LASC Career Center website. This will allow
students to click on the image to get directly to the LASC Eureka Account. Students will be
prompted to provide their student ID number and name. They are then able to access the
Eureka site that allows for the completion of career serves and online career assessment.
The Career Center will evaluate the usage of Eureka via the system’s online questionnaire.
There is an optional questionnaire whenever a user logs out of EUREKA. The Career Center
is able to monitor the responses. The questionnaire tracks the user ID so it is possible we
could pull the responses and match them to Southwest College users that have answered the
questionnaire. Currently, it's not a straightforward process but we should be able to
streamline it. The Career Center is also exploring another option to create its own survey and
it would be linked to EUREKA.org. This would allow for instant access to user comments
and suggestions.
Now that Eurkea Online Career Assessment is set up online, the Career Center is planning a
marketing campaign to inform students of this service. This includes a message on the front
page of the LASC website, text message blast to all students, and flyers around campus.
19
Summary of Results Achieved to Date
1. Effective August 26, 2013, evening counseling hours have been expanded to Monday
through Thursday until 7 p.m. to address student concerns regarding the availability of
counselors in the evening;
2. E-SARS has been implemented and students are now able to schedule their own
counseling appointments online;
3. The College has implemented comprehensive counseling resources accessible to online
students such as Ask-A-Counselor, E-Advising, and Contact Your Counselor; The
College conducted a follow up survey of Ask-A-Counselor in July 2013. In spring 2014,
a survey was implemented to evaluate the E-Advising system. Subsequently, the College
implemented an additional Counseling survey to assess Ask-A-Counselor, E-Advising,
and E-SARS. Over 340 students responded to the survey conducted December 2013
through January 2014. The information gathered in this survey will be used to revise and
improve Ask-A-Counselor, E-Advising, and E-SARS.
4. The Los Angeles Community College District is in the process of developing a degree
audit system that will allow students to access and edit their Student Educational Plan
online.
These plans will be certified by a Counselor. This is being developed as an element of
the District’s new Student Information System that is projected to be operational in
January 2015.
5. The LASC homepage provides a detailed matriculation plan at
http://www.lasc.edu/students/matriculation/matriculation_process.html. It includes the 8
Steps to Becoming a LA Southwest Student. The College signed a contract with
Cynosure in January 2014 to develop a comprehensive online orientation system that will
become a part of the matriculation process.
6. As of September 25, 2013, usage of Smarthinking has increased by 362 students since the
beginning of the previous fall semester. EOPS has instituted Smarthinking and Student
Lingo as a required activity for its participants.
7. Student Lingo was purchased to maximize land-based and online students’ access to
learning support services 24 hours a day, seven days a week. LASC has been asked to
share its secrets for increasing student use after the company noticed a huge increase (362
students over the previous year) in usage.
Additional Plans
The survey results for Counseling, StudentLingo, and Smarthinking provided valuable
information on areas of improvement. The biggest challenge is ensuring more students
become aware of these on-line services. Thus, marketing will play a critical role in the
follow up plans for these services. In response, the Counseling Department has worked
closely with our Public Information Officer to create a visible link to on-line counseling
services (Ask-A-Counselor, E-Advisement, and E-SARS) and created large poster size flyers
20
to place in key offices on campus before the start of the 2014 spring semester. Additionally,
all faculty will receive flyers in their mail boxes describing these services before spring
semester. We are asking faculty to mention these services in their classes and include in their
course syllabi. The Student Success Center will take an active role in advertising Student
Lingo and Smarthinking by conducting classroom presentations during the first few weeks of
spring semester classes. The purpose of these presentations will be to describe these services
and encourage students to use them. Moreover, the new student orientations will include this
information.
To increase visibility and usage of on-line resources, Etudes has been uploaded with
information related to on-line support services such as Ask-A-Counselor, E-Advising, ESARS, and Smarthinking. This also includes an orientation to Etudes, on-line library
resources and a link to the Student Success Center. Students enrolled in distance education
will be able to access these resources from their Etude account (C3-26 Etudes Snapshot
with Links to On-line Student Services).
The Career Center will assess its new Eureka on-line career assessment in March 2014
through an on-line survey to evaluate area for improvement and lastly, the College plans to
submit a Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions (DHSI) Program grant to help improve
distance education and support services. The College will host a “visioning” session with
distance education instructors, administration, and student service staff members to develop
the key services, objectives, and evaluation methodology for this grant. This grant would
help expand and enhance the program quality of distance education courses, enhance training
related to distance education and further develop student on-line resources services.
21
List of Evidence for College Recommendation 3
C3-1
Link to Surveys and Results
C3-2
Evaluation Schedule for Ask-A-Counselor
C3-3
Evaluation of AAC
C3-4
AAC Survey Results
C3-5
Counseling Department Survey
C3-6 E-SARS Report
C3-7
E-Advising Report
C3-8
E-Advising Survey
C3-9
Counseling Department Program Review
C3-10 Evaluation of Smarthinking
C3-11 Link from Distance Education Coordinator
C3-12 Student Flyer
C3-13 Sample Email, Flex Day Agenda, and Sample Activity
C3-14 Invitation, Flex Day Agenda, Flyers, and Sample Email
C3-15 Samples of Emails, and Flyers
C3-16 Student Flyer, Student Success Center and Computer Instructions
C3-17 Schedule of Student Success Center Activities
C3-18 Screenshot of the Information on the Computers
C3-19 Sample of the Poster
C3-20 ASO Agenda
C3-21 Link from Distance Education Coordinator
C3-22 Email to Sabrena Turner-Odom from Kristen Seldon
C3-23 Program Documentation and Brochure, Web Link, Information Flyer, Sign-in Sheets
C3-24 Program Brochure
22
C3-25 Sign-in Sheets
C3-26 Etudes Snapshot with Links to On-Line Student Services
23
Recommendation 4: Library Services
In order to meet the Standard, the team recommends that the library regularly update its
print and online collections in consultation with discipline faculty. (IIC.1.a). The team
further recommends that, to meet the stated Institutional Student Learning Outcome in
Information Competency, the College implement a cycle of instruction, assessment, and
program improvement through the appropriate learning resource and instructional areas of
the College (IIC.1.b). Finally, the team recommends that a sustainable funding source be
identified for the acquisition and maintenance of learning resource materials. (IIC.1, IIC.2,
IIID.1.a)
Actions Taken to Resolve the Recommendation
Since the last Follow-Up Visit in March 2013, Los Angeles Southwest College has taken
many steps to address Standard sections IIC.1.a and IIC.1.b. The following are new or
continuing efforts to ensure that the College meets the library standards:
Library Collections
Thanks to the bond construction program, the College will open a $38.8 million
Library/Learning Assistance Center in fall 2014 which includes reading rooms, individual
study carrels, group study rooms, library stacks, two smart classrooms with smart boards,
two computer labs with 48 new computers in each for student use, librarian offices, and a
workroom. The library will also provide Wi-Fi and open spaces for students who want to use
their own devices or study (C4-1 Monthly Bond Update, October 2013).
As a result of the move, the College will be able to update its print collection through the
purchase of thousands of electronic and print books and multimedia during the 2013-2014
fiscal year (C4-2 LASC Bond Program Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment Budget for
the Library; C4-3 LASC Library 2013-2014 Acquisition Plan for Library Remodel).
Additionally, to assist in keeping the collection current, the College has committed to a
sustainable library collection model to better ensure that its collection holdings remain
current (C4-4 LASC Library Collection Development Policy 2013). Through a process of
continuous assessment and collaboration with faculty, the library title selection process
includes an annual review of:
1. The number of titles comprising the total library collection.
2. The number of permanent titles that remain relevant.
3. The number of titles incrementally added as a result of continuously updating the
print and E-book collections.
4. The number of titles adopted that were suggested in departmental program reviews.
5. The number of weeded book titles from the annual faculty review of obsolete
materials (Note: The Library completed a major de-selection project in 2011-2012,
24
eliminating 17,000 titles from the collection. The next review of materials will take
place after the move into the remodeled library).
Several faculty members provide the library with copies of their textbooks, which are held at
the reserves desk for in-library student use. In order to help students who struggle with the
high cost of textbooks, the librarians have also committed to collaborating with the
Bookstore to expand the textbook reserves collection with high-demand titles (C4-3 LASC
Library 2013-2014 Acquisition Plan for Library Remodel; C4-4 LASC Library
Collection Development Policy 2013). Because the Bookstore orders textbooks for each
class, the library will send orders annually for textbooks.
Assessment and Analysis of Achievements to Date
As noted in the April 2013 Follow-Up Visiting Team Report, the College has met the
recommendation that it regularly update its print and online collection in consultation with
discipline faculty and that it identify a sustainable funding source. Not only has the College
systemically integrated the updating of its print and online collection into its planning
process and evaluation procedures, but it has also continued to fund the library with a
minimum of $50,000 per year as part of its five-year budget plan.
During fall 2013, the Library Advisory Committee reviewed the current materials selection
process and found the selection workflow overly cumbersome. Minor revisions were made
to the procedure to increase efficiency and communication flow. Going forward, the
following steps will be taken to ensure optimal faculty and librarian collaboration in the
selection process:
1. At the beginning of the fall semester, the librarian liaisons send out communiques to
all department chairs and faculty for acquisition recommendations. Concurrently,
librarians will generate discipline lists for faculty review, using standard library
collection development tools and practices. Throughout the latter part of September
and early October, librarians follow up with faculty through department presentations,
individual emails and telephone calls to elicit information about topical and subject
areas, as well as individual titles that need to be added to the collection.
2. No later than the fourth week in October, Acquisitions librarians finalize the lists of
titles based on faculty input and librarians’ materials selection process and include
cost information.
3. These lists are then reviewed by the Library Advisory Committee, department chairs,
and discipline faculty to ensure consistent application of the Collection Development
Policy guideline.
25
4. The list-review process must be completed no later than mid-November. Finalized
lists are forwarded to the area dean for final review and approval.
5. No later than December 1st of each fall semester, the dean sends cost information for
approved materials to the Budget Committee chairs for inclusion into the annual
budget (C4-5 Library Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes).
Information Competency
Librarians continue to maintain a regular cycle of instruction, assessment and program
improvement relative to the Library Science courses and the information competency
instruction orientations to meet the stated Institutional Student Learning Outcome (ISLO) in
Information Competency. The Library’s multi-faceted Information Competency approach
consists of library science credit course offerings, departmental and program collaborations
with the English Department and the First Year Experience (FYE) program, and Information
Competency instruction orientations (C4-6 LASC Information Competency Report).
Specifically, the College and the Library are engaged in the following Information
Competency activities:
•
•
•
•
•
Library Science Courses: A minimum of two library science credit courses offered
each year.
Librarian Liaison Model: The library instituted a librarian liaison model in fall 2012
to increase collaboration between librarians and discipline faculty relative to
collection development and maintenance and library instruction activities (C4-7
Librarian Liaison Program).
English Department / FYE Collaborations: A majority of students at the College take
either a mathematics or English course, facilitating targeted instruction to many
students. In spring 2014, the English Department will partner with the library to offer
four sections of English 101 and Library Science 101, one of which will be a learning
community with the First Year Experience program. English faculty and librarians
teaching those sections will collaborate on curriculum and instructional activities so
that the Library Science course complements the English course (C4-8 Schedule of
Classes, Spring 2014).
Faculty who require their students to conduct library research request that librarians
teach one-time library research skills orientations. This occurs throughout the year.
The Librarian Liaison model has significantly increased the interactions and
collaborations between librarians and discipline faculty as demonstrated by the
increase in library research skills orientations (C4-9 Library Instruction Statistics,
Fall 2012, Spring 2013, Fall 2013).
Information Competency skills are incorporated into the student learning outcomes
(SLOs) for English 101, 102, 103, 211, 215, and 234 courses. (C4-10 English
Department SLO Addenda and Rubrics). On average, over 900 students enroll in
26
English courses each primary term. Fall semester 2013, English faculty assessed
English 101 and 103 using rubrics (C4-11 English 101, 103 SLO Assessment
Results). Based on feedback received from the department chair, librarians will
continue to emphasize citing and documenting sources.
Assessment
Students in the Library Science courses and the Information Competency instruction
orientations are assessed using a pre-test and post-test that align with program learning
objectives (PLOs) and the College ISLO. In addition, the Library, in conjunction with the
Office of Institutional Effectiveness, administered an assessment to measure the information
competency skills of LASC students. Students in English 21 and 28 courses completed the
assessment in fall 2013 (C4-12 LASC Information Competency Assessment Instrument).
The majority of students at the College continue to test into basic math and English courses.
Thus, this representative sample formed a baseline assessment from which instructional
improvement activities could also be planned. English Department faculty also teach and
assess the PLO dealing with avoiding plagiarism through correct citing and documenting of
sources using the MLA citation style (C4-11 English 101, 103 SLO Assessment Results).
Analysis of Results Achieved to Date
Librarians have engaged in instructional activities, collected data, and analyzed it to
determine program improvements for the information competency program.
Credit Courses: Library Science 102 was taught spring 2013 and Library Science 101 was
taught in fall 2013. Students completed a pre-test and post-test. Analysis of the data
revealed that students had problems constructing an effective search strategy and needed
more practice with correctly citing sources using the MLA citation style. As a result of this
data analysis, when these courses are taught in the upcoming semesters, librarians will
incorporate more scaffolding techniques and active learning group in-class exercises to help
students retain concepts; more attention will be given to helping students construct an
effective search statement using the Boolean operator “AND;” and classroom assessment
techniques (CATs) will be employed to gain formative feedback on student comprehension
either at the time of instruction or shortly thereafter.
Library Information Competency Instruction Orientations: The Librarian Liaison model has
significantly increased the interactions and collaborations between librarians and discipline
faculty as demonstrated in this data (C4-6 LASC Information Competency Report; C4-9
Library Instruction Statistics-Fall 2012, Spring 2013, Fall 2013):
•
•
•
Fall 2012: 16 orientations; 694 students reached
Spring 2013: 16 orientations; 607 students reached
Fall 2013: 35 orientations; 926 students reached
27
The information competency instruction orientations have proven to be effective for helping
students attain and hone information competency skills. Thus, librarians will continue to
proactively engage discipline faculty concerning the benefits of these orientations for
students.
Pre-Tests and Post-Tests (C4-13 Library Pre-Test and Post-Test forms; C4-14 Library
Pre-Test and Post-Test Results). Of the 35 information competency instruction orientations
taught, 20 courses were given pre-test/post-test assessments. Librarians explored different
options with the timing between administering the pre- and post-tests to determine if that
variable had an impact on students’ retention of information competency skills taught.
Review of the data on the timing of pre- and post-test administration revealed only marginal
differences in scores.
On average, there was 13 percent improvement in students’ scores between the pre- and posttests. Of the 20 course sections, six demonstrated increases between 4 and 8 percent; seven
between 9 and 15 percent improvement; and seven between 16 and 30 percent improvement.
The benchmark goal has been 70 percent proficiency. Pre-test scores revealed that students
in only two sections reached or exceeded the benchmark goal of 70 percent. Conversely, in
the post-test, in 15 courses students scored 70 percent or higher on the test, resulting in a 650
percent increase in correct responses. Librarians are consistently teaching the core
information competencies and students are demonstrating good understanding of them when
assessed immediately after an instructional experience. As a result of this data analysis,
librarians will continue teaching the PLOs in support of the ISLO. They will approach
discipline faculty with the idea of including the five post-test questions on students’ final
examinations to examine whether students have retained knowledge learned in the research
skills orientations. Also, they will create two authentic, performance-based, exercises to test
students’ knowledge of citing and documenting sources (C4-6 LASC Information
Competency Report).
Information Competency Assessment. The Information Competency Assessment was
administered to a sample of students enrolled in English 21 and English 28 courses in order
to establish a baseline for instructional planning. Many LASC students test into either basic
math or English; data from these English courses provided a viable representative sample
from which to measure students’ strengths and gaps in knowledge. One hundred sixteen
students in sections of English 21 and 28 completed the Information Competency
Assessment. The assessment instrument contained fifteen questions – three questions to
measure each PLO. The data produced the following average percentages for each PLO:
•
•
•
PLO 1: identification of information types – 50%
PLO 2: identification of information formats – 58%
PLO 3: effective search strategy – 37%
28
•
•
PLO 4: evaluating information – 61%
PLO 5: avoiding plagiarism – 85%
Analysis of the data revealed that students reached the benchmark goal of 70 percent in PLO
5 only. Also, students had difficulties developing an effective search strategy to locate books
and articles. This was observed in data analyzed in the Library Science 101 and 102 courses
as well. With respect to the other three PLOs, while there is work to do, the percentages show
student growth towards understanding the concepts in those areas. In discussions among the
librarians, the area dean, and the English Department Chair, they were perplexed by the high
percentage of correct answers regarding plagiarism; challenges with plagiarism abound in
most courses that require essays or research papers. Upon further review, it was deduced that
generally students understand what plagiarism is but still need more skill in paraphrasing,
summarizing, quoting, and documenting sources to avoid the practice. As a result of the
analysis, librarians will focus more effort on helping students to develop effective search
strategies and will collaborate with discipline faculty to improve the issues related to students
plagiarizing. By the end of this academic year, they will create two authentic, performancebased, exercises and assessments to help improve students’ knowledge of citing (e.g. quoting
and paraphrasing) and documenting sources (C4-6 Information Competency Report; C415 LASC Information Competency Assessment Results).
English Department 101 and 103 SLO Assessment Results. In fall 2013, the English
Department assessed SLOs for their 101 and 103 level courses, both of which contained
elements of information competency. English 101’s SLO 3 states: “The student will,
avoiding plagiarism, use research methods and tools in academic coursework.” This SLO
was assessed in spring and summer 2013 and was combined with two other SLOs because all
dealt with analyzing and evaluating texts along with writing college level essays. Applying a
rubric resulted in 57 percent of students scoring as highly proficient; 27 percent proficient; 12
percent marginally proficient; and 4 percent not proficient. Eighty-four percent were either
highly proficient or proficient.
English 103’s SLO 3 states: “Write a 2000 word researched essay, integrating sources
effectively and using correct MLA style including in-text document and Work Cited Page.”
Again, applying a rubric resulted in 45 percent of students scoring as highly proficient; 35
percent as proficient; 13 percent as marginally proficient; and 7 percent as not proficient.
Eighty percent of students scored as being either highly proficient or proficient.
In both courses students met the library’s benchmark of 70 percent proficiency. As a result
of the analysis of SLO results, the English Department faculty identified the linked English
101 and Library Science 101 courses scheduled for spring 2014 as an effective improvement
strategy for those SLOs (C4-11 English 101, 103 SLO Assessment Results).
29
Additional Plans
In spring semester 2014, the First Year Experience (FYE) program and the English
Department will offer Library Science 101 and English 101. English faculty and librarians
teaching those sections will collaborate on curriculum and instructional activities so that the
Library Science course complements the English course (C4-8 Schedule of Classes, Spring
2014).
At the end of 2013-2014, the Library Advisory Committee will evaluate the components of
the Information Competency Program to ensure that these processes are meeting the needs of
the LASC community. In the next academic year, the Committee will review the revised
collection selection process for effectiveness.
List of Evidence for College Recommendation 4
C4-1
Monthly Bond Update, October 2013
C4-2
LASC Bond Program Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment Budget for the Library
C4-3
LASC Library 2013-2014 Acquisition Plan for Library Remodel
C4-4
LASC Library Collection Development Policy 2013
C4-5
Library Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
C4-6
LASC Information Competency Report
C4-7
Librarian Liaison Program
C4-8
Schedule of Classes, Spring 2014
C4-9
Library Instruction Statistics, Fall 2012, Spring 2013, Fall 2013
C4-10 English Department SLO Addenda and rubrics
C4-11 English 101, 103 SLO Assessment Results
C4-12 LASC Information Competency Assessment Instrument
C4-13 Library Pre-Test and Post-Test forms
C4-14 Library Pre-Test and Post-Test Results
C4-15 LASC Information Competency Assessment Results
30
Recommendation 5: Professional Development and Faculty Evaluations
In order to meet the Standard, the team recommends the College reviews all aspects of
professional development, including key elements of peer review, self-reflection, and
continuous review of appropriate pedagogy for the student population. In particular, the
completion of faculty evaluations systematically and at stated intervals; engagement in
dialogue addressing staff and faculty professional development on various teaching
pedagogies and strategies to meet the diverse learning styles of its diverse student
population. (IIIA.1.b)
Actions Taken to Resolve the Recommendation
The College has devoted attention and resources to making sure that faculty evaluations are done in a
timely manner to ensure the integrity and usefulness of the evaluation process and that meaningful
faculty and staff development takes place on an ongoing basis.
Faculty Evaluations
Beginning in 2011, a new process was developed to ensure that all fulltime and part-time faculty
evaluations are completed in a timely manner. The process for ensuring a proper and timely
evaluation process is as follows.
1. The Office of Academic Affairs maintains and monitors a database containing the names,
employment status (fulltime, probationary, department chair, or part-time), type of evaluation
(basic or comprehensive), last evaluation date, due dates for all fulltime, probationary, and
part-time faculty evaluations that tracks their completion (C5-1 Full-time and Adjunct
Faculty Evaluation Schedule).
2. At the beginning of each major term, the Office of Academic Affairs notifies each department
chair and the respective department dean of the evaluations that need to be completed during
the term in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the LACCD and
AFT Faculty Guild Local 1521 (C5-2 Collective Bargaining Agreement on Faculty
Evaluations).
3. The chairs review the scheduled evaluations; for basic evaluations, they conduct the
evaluation or designate a vice chair or colleague from the department to conduct the
evaluation.
4. For comprehensive and probationary evaluations, the department chairs coordinate the
evaluation process with the area dean.
By the conclusion of the spring 2013 semester, adjunct evaluations were 100% complete. In addition,
all evaluations of contract and probationary faculty were current (See C5-1 Full-time and Adjunct
Faculty Evaluation Schedule).
The evaluation process continued through the fall 2013 semester. Department chairs and the
associated deans were notified of the evaluation assignments in their areas and proceeded to complete
31
the evaluations. As of December 2013, all evaluations for fulltime, probationary, and adjunct faculty
scheduled for fall 2013 were completed (See C5-1 Full time and Adjunct Faculty Evaluation
Schedule).
At the beginning of the spring 2014 semester, notifications were again sent out to department chairs
and deans according to established procedure (C5-3: Email to Department Chairs). Evaluations of
fulltime and adjunct faculty that are due in spring 2014 will be completed by May 1, 2014.
Professional Development
In fall 2013, the Staff Development Committee merged with the Travel and Tuition Reimbursement
Committee to become the LASC Professional Growth Committee (C5-4: September 17, 2013
Professional Growth Committee minutes). This brought the previously separate faculty and staff
professional development committees together under the same umbrella. The purpose of this change
was to ensure that there is a holistic, coordinated program of professional development for all LASC
employees. For example, the committee developed the agenda for the spring 2014 Flex day to have a
single, overarching theme. However, the day also had breakout sessions under that theme that were
designed to target the specific professional development needs of both faculty and staff (C5-5:
Spring 2014 Flex Day Agenda).
The college also engages in regular evaluation of all aspects of its professional development program.
Surveys were distributed to all attendees of the spring 2013 Flex Day to determine which topics
faculty and staff are interested in learning more about. The surveys were completed by 95 attendees
and indicated that a large percentage of respondents were interested in learning more about how to
handle student misconduct and how to use technology in the classroom (C5-6: 2013 Spring Flex Day
Survey Results). These results were reviewed by the Professional Growth Committee in Spring 2013
(C5-7: March 19, 2013 Professional Growth Committee minutes), and then used to develop the
Fall 2013 Flex Day program, which included breakout sessions on both handling student misconduct
and using SMART classroom technology (C5-8: Fall 2013 Flex Day Agenda).
The primary emphasis of the entire LASC professional development program has been to promote
innovative pedagogies to improve student success in our diverse student population. A number of
activities have occurred over the past year to ensure that this occurs:
1. Spring 2013 Community Tour - On February 1, 2013, a group of faculty, staff, and
administrators took a tour of the LASC service area. The group visited a number of locations,
including community centers and schools, and spent time talking with personnel at those
locations. The tour gave participants a better sense of the community we serve, and a deeper
understanding of our student population and the barriers they bring to the classroom. After
the tour, a debriefing session was held over lunch at a local restaurant. At this session,
participants discussed the challenges facing our diverse student population, as well as
pedagogical approaches to improve student outcomes (C5-9: Community Tour Sign-in
sheet).
2. Spring 2013 Brownbag Series - In March and April of 2013, Dr. Joe Cuseo gave a series of
workshops on creating a culture of student success. Dr. Cuseo is a Professor Emeritus at
32
Marymount College. He has authored a number of articles on pedagogy and has been voted
faculty member of the year at his college 14 times. His workshops at LASC focused on
creating an inclusive and engaging pedagogy in order to improve outcomes among our
diverse student population. In addition to the activities during the workshop, he provided
faculty members with over 50 pages of resources to further improve their pedagogy after the
workshops ended (C5-10: Brownbag Series Handouts). These resources included specific
teaching strategies and examples for engaging students from many different backgrounds.
These workshops were attended by XX number of faculty and staff (C5-11: Brownbag
Series sign-in sheets).
3. Spring 2013 Campus Reader Program - A campus reader was used to broach the topic of
equity and student success and start a dialogue about what the College needed to do to have a
larger impact on student success. The book Them was used as this vehicle. Through the
characters and storyline of the book, a campus dialogue began about race, class, ethnicity,
and privilege and how as a college and professionals we play a positive or detrimental role in
the lives of our students. This activity took place from March to April 2013 (C5-12: Campus
reader sign-in sheets, C5-13: Campus reader discussion questions).
4. Spring 2013 Achieving the Dream Faculty Academy – 8 faculty members participated in
the LASC Faculty Academy in 2013 (C5-14: Faculty Academy participation sheet). These
faculty members attended The Teaching Professor Conference in New Orleans from May 31
to June 2, 2013 (C5-15: Teaching Professor Conference attendance). This is an annual
conference that is specifically dedicated to excellence in pedagogy. LASC faculty attended
workshops on innovative pedagogies that are specifically designed to reach a diverse student
population. Further, they learned about new ways to engage students in classroom discussions
and activities, and how to effectively incorporate emerging technologies into their
classrooms. (C5-16: Teaching Professor Conference Program).
5. Summer 2013 Freshman Year Experience (FYE) Faculty Training- In summer 2013, five
faculty members volunteered to teach FYE summer bridge courses. On June 6, 2013, these
faculty members received a full day of training on incorporating collaborative learning
strategies and the “ARCS Model of Instructional Design” into their FYE courses. Among
other things, this model promotes the use of culturally relevant pedagogies in the classroom.
Each faculty member was also given a copy of the book “Student Engagement Techniques”
by Elizabeth F. Barkley, and “a toolkit” which included a number of current research articles
on pedagogy. (C5-17: FYE training agenda and handouts).
6. Summer 2013 Passage Program Faculty Training- The LASC Passage Program was
through the Achieving the Dream Initiative, and is designed to increase the success of male
students. Students in this program take classes in learning communities and receive both
counseling and mentoring. Faculty who teach learning community classes are required to
attend professional development training each semester. In preparation for the Fall 2013
33
semester, six faculty members and three counselors completed training on August 20, 2013
(C5-18: Passage faculty training attendance). This training consisted of an instructor
reflection, a learning community overview session, an instructor breakout session, a
supplemental instruction overview, and presentation on student engagement by guest speaker,
Damon Givehand (C5-19: Passage faculty training agenda). Mr. Givehand is an expert in
improving student engagement and motivation in developmental math courses. Instructors
left with tangible strategies and tools to enhance their classroom environment. After the
training, instructors completed evaluations. In these evaluations, all participants rated the
training as “good” or “excellent”, and they indicated that they gained new insights as a result
of the training. (C5-20: Passage faculty training evaluation)
7. Fall 2013 Kresge Foundation Men of Color Institute- On November 3-5, 2013, five faculty
members and administrators attended the Kresge Foundation’s Men of Color in Community
Colleges Institute (C5-21: Kresge Men of Color website screenshot). The purpose of the
annual institute was to further the work being done at LASC to improve outcomes for Latino
and African American males. Prior to attending the conference, the attendees examined an
extensive amount of data on LASC student engagement and student success (C5-22: Men of
Color Institute Cohort Data Review). This data was disaggregated by ethnicity and sex, and
illustrated the gaps between different demographic groups on campus. While at the Institute,
attendees participated in intensive workshops with renowned faculty and researchers to
develop strategies to address these gaps. At the end of the Institute, the attendees had
developed an action plan to improve outcomes among LASC men of color (C5-23: Men of
Color Institute Short Term Action Plan)
8. Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 Magna 20-Minute Mentor Commons – In Fall 2013, LASC
purchased campus-wide access to the “Magna 20 Minute Mentor Commons” website. This
site provides on-demand 20-minute presentations on a variety of pedagogical topics. The
presentations are given by experts in the field and are designed to provide practical
information in a concentrated format that can fit into busy faculty schedules. Faculty
members have unlimited access to a library of presentations that include titles such as, “How
Can I Effectively Teach Unprepared Students?”, “How Do I Create a Climate for Learning in
My Classroom?”, and “How Can I Get Students to Take Responsibility for Their Own
Learning?” (C5-24: Magna 20-Minute Mentor Commons Screenshot). Access to this
website was purchased in fall 2013, and piloted by a small group of faculty. It was then
presented to all faculty and staff on February 6, 2014 at spring 2014 Flex Day (C5-5: Spring
2014 Flex Day Agenda). Usage statistics and faculty evaluation of the site’s usefulness will
be assessed throughout the spring 2014 semester.
9. Spring 2014 LACCD Faculty Teaching and Learning Academy (FTLA) – The Los
Angeles Community College District provides a Faculty Teaching and Learning Academy to
a select number of full-time faculty from across the district. This Academy is an intensive 5month program that teaches faculty members a number of pedagogical strategies for
improving student engagement and student success. It also encourages faculty to create
communities of practice with the other members of their Academy cohort (C5-25: LACCD
34
FTLA 2014 FAQ). Faculty are selected into the FTLA through a competitive application
process. In 2014, five LASC faculty from different academic disciplines were selected to
participate. Although LASC has the fewest number of full-time faculty in the district, LASC
had the second-highest number of full-time faculty who participated in the 2014 FTLA (C526: FTLA 2014 Participant list).
10. Spring 2014 Great Teacher’s Seminar – All full-time and adjunct faculty were invited to
attend a two-day Great Teacher’s seminar on March 7th, 2014 and April 4th, 2014. XX
number of faculty attended the seminar and they:
 Learned pedagogies appropriate for the LASC student population.
 Identified and shared specific successful teaching techniques.
 Identified and analyzed instructional problems and developed creative approaches to
solve them.
 Networked with and learned from faculty members from different disciplines
 Learned to look beyond their own discipline for resources and ideas and to focus on
the universals of teaching.
 Reviewed and contemplated attitudes, methods and behaviors of teachers.
 Celebrated good teaching
(C5-27: Great Teachers Seminar Agenda, C5-28: Great Teachers Seminar sign-in
sheets).
The professional development activities described above were primarily targeted at improving
pedagogy among faculty members. However, a number of professional development activities were
also put in place for classified staff to improve their job skills and abilities, and to improve their
interactions with students. A survey was conducted in Fall 2013 to ascertain which topics would be of
interest to classified staff. Approximately 90% of respondents indicated that they were interested in
receiving training in Microsoft Office software (i.e. Excel, Access, and/or Word). In addition, 96% of
respondents indicated that they were interested in receiving training that focused on respect and
professionalism (C5-29: Fall 2013 classified workshop survey results). These results were used to
plan and/or improve the following professional development opportunities:
1. 2013-2014 Microsoft Office Specialist Training – Throughout the summer and fall of 2013,
LASC purchased vouchers for employees to take Microsoft Office Specialist (MOS)
certification exams. Employees were provided with computer stations in three different
campus locations to complete MOS practice sessions and practice tests. MOS tests were then
proctored by campus I.T. personnel in July, September, and October of 2013 (C5-30: I.T.
Manager October 3, 2013 email). Employees practiced on seven computers in three
different areas, spread out throughout the campus to make it easy on employees. Seventeen
(17) took the exams over this period, with three employees testing twice. (C5-31: MOS
usage statistics).
2. Fall 2013 Note-Taking Workshop for Committee Minute-Takers - On December 10,
2013 nine classified staff members that take minutes in committee meetings attended a
professional development workshop to improve their note taking (C5-32: December 10,
2013 Note-Taking Workshop sign-in sheet). The purpose of the workshop was to
35
ensure that meeting minutes are accurate, consistent and that they highlight action items
(C5-33: December 10, 2013 Note-Taking Workshop PowerPoint Presentation).
3. Spring 2014 Customer Service Training – In response to the survey results that indicated
that 96% of respondents were interested in receiving training on respect and professionalism,
LASC contracted with the Bryant Group to provide customer service training for classified
staff (C5-34: Bryant Group Proposal). The Bryant Group has provided customer service
training and rapport-building techniques to a number of Fortune 500 companies, professional
sports teams, as well as many 2- and 4-year colleges. Two 3-hour training sessions were held
on March 6, 2014, and all classified staff were encouraged to attend (C5-35: Customer
Service Training sign-in sheets). The sessions included interactive exercises, practical
examples, and they provided staff members with a number of techniques to improve their
customer service. To assess the effectiveness of the training, point-of-service surveys are
currently being administered in all student service offices (C5-36: Spring 2014 Student
Service Point of Service Survey).
Finally, in order to ensure that future professional development opportunities are ongoing, available
for all campus employees, and regularly evaluated, a new LASC Professional Development Plan was
revised and approved (C5-37: 2014-2017 LASC Professional Development Plan). Initial
discussions about revising the plan began in the Professional Growth Committee in the Spring 2013
semester (C5-38: February 19, 2013 Professional Growth Committee minutes). This work
continued through the Fall 2013 semester, and a new 3-year plan was approved early in Spring 2014
(C5-39: February 18, 2014 Professional Growth Committee minutes, C5-40: February 25, 2014
Academic Senate minutes, C5-41: March 3, 2014 College Council minutes).
Analysis of Results Achieved to Date
1. Faculty and staff evaluations – LASC has developed a well-defined process and tracking
system for ensuring that all faculty, administrative, and classified evaluations are completed
systematically and at stated intervals. Over the last two semesters, this process has resulted in
100% completion of faculty evaluations.
2. Professional Development – LASC has an ongoing professional development program that
is focused on pedagogical strategies to meet the needs of the College’s diverse population of
students. Over the last year, the college held a number of professional development activities
for both faculty and staff. Further, the college has a revised 3-year plan that will guide and
evaluate future professional development opportunities at LASC.
Additional Plans
To ensure a continuous review of appropriate pedagogy for its diverse student population, LASC will
encourage all newly hired faculty to attend the ATD Faculty Academy. This will ensure that from the
day of their hire, all new faculty will be well-versed in appropriate pedagogy for our diverse student
population. The campus will also continue to encourage faculty to participate in future LACCD
Faculty Teaching and Learning Academies. In addition, LASC is developing plans to partner with
another local community college to develop a 3-year developmental math plan. This plan will be
36
based on work performed by researchers at San Diego State University, as well as math faculty at
other community colleges in California. The focus of this plan will be to use established research to
improve pedagogy in basic-skills math courses.
List of Evidence for College Recommendation 5:
C5-1
Full-time and Adjunct Faculty Evaluation Schedule
C5-2
Collective Bargaining Agreement on Faculty Evaluations
C5-3
Email to Department Chairs
C5-4
September 17, 2013 Professional Growth Committee minutes
C5-5
Spring 2014 Flex Day Agenda
C5-6
2013 Spring Flex Day Survey Results
C5-7
March 19, 2013 Professional Growth Committee minutes
C5-8
Fall 2013 Flex Day Agenda
C5-9
Community Tour Sign-in sheet
C5-10 Brownbag Series Handouts
C5-11 Brownbag Series sign-in sheets
C5-12 Campus reader sign-in sheets
C5-13 Campus reader discussion questions
C5-14 Faculty Academy participation sheet
C5-15 Teaching Professor Conference attendance
C5-16 Teaching Professor Conference Program
C5-17 FYE training agenda and handouts
C5-18 Passage faculty training attendance
C5-19 Passage faculty training agenda
C5-20 Passage faculty training evaluation
C5-21 Kresge Men of Color website screenshot
C5-22 Men of Color Institute Cohort Data Review
C5-23 Men of Color Institute Short Term Action Plan
37
C5-24 Magna 20-Minute Mentor Commons Screenshot
C5-25 LACCD FTLA 2014 FAQ
C5-26 FTLA 2014 Participant list
C5-27 Great Teachers Seminar Agenda
C5-28 Great Teachers Seminar sign-in sheets
C5-29 Fall 2013 classified workshop survey results
C5-30 I.T. Manager October 3, 2013 email
C5-31 MOS usage statistics
C5-32 December 10, 2013 Note-Taking Workshop sign-in sheet
C5-33 December 10, 2013 Note-Taking Workshop PowerPoint Presentation
C5-34 Bryant Group Proposal
C5-35 Customer Service Training sign-in sheets
C5-36 Spring 2014 Student Service Point of Service Survey
C5-37 2014-2017 LASC Professional Development Plan
C5-38 February 19, 2013 Professional Growth Committee minutes
C5-39 February 18, 2014 Professional Growth Committee minutes
C5-40 February 25, 2014 Academic Senate minutes
C5-41 March 3, 2014 College Council minutes
38
Recommendation 6: Documentation of Actions and Recommendations
In order to meet the Standard, the team recommends the College fully utilize the established
consultative committee structure by documenting actions and recommendations in agendas,
minutes, and other official tools to ensure that dialogues and decisions affecting the College
are communicated widely and clearly across campus constituencies. (IVA.3)
Actions Taken to Resolve the Recommendation
The College has an established consultative committee structure. All committees within this
structure have a common format for reporting and documenting actions in agendas, minutes
and summary notes (C6-1 Committee Minutes Common Format). This format, which has
been used consistently since July 1, 2012, allows for the recording of fundamental discussion
points, dialogue and decisions in a uniform manner across all committees. A template for this
common format can be accessed from the College Committees webpage, which has a direct
link on the LASC Homepage. Thus, consistently formatted committee documents can be
easily accessed at any time by both the internal and external campus communities (C6-2
LASC Homepage and Committees Page).
Each College committee has a note taker. The note taker captures the meeting dialogue and
works with the co-chairs to ensure that meeting documents are clear, accurate and are
regularly posted on the committee’s website. On December 10, 2013 all shared governance
committee meeting note takers attended a professional development workshop to improve
their note taking. The purpose of the workshop was to ensure that meeting minutes are
accurate, consistent and that they highlight action items (C6-3 December 10, 2013 NoteTaking Workshop PowerPoint Presentation). Draft meeting minutes are posted on each
committee’s website by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness within one week of each
committee meeting (C6-4 Strategic Planning Committee Website, Agendas and Minutes
Page ). Co-chairs then follow up on any actions that were taken during the meeting. At the
committee’s next meeting, these actions are checked for accuracy, approved by committee
members, and reported in meeting minutes. Within one week after this approval, the final
meeting minutes are posted on the committee’s website by the Office of Institutional
Effectiveness in place of the previously posted draft minutes (C6-4 Strategic Planning
Committee Website, Agendas and Minutes Page). This process ensures that all campus
constituencies have regular, up-to-date access to committee dialogues and decisions.
To publicize the decisions made in committee meetings, the Public Information Officer sends
out regular notices to all college employees that summarize action items from committee
meetings. These notices include links to updated minutes on committee websites, as well as
meeting highlights from the meeting minutes (C6-5 Public Information Officer Committee
Update Email 10-24-2013).
39
As a further check on this system of communication, a liaison model was developed by the
Strategic Planning Committee in the fall 2013 semester (C6-6 October 3, 2013 Strategic
Planning Committee minutes). Under this model, each member of the Strategic Planning
Committee regularly attends the meetings of at least one committee that reports to the
Strategic Planning Committee. During each Strategic Planning Committee meeting, each
“liaison” provides the committee with an update on the major items that occurred in the
meeting(s) they attended. In addition, liaisons report on meeting attendance so that, if
necessary, the Strategic Planning Committee can act to improve attendance at specific
committees. It should also be noted that the SPC is composed of a wide variety of
representatives from all campus constituencies (C6-7 2013-2014 Strategic Planning
Committee Membership). Thus, after each Strategic Planning Committee meeting,
committee members have a comprehensive view of all college committee actions,
recommendations, and attendance that they can communicate directly to all campus
constituencies.
To evaluate the effectiveness of college committees, each committee is required to submit a
written operating agreement and self-evaluation of their work to the Strategic Planning
Committee, College Council, and College President at the end of the academic year (C6-8
LASC Committee Operating Agreement Form; C6-9: LASC Committee Evaluation
Form). This self-evaluation includes the committee’s action items, completed annual
objectives, information on meeting dates and attendance, and recommendations for the
following year.
Through the processes described above, LASC has multiple official mechanisms in place to
ensure that dialogues and decisions affecting the college are communicated widely and
clearly across all campus constituencies.
These actions have resulted in widespread dialogue about issues discussed in college
committees. One recent example has to do with a series of budget recommendations that
were initially discussed at the November 5th meeting of the Budget Committee (C6-10
November 5, 2013 Budget Committee Minutes). In order to communicate these
recommendations widely across campus, they were presented at the November 12, 2013
Academic Senate meeting (C6-11 November 12, 2013 Academic Senate Minutes). Next,
all faculty, staff, and students were invited to hear and discuss the recommendations at a
budget forum on November 19, 2013 (C6-12 President’s Email to Campus About Budget
Forum 11-8-2013). After this forum, a link to an online survey was emailed to all campus
employees, and was also placed on the LASC website (C6-13 President’s Email to Campus
with Link to Budget Survey 11-19-2013). This survey asked employees if they supported
the recommendations, and also allowed them to write in any comments they had. The survey
results were then reviewed by the Budget Committee at a special meeting on November 26,
2013 (C6-14 Budget Recommendation Survey Results; C6-15 November 26, 2013
Budget Committee Minutes). Based on the survey results, the Budget Committee voted to
40
approve the recommendations, which were then forwarded to the College Council for
approval at their December 3, 2013 meeting (C6-16 December 3, 2013 College Council
Minutes).
One specific issue that was noted by the Follow-Up Visiting Team was the need to improve
campus participation in the governance process. On its April 16, 2013 Follow-Up Visit
Evaluation Report, the Follow-Up Visiting Team noted that “major college committee
meetings are cancelled with limited communication, and that quorums cannot always be met
due to poor attendance at meetings.” A number of actions have been taken to address this
issue. Initial discussions began in the November 5, 2012 meeting of the College Council (C617 November 5, 2012 College Council Minutes). There it was noted that there was overlap
among some of the committees’ charges and that by combining some committee functions, as
well as committees themselves, participation, effectiveness and efficiency would improve.
To this end, the SPC performed an assessment to determine where these overlaps existed in
its December 6, 2012 meeting (C6-18 December 6, 2012 SPC Minutes). This assessment
was framed by the 2012-2013 LASC Functional Map document (C6-19: LASC Functional
Map), and resulted in approved SPC recommendations to restructure, combine, and eliminate
specific campus committees (C6-18 December 6, 2012 SPC Minutes). These
recommendations were approved by the Academic Senate (C6-20 March 12, 2013
Academic Senate Minutes) and the College Council (C6-21 April 8, 2013 College Council
Minutes) in the spring of 2013. Assessments of the effectiveness revised committee structure
will be completed at the end of the spring 2014 semester.
Faculty and staff leadership have also taken action to increase the number of faculty and staff
who participate in the consultative committee structure. A formal agreement was created
between the AFT 1521A Classified Staff Guild President and the College President to ensure
that classified staff are provided with opportunities to participate in the development of
policies, procedures and recommendations that have significant effect on staff by releasing
them to serve on decision making committees (C6-22 Classified Committee Participation
Documentation). In addition, during the fall 2013 Faculty Professional Development Day
(i.e. Flex Day), the Academic Senate leadership strongly solicited faculty participation on
campus committees. As a result, many faculty signed up to regularly attend at least one
campus committee meeting (C6-23 Flex Day Faculty Committee Sign-Up Sheets). In
addition, Academic Senate leadership provided training to all college committee co-chairs
early in the fall 2013 semester. This training fully described the responsibilities that co-chairs
have in ensuring that committees regularly meet their quorums. Further the training
impressed upon the co-chairs the requirements to regularly communicate all committee
dialogues and decisions to all campus constituencies (C6-24 Fall 2013 Committee CoChair Training Agenda).
Further, the College developed a College Committee Meeting Master Calendar in an effort to
ensure that the entire campus community is aware of committee meeting days/times. This
41
calendar is posted on the LASC website. It is a single page PDF file that is very easy to read
and understand. Further, it is formatted in a manner that makes it easy to print out and
distribute to faculty and staff (C6-25 2013-2014 Committee Meeting Master Calendar).
Analysis of Results Achieved to Date
The actions above have greatly improved the College’s ability to communicate committee
dialogues and decisions widely and clearly across all campus constituencies. Committee
websites are regularly updated with agendas, minutes, and other relevant documents. Further,
links and highlights from these documents are regularly emailed to the campus community.
The Strategic Planning Committee liaison reports have given all Strategic Planning
Committee members a comprehensive view of campus processes that can be communicated
to all campus constituencies.
The budget recommendations that were described above further illustrate how successful
these processes have been. Over 100 campus employees completed the online survey to give
their input on the budget recommendations that had been communicated to them in multiple
forums. This campus communication and input was critical to the approval of the
recommendations by the Budget Committee and College Council.
Further, very few committee meetings were cancelled or didn’t meet their quorums during
the fall 2013 semester.
Additional Plans
A detailed analysis will also be conducted on the annual committee evaluation forms. This
analysis will examine attendance at each committee, and the steps that each committee took
to ensure that their dialogues and decisions were communicated widely and clearly across
campus constituencies. Further, the recommendations generated by each committee
regarding committee improvement will be analyzed and acted upon.
In order to further expedite the process of posting committee minutes online, the campus has
committed funds to move committee websites into the Microsoft SharePoint web
environment. SharePoint has recently been implemented at other LACCD colleges and at the
LACCD District Office. It has the advantage of allowing committee chairs to upload
committee documents quickly and easily to the committee website, and removes the need to
have the Office of Institutional Effectiveness upload all committee documents. It is expected
that SharePoint will be implemented at LASC by summer 2014. Once implemented,
SharePoint will serve as a sustainable, long-term solution for furthering and improving
campus wide communication.
The LASC Participatory Decision-Making and Integrated Planning Handbook is being
completely revised. This process began with a faculty and staff survey conducted during the
42
Annual Planning Retreat on August 21, 2012. Approximately 80 percent of respondents
indicated that the current Planning Handbook is difficult to understand (C6-26 August 21,
2012 Planning Retreat Survey). A draft of the revised Handbook was presented to the
Strategic Planning Committee on October 3, 2013 for discussion (C6-6 October 3, 2013
Strategic Planning Committee Minutes). The committee noted that draft Handbook is
much more readable and intuitive than its predecessor. It includes more graphics, and also
has a description of the Accreditation Standards that are relevant to each step in the planning
process. Further, it clearly defines the roles and expectations for each college committee in
the planning process. Thus, it is expected that as faculty and staff have a clearer
understanding of their responsibility in college governance and planning, they will become
more active in the governance process.
The Strategic Planning Committee’s feedback was incorporated into the Handbook, and it is
currently being revised in concert with the development of the 2014-2020 College Strategic
Master Plan. This will allow the Handbook to have the most up-to-date and relevant College
Planning information possible. This timeframe will also allow for the revised Accreditation
Standards to be included in the Handbook. It is anticipated that the Handbook will be
completed in summer 2014, and will be approved by College Council and the Academic
Senate in early fall 2014.
List of Evidence for College Recommendation 6
C6-1
Committee Minutes Common Format
C6-2
LASC Website Homepage and Committees Page
C6-3
December 10, 2013 Note-Taking Workshop PowerPoint Presentation
C6-4
Strategic Planning Committee Website, Agendas and Minutes Page
C6-5
Public Information Officer Committee Update Email 10-24-2013
C6-6
October 3, 2013 Strategic Planning Committee Minutes
C6-7
2013-2014 Strategic Planning Committee Membership
C6-8
LASC Committee Operating Agreement Form
C6-9
LASC Committee Evaluation Form
C6-10 November 5, 2013 Budget Committee Minutes
C6-11 November 12, 2013 Academic Senate Minutes
43
C6-12 President’s Email to Campus about Budget Forum 11-8-2013
C6-13 President’s Email to Campus with Link to Budget Survey 11-19-2013
C6-14 Budget Recommendation Survey Results
C6-15 November 26, 2013 Budget Committee Minutes
C6-16 December 3, 2013 College Council Minutes
C6-17 November 5, 2012 College Council Minutes
C6-18 December 6, 2012 SPC Minutes
C6-19 LASC Functional Map
C6-20 March 12, 2013 Academic Senate Minutes
C6-21 April 8, 2013 College Council Minutes
C6-22 Classified Committee Participation Documentation
C6-23 Flex Day Faculty Committee Sign-Up Sheets
C6-24 Fall 2013 Committee Co-Chair Training Agenda
C6-25 2013-2014 Committee Meeting Master Calendar
C6-26 August 21, 2012 Planning Retreat Survey
44
Standard II.B
Standard IIB:
Student Support Services
45
Standard II.B.3.a
The institution assures equitable access to all of its students by providing appropriate,
comprehensive, and reliable services to students regardless of service location or delivery
method.
Descriptive Summary
Southwest College provides equitable access to all its students by providing comprehensive
services regardless of service location or delivery methods (IIB.1 Screenshot of About
LASC Online). All student needs for services are regularly evaluated through the annual
Integrated College Operational Plan. Each fall, non-instructional program reviews are written
that include an evaluation of whether or not these services are meeting the needs of students
(IIB.2 Student Services Non-Instructional Program Reviews).
Distance education students have comparable access to services available to face-to-face
students. Students taking distance education classes can access Admissions and Records
services (e.g., grades, dropping and adding classes, registering for classes, and transcripts)
online. They can also view the status of their financial aid request and awards online. In
winter 2014, the Bookstore began an online textbook ordering system for students and
important college publications such as the Schedule of Classes and College Catalog are also
available online (IIB.3 Screenshot of Bookstore Online Textbook Ordering System).
During fall 2013, the College will move forward with a plan to purchase an online orientation
system for implementation during spring 2014 and in January 2015 will have a fully
operational online Student Educational Plan (SEP) available to all students (IIB.4 Contract
to Purchase Online Orientation System Approved by the Board of Trustees). The online
SEP is a component of the new Student Information System that the District purchased in
2012. The SEP component is currently in the configuration stage (IIB.5 Statement of Work
for Student Information System).
Other online resources available to distance education students include online counseling, Ebooks, E-Advising, E-SARS for scheduling counseling appointments, and tutorial assistance
and/or academic and career exploration through Smarthinking, TutorTrac, and Student
Lingo. To accommodate evening students, the Assessment Center has expanded its hours of
operations to four nights a week effective December 2, 2013 (IIB.6 2013-2014 Assessment
Center Calendars) and the library is open Monday through Thursday until 7 p.m. Evening
students also have access to the College’s Ask-A-Counselor virtual counseling sessions.
To evaluate online services, the College administers surveys (IIB. 7 Ask-A-Counselor, EAdvising, E-SARS, Smarthinking, TutorTrac and Student Lingo Surveys). The results
of these surveys are then used to make improvements. Those improvements (also listed on
pages 18 and 19 of this report) include the following:
46
•
•
•
•
Effective August 26, 2013, evening counseling hours have been expanded to Monday
through Thursday until 7 p.m. to address student concerns regarding the availability
of counselors in the evening;
E-SARS has been implemented and students are now able to schedule their own
counseling appointments online;
The College has implemented comprehensive counseling resources accessible to
online students such as Ask-A-Counselor, E-Advising, and Contact Your Counselor;
The College conducted a follow up survey of Ask-A-Counselor in July 2013. In
spring 2014, a survey was implemented to evaluate the E-Advising system.
Subsequently, the College implemented an additional Counseling survey to assess
Ask-A-Counselor, E-Advising, and E-SARS. Over 340 students responded to the
survey conducted during December 2013-January 2014. The information gathered in
this survey will be used to revise and improve Ask-A-Counselor, E-Advising, and ESARS.
The Los Angeles Community College District is in the process of developing a
degree audit system that will allow students to access and edit their Student
Educational Plan online.
These plans will be certified by a counselor. This is being developed as an element of the
District’s new Student Information System that is projected to be operational in January
2015.
•
•
•
The LASC homepage provides a detailed matriculation plan at
http://www.lasc.edu/students/matriculation/matriculation_process.html. It includes
the 8 Steps to Becoming a LA Southwest Student. The College signed a contract with
Cynosure in January 2014 to develop a comprehensive online orientation system that
will become a part of the matriculation process.
As of September 25, 2013, usage of Smarthinking has increased by 362 students since
the beginning of the previous fall semester. EOPS has instituted Smarthinking and
Student Lingo as a required activity for its participants.
Student Lingo was purchased to maximize land-based and online students’ access to
learning support services 24 hours a day, seven days a week. LASC has been asked to
share its secrets for increasing student use after the company noticed a huge increase
(362 students over the previous year) in usage.
Self Evaluation
The College meets this Standard. Furthermore, in June 2013, the California legislature
augmented each college’s Student Success and Support Program (SSP) Budget. LASC will
receive $383,322 that will be used for expanded SSSP activities such as assessment,
orientation, advising, and abbreviated or comprehensive Student Educational Plans.
Additionally, the ICOP helps to ensure the quality of our Student Services programs because
47
all non-instructional program reviews include an assessment of service area outcomes. All
Student Services departments have service area outcomes in place and have completed the
assessment cycle. Evidence of completion of these service area outcomes can be found in the
annual Student Services Program Reviews. (IIB.8 Student Services Non-Instructional
Program Reviews).
List of Evidence for Standard II.B.3.a
IIB.1 Screenshot of About LASC Online
IIB.2 Student Services Non-Instructional Program Reviews
IIB.3 Screenshot of Bookstore Online Textbook Ordering System
IIB.4 Contract to Purchase Online Orientation System Approved by the Board of Trustees
IIB.5 Statement of Work for Student Information System
IIB.6
2013-2014 Assessment Center Calendars
IIB.7 Ask-A-Counselor, E-Advising, E-SARS, Smarthinking, TutorTrac and Student Lingo
Surveys
IIB.8
Student Services Non-Instructional Program Reviews
48
Standard II C
Standard IIC: Library and Learning Support Services
49
II.C.1.b
The institution provides ongoing instruction for users of library and other learning support
services so that students are able to develop skills in information competency.
Descriptive Summary
Los Angeles Southwest College identified Information Competency as an Institutional
Student Learning Outcome (ISLO) several years ago. The Information Competency Program
consists of five Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs). As a result of classroom and library
information competency learning experiences, LASC students will:
1. Differentiate between scholarly and popular literature, primary and secondary
research, and current vs. historical research.
2. Develop knowledge of various formats of information sources and how they are
produced, organized and disseminated.
3. Create an effective search strategy to locate information in an online source by:
a. Selecting the correct online database for a search
b. Identifying key words and synonyms
c. Using Boolean operators and truncation
4. Evaluate information in order to determine its reliability, validity, accuracy, authority,
timeliness, point of view or bias.
5. Accurately and appropriately document sources using appropriate citation style
guides in order to avoid plagiarism.
Librarians at LASC utilize a wide array of approaches to teach information competency
concepts in support of the ISLO and the PLOs (IIC.1 LASC Information Competency
Report). The college offers two one-credit courses, Library Science 101, Library Research
Methods and Library Science 102, Internet Research Methods. The library revitalized its
credit library science program in spring 2013. Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) related to
information retrieval, evaluating results, and citing and documenting sources are assessed
through pre-tests and post-tests, in-class and homework assignments, quizzes, final projects,
and final examinations. Also, the librarians utilize a liaison model to ensure systematic and
effective outreach to discipline faculty on matters related to information competency
instruction (IIC.2 Librarian Liaison Program). Librarians teach information competency
50
skills in orientations that are customized either for specific assignments or course objectives.
In the 2012-2013 academic year, 32 orientations were offered. In fall 2013, librarians offered
35 orientations, a 118 percent increase over the previous two semesters. Pre-tests and posttests are utilized to gauge progress towards proficiency in the information competency
concepts (IIC.3 Library Pre-Test and Post-Test forms and Library Pre-Test and PostTest Results).
In fall 2013, librarians, in conjunction with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness,
conducted an Information Competency Assessment to collect baseline data for information
competency program planning.
At the reference desk, librarians work one-on-one with students to acquire and hone
information competency skills. During regular fall and spring semesters, the library is open:
(IIC.4 LASC Library Homepage)
Monday – Thursday: 7:45 am to 7:00 pm
Fridays: 7:45 am to 1:00 pm
Saturdays: 9:00 am to 12:00 pm (during critical weeks in the semester)
Summer hours vary
Self Evaluation
The LASC Library has successfully implemented a number of new outreach and instructional
approaches to promote information competency proficiency to students. The liaison model,
implemented in fall 2012 has greatly improved librarians’ opportunities to teach information
competency instruction orientations (IIC.5 Librarian Liaison Program). To illustrate, in
fall 2012 librarians conducted sixteen orientations, reaching 694 students; in spring 2013,
they taught sixteen orientations, reaching 607 students; in fall 2013, librarians taught 35
sessions and significantly increased their reach to 926 students, a 33 percent increase from
fall 2012. Cognizant of the importance of information competency skills to our students’
success, LASC librarians have promoted awareness of the information competency ISLO and
information issues at different levels and arenas on campus. These activities included
hosting Anti-Plagiarism and Library Information workshops during fall and spring Flex Day
activities last year and periodic presentations to discipline faculty at department and
Academic Senate meetings on library collection and instruction matters (IIC.6 Flex Day
Agenda, fall 2012 and spring 2013).
Collaboration with the English Department garnered the most significant increase in
information competency instruction productivity. Librarians taught fourteen orientations in
fall 2013 as compared to one orientation in fall 2012. Moreover, the Library and the English
Department will embark on a promising pilot to pair several English 101 and Library Science
101 courses so that students may learn information competency concepts within the
51
contextualized framework of an English course (IIC.7 LASC Information Competency
Report).
Pre-test and post-test results collected and analyzed in fall 2013 from information
competency instruction orientations and from the credit courses demonstrated that our
students comprehend the concepts presented. The benchmark goal has been 70 percent
proficiency. Among the orientation pre-test scores, the data showed that students in only two
sections reached or exceeded the benchmark goal of 70 percent. Conversely, in the post-test,
students in 15 classes scored 70 percent or higher, resulting in a 650 percent increase in
correct responses (IIC.8 LASC Information Competency Report).
Librarians also teach information competency skills during daily reference interactions with
students. In 2012-2013, they answered 4,411 references questions with 4,144 of those
answers involving one-on-one instruction in information competency (IIC.9 Library NonInstructional Program Review, 2012-2013)
Revitalization of the credit library science programs has shown promise. Over the course of
the last two semesters, only fifteen students were reached in the two library science courses
that were offered. It is anticipated that the pilot partnership with the English 101 and Library
Science 101 will not only increase the numbers but enhance the relationship with a
department on campus that is vital to reaching information competency goals (IIC.10
Library Instructional Program Review, 2012-2013).
List of Evidence for Standard II.C.1.b.
IIC.1 LASC Information Competency Report
IIC.2 Librarian Liaison Program
IIC.3 Library Pre-Test and Post-Test forms and Library Pre-Test and Post-Test Results
IIC.4 LASC Library Homepage
IIC.5 Librarian Liaison Program
IIC.6 Flex Day Agenda, fall 2012 and spring 2013
IIC.7 LASC Information Competency Report
IIC.8 LASC Information Competency Report
IIC.9 Library Non-Instructional Program Review, 2012-2013
IIC.10 Library Instructional Program Review, 2012-2013
52
Standard III: Resources
Standard IIIA:
Human Resources
53
Standard III.A.1.b
The institution assures the effectiveness of its human resources by evaluating all personnel
systematically and at stated intervals. The institution establishes written criteria for
evaluating all personnel, including performance of assigned duties and participation in
institutional responsibilities and other activities appropriate to their expertise. Evaluation
processes seek to assess effectiveness of personnel and encourage improvement. Actions
taken following evaluations are formal, timely, and documented.
Descriptive Summary
Southwest College evaluation processes are governed by the Los Angeles Community
College District Board of Trustees and spelled out in the six contracts negotiated with each
collective bargaining unit (AFT Faculty Guild 1521, AFT Staff Guild 1521-A, Los
Angles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, Los Angeles City and
County Schools Employees Union—Local 99, California Teamsters Public, Professional and
Medical Employees Union—Local 911, and Supervisory Employees’ Local 721 (IIIA.1
Link to Union Contracts).
Bargaining agreements and personnel rules delineate procedures for the evaluation of all
personnel and include consistent procedures for follow up if evaluations are unsatisfactory or
the employee needs improvement.
Academic Staff
Faculty Evaluations, described in the Los Angeles Community College/ Los Angeles AFT
1521 Faculty Guild agreement Articles 19 and 42 are based primarily on peer review. In a
basic evaluation, the department chair, vice chair, or designee reviews performance. In a
comprehensive evaluation, a committee comprised of the appropriate dean and faculty peers,
including the department chair, review the faculty member. An Academic Senate
representative is included for evaluations of all probationary faculty. A standardized
evaluation form, classroom visits, conferences with the faculty member, and student
evaluations must be used (IIIA.2 Appendix C Evaluation Forms).
Probationary faculty are evaluated each year for four years, or until tenure is granted or the
employee is not retained. Instructors are evaluated on effective teaching and performance of
duties (Article 42). Sections of the bargaining agreement establish responsibilities, such as
participation in professional development activities (Article 10), workload and related duties,
such as maintaining accurate records and holding office hours (Article 13), and services on
College committees (Article 32). Appendix Q delineates the required as well as expected
duties of full-time faculty. Academic deans report on the results of evaluations to the Vice
President of Academic Affairs for all probationary positions. An administrative evaluation
may be triggered at any time during the probationary period.
54
Tenured instructors are evaluated every three years, alternating between a basic and a
comprehensive evaluation. Adjunct faculty are evaluated with a basic evaluation before the
end of their second semester and at least once every six semesters after that. If a faculty
member’s overall performance on his or her basic evaluation is rated “needs to improve” or
“unsatisfactory,” the faculty member has the right to request a comprehensive evaluation.
Should he/she receive a less than satisfactory evaluation, formal, documented procedures are
used (Article 19). To ensure that faculty evaluations are completed systematically and in a
timely manner, the Office of Academic Affairs maintains a tracking system with every
faculty member’s evaluation date (IIIA. 3 Full-time and Adjunct Faculty Evaluation
Schedule and Completion Dates).
Classified Staff
Basic procedures for evaluation and follow-up for all categories of classified personnel are
described in Personnel Commission Regulation 702 (IIIA. 4 Personnel Commission
Regulation 702) and collective bargaining agreements (IIIA. 5 Classified Staff Contract).
All classified employees are required to have at least one performance review per year
conducted by their supervisors, using the evaluation form in the employees’s CBA (IIIA. 6
Evaluation Form Appendix B, pg. 110, Appendix C pg. 112). The District alerts the
employee’s supervisor electronically that the evaluation is due. New employees and those
recently promoted also receive evaluations during their probationary period. Additional
reviews may be done at any time at the supervisor’s discretion.
If an employee receives a less than satisfactory evaluation, the supervisor and the employee
jointly develop a performance improvement plan. It then becomes the responsibility of the
employee to follow the plan and for the supervisor to monitor progress. Specific procedures
for correction of less than satisfactory performance are listed on the evaluation form.
Academic Administrators
Deans, assistant deans, and associate deans are evaluated by procedures set forth in their
union contract which calls for an evaluation within 12 months of starting the assignment and
annually from the anniversary date of the assignment (IIIA.7 Administrators’ Contract
and Performance Evaluation Process for College Presidents).
Classified Supervisors
Classified supervisors are evaluated according to the provisions of their contract (IIIA.8
Classified Supervisors’ Contract).
Self Evaluation
The College meets the Standard. The process for evaluating all personnel (faculty, classified
staff and administrators) at stated intervals is in place and being followed.
55
List of Evidence for Standard III.A.1.b
IIIA. 1 Link to Union Contracts
IIIA.2 Appendix C Evaluation Forms
IIIA.3 Full-time and Adjunct Faculty Evaluation Schedule and Completion Dates
IIIA.4 Personnel Commission Regulation 702
IIIIA.5 Classified Staff Contract
IIIA.6 Evaluation form Appendix B, pg. 110, Appendix C pg. 112
IIIA.7 Administrators’ Contract and Performance Evaluation Process for College Presidents
IIIA.8 Classified Supervisors’ Contract
56
Standard IV: Leadership and Governance
Standard IVA:
Decision-Making Roles and Processes
57
Standard IV.A.3
Through established governance structures, processes, and practices, the governing board,
administrators, faculty, staff, and students work together for the good of the institution. These
processes facilitate discussion of ideas and effective communication among the institution's
constituencies.
Descriptive Summary
Governance structures and policies are clearly outlined in Board rules (IVA.1 Board Rule
18100) recognizes and affirms the Board’s obligation to consult collegially with the District
Academic Senate when adopting policies and procedures on academic and professional
matters and (IVA. 2 Board Rule 18200) provides students with an opportunity to participate
effectively in District and college governance.
At Southwest College, all members of constituency groups work together for the good of the
College. For example, constituent groups are represented on all shared governance
committees such as College Council, Strategic Planning, Budget, Technology and Facilities
(IVA. 3 Shared Governance Committee Membership Roster). The president writes
newsletters and has held an open house to allow employees and students an opportunity to
discuss issues and concerns (IVA. 4 President’s Campus Updates).
The Public Information Officer (PIO) sends out weekly bulletins titled, “This Week at
Southwest” which serves as an effective communication tool to notify the campus about
upcoming Town Halls, Budget Forums and campus information in general (IVA.5 This
Week at Southwest Bulletins). The PIO also keeps the campus informed by posting an
events calendar on the home page that gives the time, date, and place of all college
committees (IVA.6 Calendar of Events). The Office of Institutional Effectiveness also posts
the minutes and agendas of all shared governance committees online.
Self Evaluation
The College meets the standard. The College has taken numerous steps to work
collaboratively for the good of the institution. One way that the College demonstrates that the
result of this collaborative effort has resulted in actual institutional improvements is through
the careful monitoring of the College Strategic Plan that is aligned to the District’s Strategic
Plan. Four examples of institutional improvement from this year’s Annual Institutional
Effectiveness Report to the Board of Trustees illustrate the types of institutional
improvement being made at Southwest (IVA. 7 Board of Trustees Annual Institutional
Effectiveness Report).
First, LASC has more eligible students (85%) receiving Pell Grants and more new students
completing the English and Math assessment than the District average. Through Achieving
58
the Dream, LASC has greatly streamlined its matriculation process. The financial aid
department also holds regular workshops to encourage students to complete the FAFSA.
Second, LASC’s persistence measures are lower than the District average, but they are
increasing at a faster rate than the District. Fall-to-fall persistence is increasing three times
faster at LASC than the District average. It is expected that these measures will continue to
improve as SB 1456 is implemented.
Third, LASC’s transfer rates for African Americans who represent 56 percent of our student
population are improving over time (IVA.8 African American Transfers to CSU).
Currently the College is number two in the state for African American transfers to the
California State University system. The numbers of transfers for the past three years are as
follows:
2012-2013
78 African American transfers to CSUs
2011-2012
77 African American transfers to CSUs
2010-2011
64 African American transfers to CSUs
Finally, LASC is either above or on par with the District average for each of the following
measures: active learning/project learning, self-efficacy/self-directed learning, student
engagement, and the use of technology (IVA.9 2013 Districtwide Student Survey). To
further improve student engagement, LASC recently joined the Kresge Foundation’s Men of
Color Institute. This Institute provides strategies for improving engagement of males of
color, who have low levels of campus engagement (IVA. 10 LASC 2013 College Planning
and Effectiveness Report).
List of Evidence for Standard IV.A.3
IVA.1
Board Rule 18100
IVA.2
Board Rule 18200
IVA.3
Shared Governance Committee Membership Roster
IVA.4
President’s Campus Updates
IVA.5
This Week at Southwest Bulletins
IVA.6
Calendar of Events
IVA.7
Board of Trustees Annual Institutional Effectiveness Report
IVA.8
African American Transfers to CSU
59
IVA.9
2013 Districtwide Student Survey
IVA.10
LASC 2013 College Planning and Effectiveness Report
60
Los Angeles Mission College
February 18, 2014
Accreditation Executive Summary
Background
During the March 2013 Accreditation visit, LAMC was placed on “warning” and received 14
recommendations by the ACCJC. Immediately following the July 3rd Action Letter, the College’s
Accreditation Steering Committee (ASC), began to address the necessary actions to make improvements
and begin resolution on the recommendations. The ASC, composed of faculty, staff, administrators and
students, works to support the college and serve as a resource to College Council and the Academic
Senate to assist in reviewing, gathering and monitoring the College’s efforts to meet or exceed the set
standards.
The College regards the completion of the recommendations as vital to the continued advancement of
institutional effectiveness. As listed below, LAMC has established a more collegial environment with an
evidence-based culture that is working on the progress of all recommendations to assure that they are met
within a sustainable and systematic structure.
Recommendation
Status
Recommendation 1: To meet the Standards, the
team recommends the college develops and
institutes a formal process utilizing its established
governance and decision making processes for
reviewing its mission on a regular basis and making
revisions as necessary. (I.A.3)
Completed. An annual review of the mission
statement was initiated and completed in the Fall of
2013, utilizing a formal process of governance and
decision making. The annual review of the College
Mission Statement will take place during each fall
semester and be effective the following academic
year.
Recommendation 2: To meet the Standards, the
team recommends the college assess the
achievement and learning outcomes for each of the
past five years by programs and the college, set
standards for student success including student
achievement and student learning, accelerate its
efforts to assess outcomes in all courses, programs,
degrees and certificates and assess how findings
have led to improved student learning and the
achievement of the college mission, and widely
distribute the results so they may be used as the
basis for all constituent groups to engage in selfreflective dialog about the continuous improvement
of student learning and institutional processes.
(I.B, II.A, II.B, I.B.2, I.B.6, II.A.1.c, II.A.2)
Substantial Progress. The College has assessed the
achievement and learning outcomes for each of the
past five years and set standards of achievement
and student learning. It has accelerated its efforts
to assess outcomes through the program review
process, completed this fall, and will use these
results for a self-reflective dialog in the spring of
2014. The program review process was modified
to include information on how academic affairs
departments, student services programs and
administrative services units contribute to student
learning. The College is prepared to fully
implement a sustainable process by spring 2015.
1
Los Angeles Mission College
February 18, 2014
Accreditation Executive Summary
Recommendation 3: To meet the Standards, the
team recommends the college develop and
implement a comprehensive program of research
and evaluation to support the assessment of student,
program and institutional learning outcomes, and
program review; support ongoing engagement in a
collegial, self-reflective dialogue about the
continuous improvement of student learning and
institutional processes; and support collection and
analyses of data related to the needs and goals of its
diverse student populations. (I.A.1; I.B.1; I.B.2;
I.B.6; II.A.1.a; II.A.1.c; II.A.2; II.A.2.d; II.A.2.f)
Completed. The college has developed a
comprehensive program of research and evaluation
in concert with the assessment of student, program,
and institutional learning outcomes. Data
collection for the annual institutional effectiveness
report, AtD, SSSP, Faculty/Staff, Student Surveys
and other institutional research projects approved
by the Research Advisory Committee will be
coordinated to generate data for a collegial, selfreflective dialogue (spring 2014) about continuous
improvement. The data will be used to help
address the needs and goals of the College’s
diverse populations.
Recommendation 4: To meet the Standards, the
team recommends the college develop and
implement a plan for Distance Education that
includes an evaluation of Distance Education for
alignment with the needs of the college's intended
student population, an assessment of the quality of
instruction and compliance with US Department of
Education regulations, infrastructure to support
online teaching and learning, and a systematic
assessment of student learning and achievement
outcomes in order to ascertain how well students
are learning in distance education courses. Such a
plan should be integrated with other college
planning efforts and linked to the resource
allocation process (I.B.1, I.B.2, I.B.4, I.B.5, I.B.7,
II.A.1, II.A.2, II.A.3, II.A.6, II.A.7, II.A.8,
II.B.3.c).
Substantial Progress. The College has developed
and implemented a DE plan and has initiated the
evaluation of DE and its alignment with the needs
of its intended population and an assessment of
instruction in compliance with the U.S. Department
of Education. The systematic assessment of
student learning and achievement outcomes for DE
courses will be completed in the spring of 2014.
The DE plan is integrated with the other college
planning efforts and will be linked to the resource
allocation process. Implementation of the DE plan
to fully address this recommendation will be
complete by spring 2015.
Recommendation 5: To meet the Standards, the
team recommends the college adopt mechanisms
for assessing: student learning styles and needs, the
alignment of instructional delivery and pedagogical
approaches with student learning styles and needs,
and how instructional delivery and pedagogical
approaches are related to achievement of student
learning outcomes (II.A.2.d).
Substantial Progress. The college has adopted
mechanisms to assess student learning styles. A
survey to assist the College in defining “learning
styles” was administered in spring 2014. Second,
the College is in the process of establishing the
Eagle’s Nest, a dedicated space to conduct trainings
on instructional delivery and pedagogical
approaches and relate them to the achievement and
student learning outcomes. This recommendation
will be fully resolved by spring 2015.
2
Los Angeles Mission College
February 18, 2014
Accreditation Executive Summary
Recommendation 6: To meet the Standards, the
team recommends the college develop a set of
metrics and performance standards to better
monitor the effectiveness of its planning and
resource allocation decisions in achieving
improvements in student learning (I.A.1, II.A.1,
II.A.2.f).
Substantial Progress: The Budget and Planning
Committee developed a set of metrics and
performance standards to monitor the effectiveness
of its planning and resource allocation decisions to
achieve improvements in student learning. These
metrics and performance standards will be utilized
for the 14-15 resource allocation decisions in the
spring of 2014. The institution will annually
evaluate student performance/achievement data in
determining improvement, and resource allocation
decisions will be monitored through the Program
Review process and through an annual report called
the Mission Learning Report (MLR). The College
is well-underway to fully resolving this
recommendation by spring 2015.
Recommendation 7: To meet the Standards, the
team recommends the college undertake an overall
assessment of its student support service offerings
to determine the full scope of services it needs to
offer to meet the diverse needs of its students as
well as all federal and state requirements. The
assessment should also determine the level of
staffing needed to deliver an acceptable level of
services based on its budgeted student enrollment,
and develop the resources needed to employ the
staff required to deliver the planned services.
(II.B.1)
Substantial Progress. The College conducted
college wide faculty/staff and student surveys to
assess student support services and identify the full
scope of services to meet the diverse needs of its
students as well as federal and state requirements.
In addition a “point of service” survey was
conducted to be used along with focus groups of
staff and students. The results of these surveys and
focus groups will be used to develop an acceptable
level of staffing and budgets to garner the resources
next fiscal year and subsequent years.
Recommendation 8: To meet the Standards, the
team recommends the college develop and make
available to visiting teams a report of student
complaints/grievances that details the date of the
complaint/ grievance, the name of the individual
filing the complaint/grievance, the nature of the
complaint/grievance, the disposition of the
complaint/grievance, and the date of the
disposition. The report should cover a five year
period and be updated annually. (II.B; II.B.2.c;
II.B.3.a; II.B.4 ER 20)
Substantial Progress. A report of student
complaints/grievances that meets all the
requirements of the recommendations has been
completed. The report covered a five year period.
This report will be generated annually using an
automated system of data collection created by the
IT department to track the resolution of all student
complaints/grievances. A web-based form was
posted for use beginning in the spring 2014 term to
help track and monitor student
complaints/grievances. An instructional video
presentation was created to train faculty and staff
on the steps students should follow when
submitting complaints/grievances, and the 20142015 Catalog is being updated to include the
revised complaint/grievance process. This
recommendation will be fully resolved in spring
2014.
3
Los Angeles Mission College
February 18, 2014
Accreditation Executive Summary
Recommendation 9: To meet the Standards, the
team recommends the college ensure that all
student support programs, including counseling for
distance education students, are actively engaged in
the program review and outcomes assessment
process to determine how they contribute to the
institutional student learning outcomes. All of the
student services programs and services should
complete a full cycle of review and assessment
which includes gathering of data, analysis of data,
implementation of program changes for
improvement and the re-evaluation of implemented
improvements (II.B.3, II.B.3.c, and II.B.4).
Substantial Progress. Student support programs
completed their program reviews. An analysis of
the program reviews and how student support
services programs and units contribute to
institutional learning outcomes will be completed
in January. An annual analysis of program changes
and services for improvement and re-evaluation
will be implemented every spring semester
beginning with 2014.
Recommendation 10: To meet the Standards, the
team recommends the college assess how effective
the collegiality efforts have been in promoting a
productive collegial workplace, how it subscribes
to, advocates, and demonstrates integrity in the
treatment of all employees, and then implement
improvements based on the outcomes of the
assessments. It also should complete the code of
conduct approval process, and demonstrate that the
college is upholding its code of conduct. (III.A.1.d,
III.A.4.c)
Completed. The college assessed its collegiality
efforts through the campus wide faculty/staff
survey, specific intervention evaluations, and the
reaffirmation of its code of conduct by the
Academic Senate. The College collegiality efforts
rendered significant and positive results.
Recommendation 11: To meet the Standards, the
team recommends the college integrate human
resources planning into its institutional planning in
order to maintain a sufficient number of qualified
faculty, staff, and administrators to support the
college’s mission, purposes and programs. (III.A.2,
III.A.6)
Completed. A human resource plan was
completed and an assessment of the sufficient
number of qualified faculty, staff, and
administrators to support the college’s mission,
purposes and programs was conducted.
Recommendation 12: To meet the Standards, the
team recommends the college determine the cost of
maintaining and periodically replacing the
technology acquired through grant funding and
factor those costs into their established planning
and budgeting process. (III.C.1.c, III.C.2; III.D.1.d)
Completed. The College has implemented the longterm Technology Replacement Plan to ensure that
the cost of maintaining and replacing technology is
embedded in the planning and budget processes,
including technology received through grant
funding. The Plan was approved by the Technology
Committee on October 31, 2013 and College
Council on November 21, 2013. The technology
plan was discussed with the shared governance
technology committee and the IT department. The
replacement plan that will be factored into the
institution’s budgeting process will be submitted in
4
Los Angeles Mission College
February 18, 2014
Accreditation Executive Summary
the spring of 2014.
Recommendation 13: To meet the Standards, the
team recommends the college provide appropriate
training to staff on the proper documentation
procedures identified in the audit for: “To Be
Arranged” (TBA) courses, eligibility verification
for college categorical programs, and verification
of census reporting documents. The college also
must establish internal controls to ensure that audit
findings are resolved prior to the subsequent audit.
(III.D.2.a, III.D.2.d, III.D.2.e)
Completed. The TBA training was conducted last
October and internal controls to resolve and
prohibit future audit findings are in place. The
EOPS, DSPS, and CalWorks categorical programs
have developed systems to insure that student
eligibility requirements have been met.
Recommendation 14: To meet the Standards, the
team recommends the college undertake an
evaluation of its collegial governance and decisionmaking processes, as well as the overall
effectiveness of the current administrative
structure, and that it widely communicate the
results of these evaluations and uses them as the
basis for improvement. (IV.A.5, IV.B.2.a)
Substantial Progress. The faculty/staff and Student
Surveys provided the campus with an evaluation of
the collegial governance, decision making and
effectiveness of the current administrative
structure. Again positive gains in collegiality were
achieved. These results were disseminated college
wide in the spring of 2014. LAMC is committed to
filling replacement positions in the Office of
Academic Affairs. Using the results of the
assessment of the student service areas and
Program Review, the College will prioritize
administrative and classified hiring to meet the
identified needs through its planning processes
while recognizing and exercising fiscal
responsibility. This recommendation will be fully
resolved by spring 2015.
Conclusion:
It is important to note that continuous, sustainable systems are now in place to address these
recommendations annually. Thus, additional work in the spring and fall of 2014 will yield more
significant progress. In April, the visiting team will receive an update of the continued progress and action
plans in place to complete the remainder of the recommendations, with an additional supplementary
report to the Commission on May 15 to reveal even more progress. Although the College cannot speak
for the Commission, LAMC expects that the Commission will be pleased with the significant work and
the advancements made and anticipate we will be removed from Warning status.
5
Los Angeles Mission College
ACCREDITATION
Follow-Up Report
February 18, 2014
Los Angeles Mission College
ORGANIZATION OF THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT PROCESS
Notification of Los Angeles Mission College warning status with the ACCJC was communicated
to the campus on July 9, 2013. As instructed in the Commission letter dated July 3, 2013, the
Institutional Self-Evaluation Report, the External Evaluation Report, and Commission action
letter was made available to signatories, the LACCD Board of Trustees, the district Chancellor,
College staff and local community members through the college website.
Los Angeles Mission College began its preparation on this Follow-Up Report immediately
following receipt of the Commission action letter and in response to the fourteen
recommendations.
The Vice President of Academic Affairs, who serves as Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO) is
designated as the coordinator for this Follow-Up Report, along with the Accreditation Steering
Committee (ASC) Co-Chairs, Daniel Villanueva and Faculty Co-Chair Madelline Hernandez.
Through the summer and fall of 2013 the ASC met monthly to discuss and review the progress
of each recommendation.
Beginning in July of 2013, the Accreditation Steering Committee assigned responsibility of each
recommendation to the division Vice Presidents to establish writing teams with representation
from faculty, staff, and administration. The writing teams met during the summer, fall and winter
terms to establish action plans, oversee the progress of the recommendations and organize the
initial writing of the draft report.
The administrators, ASC Co-Chairs, ALO and writing teams collaborated to ensure that the
action plans were monitored, updated and adhered to, processes updated as necessary, and data
and evidence collected. Progress of the action plans and drafts reports were presented and
reviewed by the ASC at their monthly meetings. As writing drafts were reviewed and updated,
they were made available on the campus share drive. In addition, evidence supporting each
recommendation was gathered and posted on the Web site.
The Los Angeles Community College District Vice Chancellor of Institutional Effectiveness
coordinated a meeting on January 8, 2014 to provide support with the follow-up report process.
To keep the campus community informed about the status of the Follow-Up Report process, the
Accreditation Steering Committee made monthly reports to the Educational Planning
Committee, Academic Senate and College Council. The College presented its Report to the
Institutional Effectiveness Committee on February 26, 2014, for review. On February 27, and
March 6, 2014, the College Council and Academic Senate approved the final follow-up report.
The Board of Trustees approved the Follow-Up Report on March 12, 2014.
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
College Recommendation 1
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college develops and institutes a formal
process utilizing its established governance and decision making processes for reviewing its
mission on a regular basis and making revisions as necessary. (I.A.3)
I.A.3. Using the institution's governance and decision-making processes, the institution reviews
its mission statement on a regular basis and revises it as necessary.
Progress in Addressing the Recommendation
Los Angeles Mission College (LAMC) recognizes the central importance of having a living
mission statement that drives strategic planning and enhances institutional effectiveness. The
mission statement also serves to unify faculty, staff and students in achieving institutional goals
and promoting student learning. The College has now developed and instituted a formal process,
utilizing its shared governance and decision-making processes, to review its mission statement
annually and make revisions as necessary.
In previous years, the College’s mission statement was reviewed as part of the annual College
Council Retreat (1.1). Since the accreditation visit in March 2013, the College has instituted a
formal process to ensure that the mission statement is reviewed by the appropriate shared
governance groups. The Process for Review of the Mission Statement was developed by College
Council at the annual College Council Retreat, which took place on August 20, 2013 and was
continued on September 6, 2013 (1.2). During the Fall 2013 term, the shared-governance Budget
and Planning, Educational Planning, and Student Support Services Committees, as well as
Academic Senate, AFT Faculty Guild, and AFT Staff Guild, reviewed the College Council’s
recommendation, and approved the Process (1.3, 1.4). At its December 19, 2013 meeting, the
College Council made its final recommendation, which the President approved (1.5, 1.6). The
new Process for Review of the Mission Statement was initiated immediately (1.7).
During the fall 2013 term, in conjunction with review of the Process, the College conducted a
review of the current mission statement (1.8). The shared-governance Budget and Planning,
Educational Planning, and Student Support Services Committees reviewed the mission statement
and made recommendations to College Council to retain or update the current statement and
changes were recommended only by the Student Support Services Committee (1.9). At the
December 2013 meeting, College Council reviewed the feedback from all groups and
recommended that the current mission statement be retained (1.10). The President approved this
action, thereby completing the cycle of mission review (1.11)
The College Council evaluated the Process for Review of the Mission Statement at its winter
retreat (1.12). The committee deemed the process somewhat cumbersome and confusing and
modified it to streamline the review, approval and vetting. The committee also revised the
timeline so that review of the mission statement will take place during the spring term to allow
for any changes to be approved in time to ensure the statement continues to drive strategic
1
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
planning, is included in the next year’s catalog, and is disseminated campus-wide. The revised
process is as follows (1.13):
1. The divisional shared-governance committees (Budget and Planning Committee,
Education Planning Committee, Student Support Services Committee), and ASO review
the mission statement and make suggestions for any changes.
2. The results of their reviews and suggested changes are forwarded to College Council.
3. College Council receives and considers all comments and suggestions and formulates a
final recommendation for any changes to the mission statement.
4. College Council forwards the final recommended mission statement to the divisional
shared governance committees, ASO, Academic Senate, AFT Faculty Guild and AFT
Staff Guild for vetting.
5. College Council receives any final comments.
6. College Council receives and considers all comments and suggestions and formulates a
final recommendation for approval of any changes to the mission statement to forward to
the President.
7. The President considers the College Council’s recommendation and takes action to
approve the recommended changes to the mission statement or to retain the existing
mission statement.
8. A Town Hall is scheduled to publicize campus-wide the action on the mission statement.
9. College Council re-evaluates the process for review of the mission statement and makes
any necessary changes for improvement.
The President approved this action, thereby completing the evaluation of the Process (1.14).
Conclusion
The College has fully resolved this recommendation.
The College has developed a formal, systematic, sustainable process utilizing its established
shared governance and decision-making processes for annual review of the mission statement
(I.A.3). This new process was initiated and institutionalized in the fall of 2013 and will be
evaluated annually during the College Council winter retreat.
List of Evidence
1.1
1.2
1.3
College Council Retreat Agenda and Minutes
8/26/2009 – Agenda, Minutes
8/27/2010 – Agenda, Minutes
10/12/2012 – Agenda, Minutes
College Council Retreat
8/20/2013 – Agenda, Minutes
9/6/2013 – Agenda, Minutes
Shared Governance Committees Agendas and Minutes
Budget and Planning Committee
Educational Planning Committee
2
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
Student Support Services Committee
Academic Senate and Unions Agenda and Minutes
Academic Senate
AFT Faculty Guild
AFT Staff Guild
College Council Agenda and Minutes - 12/19/2013
College President Approval of the Process for Review of the Mission Statement
Process for Review of the Mission Statement
LAMC Mission Statement
Refer to 1.3
Refer to 1.5
College President Approval of the Mission Statement
College Council Retreat Agenda and Minutes - 2/4/2014
REVISED Process for Review of the Mission Statement
College President Approval of the REVISED Process for Review of the Mission
Statement
3
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
College Recommendation 2
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college assess the achievement and learning
outcomes for each of the past five years by programs and the college, set standards for student
success including student achievement and student learning, accelerate its efforts to assess
outcomes in all courses, programs, degrees and certificates and assess how findings have led to
improved student learning and the achievement of the college mission, and widely distribute the
results so they may be used as the basis for all constituent groups to engage in self-reflective
dialog about the continuous improvement of student learning and institutional processes. (I.B,
II.A, II.B, I.B.2, I.B.6, II.A.1.c, II.A.2, ER 10)
I.B. Improving Institutional Effectiveness: The institution demonstrates a conscious effort to
produce and support student learning, measures that learning, assesses how well learning is
occurring, and makes changes to improve student learning. The institution also organizes its key
processes and allocates its resources to effectively support student learning. The institution
demonstrates its effectiveness by providing 1) evidence of the achievement of student learning
outcomes and 2) evidence of institution and Parsed Los Angeles Mission College Team
Recommendations, with Cited Standards and Eligibility Criteria, March 2013 2 program
performance. The institution uses ongoing and systematic evaluation and planning to refine its
key processes and improve student learning.
I.B.2. The institution sets goals to improve its effectiveness consistent with its stated purposes.
The institution articulates its goals and states the objectives derived from them in measurable
terms so that the degree to which they are achieved can be determined and widely discussed. The
institutional members understand these goals and work collaboratively toward their
achievement.
I.B.6. The institution assures the effectiveness of its ongoing planning and resource allocation
processes by systematically reviewing and modifying, as appropriate, all parts of the cycle,
including institutional and other research efforts.
II.A. Instructional Programs: The institution offers high-quality instructional programs in
recognized and emerging fields of study that culminate in identified student outcomes leading to
degrees, certificates, employment, or transfer to other higher education institutions or programs
consistent with its mission. Instructional programs are systematically assessed in order to assure
currency, improve teaching and learning strategies, and achieve stated student learning
outcomes. The provisions of this standard are broadly applicable to all instructional activities
offered in the name of the institution.
II.A.1.c. The institution identifies student learning outcomes for courses, programs, certificates,
and degrees; assesses student achievement of those outcomes; and uses assessment results to
make improvements.
II.A.2. The institution assures the quality and improvement of all instructional courses and
programs offered in the name of the institution, including collegiate, developmental, and precollegiate courses and programs, continuing and community education, study abroad, short-term
training courses and programs, programs for international students, and contract or other
special programs, regardless of type of credit awarded, delivery mode, or location.
II. B. Student Support Services: The institution recruits and admits diverse students who are able
to benefit from its programs, consistent with its mission. Student support services address the
identified needs of students and enhance a supportive learning environment. The entire student
4
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
pathway through the institutional experience is characterized by a concern for student access,
progress, learning, and success. The institution systematically assesses student support services
using student learning outcomes, faculty and staff input, and other appropriate measures in
order to improve the effectiveness of these services.
ER10. Student Learning and Achievement: The institution defines and publishes for each
program the program's expected student learning and achievement outcomes. Through regular
and systematic assessment, it demonstrates that students who complete programs, no matter
where or how they are offered, achieve these outcomes.
Progress in Addressing the Recommendation
Student Achievement Outcomes Assessment and Standards
LAMC has engaged in ongoing and thorough dialogue regarding student achievement outcomes,
data and expectations. In accordance with ACCJC requirements and US Department of
Education regulations, the College has set standards for student achievement as required in the
following areas: (1) successful course completion rate, (2) fall-to-fall retention rate, (3) number
or percentage of degree completions, (4) number or percentage of certificate completions, and
(5) number or percentage of transfers. LAMC has also decided to set a standard for course
retention, because it is an achievement measure that is typically considered along with course
success at the institution.
The College has assessed these student achievement outcomes at the program and college level
for each of the past five years. Discussion on the development of institution-set standards for
these student achievement measures was initiated in the July 15, 2013 meeting of the Research
and Evaluation Theme Team (2.1. ASC Research and Evaluation Theme Team Minutes – July
15, 2013). The Team had been established by the Accreditation Steering Committee (ASC) in its
meeting on May 22, 2013 to address the College’s needs for sustainable research and evaluation
systems that support an evidence-based collegial culture (2.2. ASC Minutes – May 22, 2013,
page 4). Team members decided that the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness would compile and
analyze the data for the College’s performance on the six student achievement outcomes for each
of the past five years for the College as a whole, and also by program (discipline) where
applicable. To ensure sufficient input and discussion from appropriate campus constituencies,
these data would then be evaluated and discussed by the Council of Instruction (COI) and, based
on its analysis, COI would propose performance standards to the Educational Planning
Committee (EPC). EPC would then have the opportunity to discuss the standards further and to
refine them. It was also decided that the standards recommended by EPC would then be
presented to the Academic Senate and College Council for approval.
The process as outlined was followed in the fall 2013 semester. COI members were provided
with the specified data (2.3. Institution-Set Standards Data Summary), and evaluated the data at
their meeting on November 6, 2013 (2.4. COI Minutes – November 6, 2013). As a basis for the
standards, the COI considered and discussed five-year trends, five-year minimum, five-year
average, 95 percent of the five-year average, the program-level data, and the Los Angeles
Community College District (LACCD) overall performance (where available) for each measure.
The Dean of Institutional Effectiveness led the COI members in a discussion to determine what a
reasonable and acceptable standard would be for each outcome at the college level. Members
5
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
learned that ACCJC defines a standard as the level of performance set by the institution to meet
educational quality and institutional effectiveness expectations, and thus that each standard
serves as a point at which the college evaluates whether it is meeting the expected level of
achievement. COI agreed upon proposed institution-set standards at this November 6, 2013
meeting. As part of the discussion, the College’s current and prior levels of performance were
evaluated in relation to the proposed standards. Members noted that the College was currently
exceeding the standards in all cases and was therefore meeting educational quality and
institutional effectiveness expectations for these student achievement outcomes.
The proposed standards were next forwarded to EPC (2.5. Institution-Set Standards for EPC
Review). They were discussed and reviewed starting in the November 18, 2013 EPC meeting
(2.6. EPC Minutes – November 18, 2013), and continuing in the meeting on December 2, 2013.
At that meeting, EPC recommended that the proposed standards be forwarded without any
changes to the Academic Senate for approval (2.7. EPC Minutes – December 2, 2013). The
Dean of Institutional Effectiveness presented the proposed standards to the Academic Senate at
their December 5, 2013 meeting (2.8. Institution-Set Standards for AS Review), and the
Academic Senate approved them at that meeting (2.9. AS Minutes – December 5, 2013). The
institution-set standards received final approval from the College Council on December 19, 2013
and from the President (2.10a. Institution-Set Standards for College Council Approval; 2.10b.
College Council Minutes – December 19, 2013; 2.10c. President’s Approval of College Council
Action Item for Institution-Set Standards).
The following is a summary of the past five years of data at the college level for each of the six
student achievement outcomes, along with the approved institution-set standards:
1. Institution-set standard for successful course completion rate:
Successful course completion rate equals the number of students who receive a successful grade
(A, B, C, or P) over the number of students who were enrolled in the course at census.
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
62.9%
66.2%
67.5%
69.2%
69.2%
Approved
Standard
64.0%
2. Institution-set standard for course retention rate (the extra achievement outcome included by
LAMC):
Course retention rate equals the number of students who remain in the course after the nopenalty drop date (i.e., did not drop the course) over the number of students who were enrolled in
the course at census.
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
84.3%
88.3%
87.2%
88.0%
87.6%
Approved
Standard
85.0%
3. Institution-set standard for persistence rate:
Persistence rate equals the number of students who completed a course in the fall and enrolled in
a course the following fall.
Fall 2007-
Fall 2008-
Fall 2009-
Fall 2010-
6
Fall 2011-
Approved
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
Fall 2008
48.4%
Fall 2009
48.5%
Fall 2010
48.9%
Fall 2011
48.6%
Fall 2012
52.6%
Standard
48.0%
4. Institution-set standard for number of student degree completions:
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
405
387
426
472
657
Approved
Standard
450
5. Institution-set standard for number of student certificate completions:
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
169
151
153
239
356
Approved
Standard
214
6. Institution-set standard for number of student transfers to 4-year colleges/universities:
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
271
279
194
253
310
Approved
Standard
205
To determine areas of effective performance and areas in which improvement is needed going
forward, the College has developed mechanisms to evaluate itself against these standards of
satisfactory performance at the program and institutional levels, through the existing planning
and program review self-evaluation processes.
At the program level, starting with the annual Program Review cycle in spring 2014, disciplines
will be asked to evaluate their performance in relation to the institution-set standards for
successful course completion rate and course retention rate. In terms of incorporation of the
institution-set standards for certificate and degree completions in Program Review, the Program
Review Oversight Committee (PROC; the PROC is discussed in more detail in the response to
Recommendation 6) has initiated discussion of the application of these standards at the program
level, and it will issue a recommendation to EPC by spring 2014 for implementation in spring
2015 (2.AA. PROC Minutes – January 23, 2014, section 4; 2.BB. Program Review Enhancement
List – February 2014). In the meantime, for spring 2014 program reviews, disciplines will be
provided with data to evaluate the percentage of total college certificates and degrees that are
awarded by the discipline each year, in addition to the data they have already been evaluating in
their annual program reviews regarding the number of certificates and degrees awarded by the
discipline each year. Disciplines will be asked to discuss their performance on these measures
(and in relation to the standards for successful course completion rate and course retention rate),
and in areas that they identify as needing improvement, they will be asked to develop and
implement strategies and/or interventions that will result in improvements in the applicable
achievement outcomes. Then, in the following year’s program review, they will be asked to
assess the effectiveness of those strategies and interventions, in part by analyzing the discipline’s
most recent performance on the student achievement outcomes compared to the prior year’s
performance and to the standards.
7
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
At the institutional level, the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness, with the assistance of an
external consultant, has drafted a process for annually evaluating the College’s performance on
the student achievement outcomes relative to the institution-set standards, and for regularly
revisiting the standards and revising them as appropriate. The Research Advisory Task Force
(formerly called the Research and Evaluation Theme Team – see Recommendation 3 for a
discussion of this change) is scheduled to review, revise as needed, and recommend approval of
this process at its meeting of February 25, 2014 (2.11. Draft Process for Evaluation and
Improvement of the Institution-Set Standards for Student Achievement).
Student Achievement Standards and Strategic Planning
In addition, the six student achievement outcomes have been incorporated as performance
measures in the College’s 2013-2018 Strategic Master Plan (2.X. 2013-2018 LAMC Strategic
Master Plan), which was approved by the College Council on February 4, 2014 (2.X.X. College
Council Minutes – February 4, 2014), and performance on these measures will be reviewed
annually as part of the College Council’s annual review of the Strategic Master Plan. The
College’s performance in relation to the standards will also be discussed in the annual Mission
Learning Report (see Mission Learning Report section below).
In fall 2013, the College recognized the need to refine its strategic goals in order to assess its
quality and effectiveness better, to gauge improvements in student achievement and learning, and
to evaluate achievement of the College’s mission. Thus, two priorities of the College Council’s
two-part annual planning retreat on August 20 and September 6, 2013 were to revise the LAMC
Strategic Plan goals (1) to emphasize student success explicitly (echoing the first sentence of the
College’s mission statement), and (2) to make them measurable.
As a basis for discussions at the retreat, the LACCD’s Interim Vice Chancellor of Educational
Programs and Institutional Effectiveness presented the Los Angeles Community College District
Strategic Plan for 2012-2017 on August 20, 2013 (2.12a. College Council Retreat Summary –
August 20, 2013, page 2 and Attachment A; 2.12b. College Council Retreat Minutes – August 20,
2013, page 3; 2.12c. 2012-2017 District Strategic Plan Presentation; 2.12d. 2012-2017 District
Strategic Plan Handout).
The District Strategic Plan (DSP) contains measurable
goals/objectives that were established by the District Strategic Planning Committee in 2011-2012
and approved by the LACCD Board of Trustees in February 2013. LAMC’s Dean of
Institutional Effectiveness followed the DSP presentation with a report on the alignment of
LAMC’s 2012-2013 (i.e., prior year) Strategic Plan goals with the DSP goals. This report also
included presentation and discussion of LAMC’s performance on each of the DSP student
success measures for which data were available (2.12a. College Council Retreat Summary –
August 20, 2013, page 3 and Attachment A; 2.12b. College Council Retreat Minutes – August 20,
2013, page 3; 2.13. LAMC College Council Retreat Presentation). The data spanned the last
three years (where available), so that the Council could analyze trends as well as the College’s
current standing on each measure in relation to past performance. The measures included the
following:
• Percentage of eligible students receiving financial aid
• Percentage of new students completing assessment in English and math
8
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
•
•
•
•
•
•
Percentage of new students successfully completing at least one English class and one
math class in their first year
Persistence (fall-to-spring and fall-to-fall)
Self-report measures of active learning/project learning, student engagement in and out of
class, self-efficacy/self-directed learning, and whether/how technology is being used to
improve student learning and engagement
Percentage of new student cohort completing 30 and 60 units within three and six years
Percentage of new student cohort completing English 101 and Math 125 (or above)
within three and six years (these are the levels of English and math required for
graduation)
Completion rate (certificate, degree, and/or transfer) within three and six years
After reviewing and discussing the data, College Council members split into groups representing
each of the shared governance committees to work on revising LAMC’s strategic goals to
improve alignment with their own committees’ planning objectives and with the DSP goals, and
to incorporate student success into the goal language where appropriate (2.12a. College Council
Retreat Summary – August 20, 2013, page 3; 2.12b. College Council Retreat Minutes – August
20, 2013, page 4). The results of this committee work were compiled by the college President
and Dean of Institutional Effectiveness and discussed at the second part of the retreat on
September 6, 2013 (2.14. College Council Retreat Summary – September 6, 2013, pages 2-3).
The result was a revised set of College strategic goals, focused on student success, that align with
the 2012-2017 DSP and the other College plans (2.15. LAMC Revised Goals Alignment with DSP
Goals).
The
revised
LAMC
Strategic
Plan
goals
are
as
follows:
Goal 1: Expand access to educational programs and services and prepare students for success.
Goal 2: Strengthen institutional effectiveness through a culture of evidence-based decision
making, planning, and resource allocation, process assessment, and activities that promote
professional development and collegiality.
Goal 3: Improve quality of educational programs and services so as to increase students’ success
in attaining their educational goals.
Goal 4: Maintain fiscal stability through effective planning and evaluation, and encourage a
greater focus on revenue enhancement.
Goal 5: Sustain user-friendly and innovative technology to meet the needs of students, faculty,
and staff.
Goal 6: Increase community engagement and expand business, community, and civic
partnerships.
The College’s annual planning and effectiveness report to the LACCD Board of Trustees this
year included a presentation by the College President, Vice President of Academic Affairs, and
Dean of Institutional Effectiveness to the LACCD Board of Trustees Institutional Effectiveness
and Student Success Committee on the alignment of these new goals with the DSP goals (2.17a.
9
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
LACCD BOT – IESSC Agenda – November 20, 2013; 2.17b. LAMC Institutional Effectiveness
Report to the Board of Trustees). The presentation also included discussion of the College’s
performance on each DSP student success measure compared to overall LACCD performance,
the College’s plans for improvement on each measure, and the expected level and timeframe of
that improvement. It was based in part on feedback from College Council members and on the
discussions at the retreat. In future presentations, the College will report on the success of its
improvement plans as measured by increases in the College’s performance on the DSP measures
and by attainment of the improvement goals the College has established for itself on these
measures.
Following the September 6, 2013 College Council retreat, each of the shared governance
committees was tasked with developing measureable objectives and associated performance
measures for the strategic goals pertaining to each committee’s focus (2.14. College Council
Retreat Summary – September 6, 2013, page 3; 2.16. E-mail – Objectives and Performance
Measures for Revised LAMC Strategic Plan Goals). The committees decided to incorporate the
DSP metrics where appropriate, particularly in the area of student success, both because they are
sound and because the College is accountable for them in the DSP and the College’s annual
planning and effectiveness report to the LACCD Board of Trustees.
The recommended objectives and performance measures for LAMC’s Strategic Master Plan
emanating from each of the shared governance committees were synthesized in a final set of
objectives and measures by the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness (2.Y. LAMC Strategic Master
Plan – Draft February 4, 2014). This set was discussed, revised, and finalized at the February 4,
2014 College Council planning retreat (2.X.X. College Council Minutes – February 4, 2014;
2.YY. 2013-2018 LAMC Strategic Master Plan). This step completed the creation of the 20132018 LAMC Strategic Master Plan.
Each year the data pertaining to the established performance measures will be reviewed at the
fall College Council retreat, with the expectation that improvements will be seen from year to
year. For the student success measures that are incorporated from the DSP, the performance
benchmarks will be the most recent year of data that was presented at the fall 2013 College
Council retreat. The student success measures from the Strategic Master Plan will also be
included in the Mission Learning Report (see Mission Learning Report section below).
Three of the College’s six strategic goals are directly derived from the College’s mission
statement (2.Z. LAMC College Mission Statement). Goals 1 and 3 explicitly address student
success, as in the first sentence of the mission statement. In addition, Goal 1 relates to the part of
the mission statement that maintains that the College provides accessible and affordable learning
opportunities, and Goal 3 additionally addresses the parts of the mission statement that state that
these learning opportunities are of high quality and that the College ensures that students will be
successful in attaining their educational goals. Furthermore, Goal 6 contributes to the last part of
the mission statement regarding the College’s improvement of the communities it serves.
Because of this alignment, using data to measure progress on the objectives under goals 1, 3, and
6 will allow the College to draw conclusions about the degree to which it is achieving its
mission. Furthermore, annual discussions of this data at the retreat and in the respective shared
10
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
governance committees represent systematic opportunities for further deep dialogue about
student learning and achievement, and ways to continually improve these outcomes.
Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes
LAMC received ACCJC’s evaluation of its March 2013 College Status Report on SLO
Implementation in November of 2013 (2.18a. LAMC’s College Status Report and 2.18b. ACCJC
Feedback on College Status Report on SLO Implementation). The average overall score across
all colleges that submitted reports was 3.44. LAMC’s report exceeded that level with an average
score of 4.08. (2.19 ACCJC Report on College Implementation, p. 8). The evidence in support of
LAMC’s report, which was based on the 2007 to 2012 SLO/SAO assessment data, was
submitted along with the report and also is available to the public on the appropriate LAMC
websites (e.g., http://www.lamission.edu/slo/reports.aspx).
LAMC has accumulated assessment data for the last seven years since 2007. From 2007 to 2012
the record of which courses had had SLOs defined, methods of assessment defined, the number
of courses assessed, and which courses had improvements as a result was kept by the SLO
Coordinator on Excel spreadsheets organized by department and discipline. Every six months a
summary of the results was presented to the Academic Senate, Educational Planning Committee,
Council of Instruction, and College Council. The following chart summarizes this information
for the years 2007-2012:
Comparison of SLO Progress – May 2007 to March 2012
Defined SLOs
Defined Assessments
Evaluation of Assessments
Changes Implemented
May-07
Jan-08
Jan-09
Jan-10
Mar-11
Mar-12
25%
22%
0.20%
0.20%
51%
50%
15%
9%
71%
66%
36%
29%
89%
89%
45%
40%
92%
90%
63%
47%
99%
98%
78%
59%
The Excel spreadsheets for May 2007 to March 2012 on which this data is based are posted on
the SLO website at http://www.lamission.edu/slo/reports.aspx. Each department has a separate
spreadsheet which is organized by discipline. Also included are the summaries and charts
depicting the progress. In addition, department chairs’ Semester Summary SLO/PLO
Assessment reports have been submitted for the past four semesters (2011-2013) and are posted
on the SLO website. These reports verify the accelerated progress that LAMC has made in
assessing its course and program outcomes.
After two years of development, in fall of 2010 LAMC transitioned to an online SLO system;
however, until March of 2012 the SLO Coordinator continued to maintain Excel spreadsheets to
help chart the school’s progress on assessment of course SLOs. Though department chairs
retained the supporting assessments, much of this information was never recorded on the online
system either because of time issues, lost documents and files, etc. One of the reasons the online
system was developed was for faculty and chairs to have an easily accessible repository for their
assessment work and to make it easier for department members to discuss results and
improvements. However, it took faculty and chairs several semesters before they became
11
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
comfortable with the new system. Another advantage of having the information reported online
is that the Web Developer can now generate reports for the college. For example, he is currently
doing a report which will indicate
1.
2.
3.
4.
The total number of courses
The number of courses that have had at least one SLO/PLO assessed
The total number of SLOs/PLOs
The number of SLOs/PLOs that have been assessed
On February 18, 2014, the Web Developer reported the following assessment numbers:
Fall 2010 to Spring 2011: 193 SLOs assessed
Fall 2011 to Spring 2012: 293 SLOs assessed
Fall 2012 to Spring 2013: 271 SLOs assessed
Fall 2013: 186 SLOs assessed
In addition, an Excel spreadsheet was prepared from the information reported in the Fall 2013
Program Review. This spreadsheet lists the course SLOs, assessment method, assessment
analysis, assessment results, modifications made, and resource requests made based on
assessment. It is posted on the SLO website.
In addition, a formal schedule of assessments has been developed, the curriculum approval
process for SLOs and methods of assessment has been enhanced, outcome assessment in
program review has been integrated, and dialogue and dissemination about outcomes assessment
results has become more systematic.
Benchmarks for Learning Outcome Achievement and Follow-up
Benchmarks (LAMC’s institution-set standards for student learning success) for all course and program
updates and new courses and programs have been added to the SLO section of the Course Outline of
Record (COR) in the Electronic Curriculum Development (ECD) system. In addition, benchmarks for
every learning outcome on all levels have now been added to the SLO online system. After discussion of
this topic, the Learning Outcomes and Assessment Committee (LOAC; see below) decided that it was
reasonable to set the standard for performance on course SLOs initially at 70 percent (2.20. LOAC
Minutes [date xxx]). LOAC also decided that the 70 percent benchmark was appropriate for achievement
of Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) and Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs). The process for
updating SLOs has been discussed at LOAC meetings (2.20a. LOAC Minutes [date xxx]) and in the
Curriculum Committee. As a result, an addendum will be added to the Course Outline of Record which
will enable chairs to update the SLOs and benchmarks as necessary and submit the addendum to the
Curriculum Committee for approval (2.20b. Curriculum Committee Minutes 2-18-14) This will ensure
that all CORs have SLOs consistent with the course syllabi.
Another improvement made to the SLO online system has been the addition of follow-up information on
previous assessments. The system provides a summary of the previously submitted planned
modifications and improvements for ease of reference, and textboxes for entry of information about (1)
implementation of those previous modifications/improvements and (2) whether the improvements have
led to improved student learning. (See the SLOs and Program Review section below for use of this
information in program review.)
Outcome Assessment Cycle and Master Plan for Assessment
12
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
LAMC learning outcomes are required to be assessed at least once every three years; however, a
continuous cycle of assessment is expected. To clarify the assessment schedule, a Three-Year
Assessment Plan for Course SLOs (CSLOs) was e-mailed to the department chairs in fall 2013. (See
chart below.) Following this planned cycle of assessment, if a course has more than three SLOs, more
than one SLO at a time enters the cycle, so that all SLOs are assessed, changes and improvements are
discussed and implemented, and all SLOs are reassessed within a three-year time frame; then the cycle
begins again.
Also in fall 2013, a Master Schedule for SLO Assessments (2.21. Master Schedule for SLO Assessments)
specifying the semester in which each assessment for every course SLO commences for the next six years
(two three-year cycles) was created and e-mailed to all chairs and applicable administrators. This Master
Schedule includes over 1,200 courses. This information assisted the chairs and faculty in preparing their
program reviews, which required them to confirm a semester and year for the next assessment for all
course outcomes. SLOs not yet assessed are scheduled to be assessed in spring 2014 if the course is
offered. As assessments are completed, the Master Schedule of Assessment is updated. Service Area
Outcomes, PLOs, and ILOs are scheduled to be added to the Master Schedule by the end of the Spring
2014 semester.
CSLO
#1
CSLO
#2
CSLO
#3
3-YEAR ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR COURSE SLOs (CSLOs)
Fall
Spring 2014
Fall 2014
Spring 2015 Fall 2015
2013
Assess,
Implement
Reassess to Discussion
report
recommended determine
of further
findings, changes and
effect on
modification
and
improvements student
s as a result
discuss
achievement of
of SLOs
assessments
Assess, report Implement
Reassess to
Discussion
findings, and
recommend determine
of further
discuss
ed changes
effect on
modification
and
student
s as a result
improvemen achievement of
ts
of SLOs
assessments
Assess,
Implement
Reassess to
report
recommende determine
findings,
d changes
effect on
and discuss and
student
improvement achievement
s
of SLOs
Spring
2016
Discussion
of further
modifications as a
result of
assessments
The SLO Approval Process
Initial approval of SLOs in a course due for formal review is done by the SLO Coordinator before a
Course Outline of Record (COR) is vetted through the Technical Review Committee. After Technical
Review, the COR is returned to the originator for any necessary modifications. Once these changes are
made, the Chair of the Curriculum Committee places the COR on the Curriculum Agenda for further
discussion by the full Curriculum Committee, which usually meets twice a month during the regular
academic year. If a number of changes still need to be made (more than what can be completed during
13
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
the Curriculum Committee meeting), the COR is tabled until all issues are addressed and the COR,
including the SLOs, is resubmitted for review. When the list of CORs is approved by the Curriculum
Committee, it is submitted to the Academic Senate for approval, after which it is forwarded to the
President for final approval before being sent to the District Offices.
SLOs and Program Review
Several additions were made to this year’s annual Program Review online format to improve the
integration of Student Learning Outcomes assessments in the academic and student services areas. In the
SLO and Assessment Update section, all SLOs are listed by discipline in a tabular format with the
number of assessments for each. At the foot of this table are the count and proportion of courses with all
SLOs assessed (Ex: 14/23 or 61%) and of courses with at least one SLO assessed (Ex: 19/23 or 83%);
these figures, which are updated annually, make it easier to compare the progress of assessments across
programs. Chairs also are asked to confirm the semester and year of the next scheduled assessment.
Links to the Master Schedule of Assessments and the 3-Year Assessment Plan for Course SLOs (see
above) are also included for ease of reference.
In the 2013-14 Program Review, chairs were also asked to respond in textboxes to the questions listed
below:
1. Describe the status of the SLO assessment in this discipline.
2. Summarize the changes that have been implemented based on SLO and PLO assessments from
the past year. (A link to an Excel spreadsheet of SLO assessments with resource requests or
modifications 11/20/2013 was included in the template to facilitate access to available data, and a
similar tool will be provided each year.)
3. Have the outcomes been re-evaluated since the implemented changes, and if so, has there been an
improvement in student learning? Are any further changes scheduled?
The responses to these questions comprise an important component of the three-year comprehensive
program reviews. They assisted the chairs in preparing their Fall 2013 end-of-the-semester SLO
Summary Assessment reports (2.22. Chairs’ Fall 13 Assessment Reports) and will make it easier for
administrators and the SLO Coordinators to monitor the progress of Student Learning Outcome
assessment for each discipline/department. Any supplemental evidence files relevant to these questions
can now also be uploaded.
Status of Assessments, Reporting, and Improvements
All the changes described above have helped to accelerate LAMC’s efforts to assess outcomes
more effectively in all courses and to assess how those findings have led to improved student
learning and the achievement of the college mission. Assessments have improved the quality of
learning at LAMC; they have assisted students in preparing to transfer and for successful careers
in the workplace; assessments have also improved students’ basic skills and encouraged them to
become critical thinkers. The College’s progress since the accreditation evaluation team’s
March 2013 visit is evident in the Summary Report of SLOs and PLOs assessed during the past
year using the online SLO system (2.23. Evidence: Nick Minassian will provide this report by
mid February); the online program reviews completed in November 2013; and the Department
Chairs’ Summary Assessment reports submitted to the SLO Coordinator in June 2013 and
January 2014.
14
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
With each passing semester, the Chairs’ Summary Assessment reports have become more
thorough, with more extensive information and documentation about the changes that have been
implemented and improvements that have resulted (2.23. Summary of Department Chairs’
Assessment Reports). In the Fall semester 2013, 186 SLOs were assessed (2.22. Chairs’ Fall
Semester SLO Reports and 2.24. the online Assessment Report Summary posted on the SLO
website.). More importantly, the discussions of the assessments and improvements based on the
results and follow-up assessments have been extensive.
The findings from this past year’s semester reports (2.23. Summary of Department Chairs’
Assessment Reports) indicate a considerable thought about what has been learned and what
changes need to be made to ensure that more students achieve the desired learning outcomes.
Some of the key findings that emerged are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Faculty members are more often preparing and distributing rubrics and examples in
advance of the evaluation of assignments to make expectations clearer.
Areas of weakness in student performance are being focused on more in presentations of
the course material, practice sheets are being distributed, and assignments are being
revised.
Supplemental resources have been added and faculty are more often using Etudes as an
online platform to distribute information and to keep students better informed as to how
they are doing in the course.
Increased use of peer reviews of assignments before submitting them for grading, along
with additional use of group discussions, video clips, and online resources, have further
strengthened student understanding of concepts being assessed.
Support services at the college are being used more widely, especially tutoring centers
such as the Learning Resource Center, Math Center, Student Success Center, and the
Child Development Resource Center.
CTE courses are being modified due to changes in industry demand.
Child Development and other disciplines have begun offering hybrid classes and adding
new classes.
How-to-video tutorials and PowerPoints are being used more often in classroom instruction, and
have also been added to department websites, from which students may download them to
improve their learning (for example, the Life Science Department web page).
Student tutors have been hired to help with the understanding and application of principles in
Accounting, Administration of Justice, Law, Computer Applications and Office Technologies,
Math, and Child Development.
Changes in course content and emphasis have resulted from the assessments; for example, in
Accounting, financial statements have been emphasized as a critical competency for completing
the course.
More authentic assessments have been developed to replace traditional means of
assessment and to obtain more meaningful results; for example, Administration of Justice
developed a crime lab where they can set up mock crime scenes for students; Personal
Development has developed an educational plan project.
Additional critical thinking and ethics content has been embedded in a number of courses
(for example, Law, History, and Philosophy).
15
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Assessment workshops for all full-time and adjunct faculty to discuss SLOs, assessments,
and review progress to date have been added, resulting in increased faculty collaboration.
Faculty members are collaborating with Learning Resource Center staff to create online
interactive tutorials as well as workshops targeted at specific courses.
Several disciplines, including ESL, Life Sciences, Culinary Arts, Political Science, and
Psychology, have rewritten their course-level SLOs to reflect more appropriately the program and
the course outlines.
Prerequisites are being added where appropriate; for example, since all Anthropology SLO
assessments indicated that writing and researching papers needed to be improved, English
28/ESL 8 is being added as a prerequisite for all Anthropology courses.
Exams are being revised to include clearer formatting and more explicit instructions, to minimize
the chance of errors due to misinterpretation of the questions.
Lab manual exercises are being modified; for example, in Biology a new laboratory exercise
addressing how to read a primary research article is being added.
New texts have been selected based on SLO assessment results.
More essay exams (rather than multiple choice/TF exams) and in-class group exercises are being
used.
Service learning for students is receiving greater emphasis through new internships in non-profit
agencies (for example, Sociology and Administration of Justice).
The Math Department serves as a useful illustration of the depth of analysis and reflection in which
departments and disciplines may engage as they evaluate SLO assessment results. Math applies a
sequence of corrective actions for substandard performance on SLOs, depending on how the average
rubric score compares with the established course benchmark:
If performance falls under the 70% benchmark, the SLO must be reassessed based on the criteria
below during the following semester:
1. If between 55% and 69% (Moderate): The SLO measure will be reviewed and modified if
needed. Additionally, the course coordinator may provide more homework questions and
additional online resources related to the topic assessed, and communicate any changes to all
faculty.
2. If between 40% and 54% (Poor): In addition to action described in (1), the course evaluation
committee will review the course outline, including the topics and timeline, and make
appropriate changes. The textbook and courseware may also be reviewed and appropriate
changes made.
3. If below 40% (Critical): In addition to actions described in (1) and (2), the department will
undertake a curriculum review of the course and any prerequisite courses. Changes may be
made in these courses to insure the continuity of the curriculum and learning expectations.
Meetings with faculty may be scheduled to advise them of any changes and provide training
as necessary. ((2.24a Math Department Chairs’ Summary SLO/PLO Assessment Report).
Program and Institutional Learning Outcomes
It is clear that faculty at LAMC has been actively involved in assessing their course SLOs and
implementing changes to improve student learning. In addition, faculty members in many
departments have assessed their Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs), often using standalone
16
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
metrics of their own design. However, a more systematic and comprehensive approach to
assessing PLOs is still needed. Similarly, the College needs a more systematic approach in this
area, too. To meet these needs, the SLO Coordinators and the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness
have initiated development of an online system to conduct and report on roll-up assessments of
both PLOs and ILOs based on student performance on course SLOs. The development and
implementation of the system include the following steps:
•
•
•
•
PLOs in the online SLO system have historically been mapped to the courses, but not the
course SLOs, that support them. In early February 2014, at the request of the SLO
Coordinators, the IT department added a feature to the online system that facilitates
mapping PLOs to the course SLOs that contribute to them. The SLO Coordinators then
asked all department chairs, most of whom maintain PLO-to-course-SLO matrices in
their own offices, to complete that online mapping by February 19, 2014.
Also in early February 2014, the SLO Coordinators and Dean of Institutional
Effectiveness met with IT staff to confirm the feasibility of an online roll-up assessment
with the following features:
o Calculation of the proportion of those students whose performance has been assessed
on all course SLOs mapped to each PLO, who achieved the level designated as
“acceptable” or above. The result is then compared with the program-set standard for
the proportion of students meeting each PLO, which is typically 70 percent at present.
o Calculation of the proportion of those students whose performance has been assessed
on all course SLOs mapped to each ILO, who achieved the level designated as
“acceptable” or above. The result is then compared with the institution-set standard
for the proportion of students meeting each ILO, which is typically 70 percent at
present. (2.24b. Mockup of design concept used at Feb. 6 meeting; Roll-Up
Assessment Concept 140206.pdf).
The IT department is scheduled to complete development, testing, and implementation of
this system by the end of March 2014.
Training in the use of the system is scheduled for early Fall 2014; the target date for full
implementation is October 1, 2014.
Thus, by the time the Fall 2014 course SLO assessments are completed, the College will be able
to produce and widely distribute reports demonstrating the extent of student achievement of each
PLO and each ILO, and engage in self-reflective dialogue about improvement of those results for
the College as a whole.
Dissemination and Dialogue
Assessment results are shared through reports to the Academic Senate, Educational Planning Committee,
Council of Instruction, Student Support Services Committee, and the Learning Outcomes Assessment
Committee (LOAC) (2.25. Evidence: minutes of LOAC meetings), as well as through the SLO website
(www.lamission.edu\slo). (2.25b. Evidence: reports to Academic Senate, Educational Planning
Committee, Council of Instruction, Student Support Services Committee).
The Learning Outcomes Assessment Committee (LOAC) is charged with the following tasks:
•
Guide and support faculty and staff in facilitating outcome assessment.
17
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Assist in establishing a procedure for evaluating outcomes to ensure continuous quality
improvement at the institutional, program, degree/certificate, and course levels.
Assist in establishing and maintaining an assessment schedule for all levels of outcome
assessment.
Work with administration to ensure that outcome assessment assignments are completed on time.
Provide colleagues with guidance, training, tools, rubrics, models and other resources that will
assist with outcome development and assessment.
Assist faculty and staff in analyzing the results of assessment to implement changes that improve
learning and services.
Maintain open and frequent communications about outcome development and assessment with
various college groups, including but not limited to the Department Chairs, Academic Division
Deans, Curriculum Committee, Academic Senate, and the Offices of Academic Affairs, Student
Services, and Administrative Services.
Provide qualitative feedback on the Learning Outcome process.
The Learning Outcomes Assessment Committee met six times during the fall semester (2.25 Minutes of
LOAC meetings). Every instructional department except one has sent at least one representative to the
meetings. In addition, members representing Student Services and Administrative Services are present to
ensure a broader-based discussion. Members have served as SLO/SAO ambassadors for their respective
areas and have provided a vital communication link with others in their departments and service areas.
The following are some of the highlights of the Committee’s discussions:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Membership
Charter
Reporting structure
SLO and assessment best practices
The meaning of authentic assessment
Establishment of benchmarks and standards for student success in all areas
Methods of interpreting assessment data so as to identify and implement changes that will result
in improvements
Methods of implementing changes
Sample assessments and rubrics
Linkage of resource allocation requests to the outcomes assessment process
Student awareness of learning outcomes
Department Chairs’ semester SLO/PLO summary reports
Assessment of the effectiveness of the SLO/SAO process <Evidence citations: Minutes>
Self-reflective dialogue on continuous improvement of learning and the associated institutional processes
during the past year has included participation by all constituent groups. In addition to the LOAC
meetings, several venues involving a large number of campus community members this past fall further
contributed to this dialogue.
1) Fall 2013 Flex Day – The SLO Coordinator gave a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the areas
that required institutional focus this year with respect to learning outcomes assessment. Department
meetings that same day followed up on the points presented, and departments made assessment plans
for the semester (2.26. Fall Flex Day Agenda, 2.27. SLO Flex Day PowerPoint, 2.28 Sample Minutes
of meetings, 2.22 Department Chair’s Fall Assessment Reports).
2) Deep Dialogue Discussions were initiated among faculty in all departments by the Vice
President of Academic Affairs throughout the semester. (2.29. Summary of Deep Dialogue
18
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
Discussions) In order to begin more focused discussions about drawing conclusions about
how well LAMC students are learning and about the College’s overall effectiveness in
helping students learn and define what can be done better, in the fall of 2013, the Vice
President of Academic Affairs scheduled a series of so called “Deep Dialogue Discussions”
with all of the full-time faculty members. 71% of the full-time faculty members participated
in 90-minute sessions during which they were asked to share with their colleagues some of
the assessments each used in their courses. A secretary from Academic Affairs attended each
session for the purpose of taking notes so that the Vice President was given the opportunity
to focus on the discussions. For each “Discussion,” a brief agenda was distributed, along
with materials that had been gathered at the District Academic Senate Summit. A web-based
tool for assisting with developing authentic assessments, and an article entitled “The Myth of
Learning Styles. (Also see follow up to Recommendation 5) At the end of each session,
the Vice President requested that the group appoint a “leader” whose responsibility it became
to schedule future meetings with each of his/her cohorts. Some groups planned to meet
during fall 2013 to continue their outcomes assessment discussions and to learn from each
other. Other groups will hold follow-up meetings in spring 2014. The expectation is that the
cohorts will meet at least once per term to increase the campus’ expertise in order to perfect
the art of teaching and learning. The Vice President of Academic Affairs will hold similar
follow-up “Deep Dialogue Discussions” biennially. <Evidence>
3) The District Academic Senate Summit held on September 20 emphasized accreditation and SLO
assessment. Seventeen LAMC members attended. Presentations were made on “Authentic
Assessments,” “Getting to Sustainability in SLOs,” and “Effective Assessment Practices across
LACCD.” (2.30. DAS Agenda – September 20, 2013)
4) The Fall 2013 SLO Summit - The single most significant opportunity for dissemination of outcomes
information and dialogue about assessment results was LAMC’s first Annual SLO Summit (2.31.
SLO Summit Agenda, 2.32 SLO Summit PowerPoint, and 2.33. SLO Summit Materials Packet). It was
specifically designed to promote dialogue and to further assess how outcomes assessment findings for
courses, programs, degrees, and certificates have led to improved student learning and how
assessments have enhanced the quality of education in support of the College mission. The other
purposes of the Summit were to improve pedagogy, curriculum, and approaches to teaching and
learning; to improve the institution’s overall effectiveness; and to lay the foundation for the additional
“Deep Dialogue Discussions” about assessment and improvement that would follow. The expected
outcomes for the SLO Summit were to
•
•
•
Facilitate faculty dialogue about learning outcomes and provide faculty with tools to enhance
their discussions with students about outcomes.
Share with other faculty and staff authentic assessments, what has been learned from them, and
how the results have been used to improve student learning.
Analyze course assessment results and assess at least one Program Learning Outcome (PLO).
Eighty-eight faculty, administrators, and Student Services and Administrative Services staff attended the
Summit (2.34 Summit Attendance List). Activities for the all-day event included the following:
• All participants were requested to bring a copy of an assessment they had done to share and
discuss with others during the breakout roundtable discussion sessions. This Summit provided a
platform for all constituent groups to engage in self-reflective dialogue about the continuous
improvement of student learning and institutional processes (2.xx. samples of assessments
discussed).
• Presentations were given about SLO development and assessment best practices (2.32. SLO
Summit PowerPoint), promoting SLO and assessment faculty dialogue, SLO awareness in the
19
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
•
•
classroom, and best practices for encouraging student and faculty dialogue about SLOs and
assessment (2.31. SLO Summit Agenda and 2.33 Summit PowerPoint).
Another presentation covered what authentic assessment is, examples of LAMC authentic
assessments, and the process for evaluating the results (Evidence: SLO Summit Information
Packet).
These presentations were followed by interdisciplinary discussion breakouts in which
administrators, faculty, and staff from Instruction, Student Services and Administrative Services
areas shared authentic assessments they had done in their areas.
Based on the post-summit evaluation (2.35. Evaluation of SLO Summit), many participants found the
interdisciplinary breakouts to be the most valuable part of the Summit.
The afternoon session of the SLO Summit consisted of a Program Learning Outcomes Assessment
activity in which each discipline or department worked on reviewing previous assessments, discussing
what had been learned from the assessments, and developing plans of action for improvement based on
the assessment results. In addition, plans were made for completing assessment of any other PLOs that
had not yet been assessed. As one department chair stated in an e-mail to her faculty: “The best part of
the day was the discussion we had within our English group. We were able to
• Examine and refine our Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs).
• Match our PLOs with our course SLOs and map those matches on our PLO program matrix.
• Check our rubrics for each SLO to make sure that there is also assessment of the corresponding
PLOs.
• Discuss our SLO assessment calendar.
• Decide where to go from here.” (2.36. English Department Outcomes Assessment Summary – email from Louise Barbato, October 14, 2013).
At the end of the Summit, participants were requested to complete an evaluation of the day. Sixty-eight
participants completed the evaluation (2.35. SLO Summit Evaluation). The vast majority of the
participants rated every part of the event very positively. In response to an open-ended question about the
most interesting, valuable, and/or useful aspects of the Summit, comments emphasized the value of
sharing ideas with others both within disciplines and across interdisciplinary groups; the value of dialogue
with peers was stressed numerous times. In response to the question asking what other activities should
be included in future SLO Summits, the following comment summarized well the general tenor of the
answers: “More opportunities like this to discuss student learning, engagement, and to share what we are
all doing in support of student learning outcomes.” The College has scheduled the second annual LAMC
SLO Summit for October 10, 2014.
Mission Learning Report
In consultation with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness, the LOAC has begun developing a
system for preparing and effectively disseminating an annual report on LAMC’s overall progress
in improving student learning and achievement at all levels – a Mission Learning Report (MLR).
The MLR will summarize the College’s performance in comparison with all institution-set
standards for student achievement. It will also summarize the results of learning outcomes
assessment at course, program, and institutional levels; all improvements planned on the basis of
those results; resources allocated and improvements actually implemented during the following
year; and subsequent reevaluations of performance. At the institutional level, it will include the
contributions of Student Services and Administrative Services through progress on their SAOs.
20
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
LOAC is scheduled to complete its initial outline of the Mission Learning Report by the end of
Spring 2014, and the full Report by September 2014.
The MLR will be reviewed annually by the College’s shared governance and other committees
(e.g., LOAC and the College Council), and these committees, after engaging in reflective
dialogue about the student learning and achievement information it contains, will incorporate
substantive consideration of that information into their deliberations on updating the college
plans and processes for which they are responsible. This consideration will involve updating at
least one goal and its accompanying measurable objectives in each applicable plan to focus
explicitly on facilitating improvements in student achievement and/or student learning. The
College Council will monitor overall progress in improving student outcomes at LAMC and will
help coordinate work on the major plans to ensure that improvement activities complement each
other.
Next Steps
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Research Advisory Task Force will review, revise as needed, and recommend
approval of a process for annually evaluating the College’s performance on the student
achievement outcomes relative to the institution-set standards, and for regularly revisiting
the standards and revising them as appropriate, by February 25, 2014.
An addendum will be added to the present Course Outline of Record to enable faculty
and chairs to more easily update their SLOs.
A spring assessment retreat will be held on May 2, 2014.
The College will implement the comprehensive and systematic roll-up assessment of
PLOs and ILOs by October 1, 2014.
The Learning Outcomes and Assessment Committee will complete its initial outline of
the Mission Learning Report by the end of Spring 2014 and present the full report to the
Academic Senate and College Council for approval by September 2014.
The Fall 2014 College Council Retreat’s deliberations on updating the LAMC Strategic
Plan goals will include review, discussion, and possible action related to LAMC’s
performance compared with the standards for student achievement and student learning,
and LAMC’s performance on the applicable DSP measures.
The second annual LAMC SLO Summit will be held on October 10, 2014.
Conclusion
LAMC has partially resolved Recommendation 2. The College has assessed the student
achievement and learning outcomes for the past five years and set standards of achievement and
student learning. In addition, these standards have been integrated into the College’s existing
planning and program review self-evaluation processes. Furthermore, the College has a revised
set of strategic goals that align with the District’s goals, are focused on student success, and are
measureable so that advancements in student learning and institutional processes can be tracked,
evaluated, and continuously improved. In addition, program review has been modified to
include how academic affairs departments, contribute to student learning. More detailed
information on improvements and resource requests as a result of assessments has been added to
both online systems. Faculty and staff have accelerated their learning outcome assessments, are
21
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
using the results to make improvements, and are conducting follow-up assessments to “close the
loop” and ensure that the assessments are producing meaningful changes in support of student
learning and the college mission. A master assessment schedule has been prepared for all course
outcomes and at the beginning of spring 2014, a master assessment schedule will also be
prepared for PLOs, ILOs, and Service Area Outcomes. Standards for student success in learning
(benchmarks) have been added for each course SLO, PLO, and ILO on the online SLO system,
and additional improvements will be implemented in spring 2014 to provide more easily the upto-date data needed for college and ACCJC reports. The College now has systems in place by
which to use data to regularly evaluate student achievement, student learning, and institutional
processes, and to engage in self-reflective dialogue about the continuous improvement of these
outcomes and processes.
Evidence List
2.1. ASC Research and Evaluation Theme Team Minutes – July 15, 2013
2.2. ASC Minutes – May 22, 2013
2.3. Institution-Set Standards Data Summary
2.4. COI Minutes – November 6, 2013
2.5. Institution-Set Standards for EPC Review
2.6. EPC Minutes – November 18, 2013
2.7. EPC Minutes – December 2, 2013
2.8. Institution-Set Standards for AS Review
2.9. Academic Senate Minutes – December 5, 2013
2.10a. Institution-Set Standards for College Council Approval
2.10b. College Council Action Item for Institution-Set Standards
2.10c. College Council Minutes – December 19, 2013
2.11. Process for Annual Evaluation of the Institution-Set Standards
2.12a. College Council Retreat Summary – August 20, 2013
2.12b. College Council Retreat Minutes – August 20, 2013
2.12c. 2012-2017 District Strategic Plan Presentation
2.12d. 2012-2017 District Strategic Plan Handout
2.13. LAMC College Council Retreat Presentation
22
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
2.14. College Council Retreat Summary – September 6, 2013
2.15. LAMC Revised Goals Alignment with DSP Goals
2.16. E-mail – Objectives and Performance Measures for Revised LAMC Strategic Plan Goals
2.17a. LACCD BOT – IESSC Agenda – November 20, 2013
2.17b. LAMC Institutional Effectiveness Report to the Board of Trustees
2.18a. LAMC’s College Status Report
2.18b. ACCJC Feedback on College Status Report on SLO Implementation
2.19. ACCJC Report on College Implementation, p. 8
2.20. LOAC Minutes [date xxx]
2.21. Master Schedule for SLO Assessments
2.22. Chairs’ Fall 13 Assessment Reports
2.23. Summary Report of the Number of SLOs and PLOs assessed during 2013
2.23. Summary of Department Chairs’ Assessment Reports
2.24. Summary of SLO Assessments by Discipline posted on the SLO website
2.24. Sample Course SLO to PLO Matrix
2.25. Minutes of LOAC meetings – Fall 2013
2.26. Fall Flex Day Agenda
2.27. SLO PowerPoint for Fall Flex Day
2.28 Sample Minutes of meetings from Fall Flex Day Department Meetings
2.29. Summary of Deep Dialogue Discussions
2.30. DAS Agenda – September 20, 2013
2.31. SLO Fall 2013 Summit Agenda
2.32 SLO Fall 2013 Summit PowerPoint
2.33. SLO Summit Materials Packet
2.34. Summit Attendance List
23
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
2.35. Evaluation of SLO Summit
2.36. English Department Outcomes Assessment Summary – E-mail from Louise Barbato,
October 14, 2013
24
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
College Recommendation 3
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college develop and implement a
comprehensive program of research and evaluation to support the assessment of student,
program and institutional learning outcomes, and program review; support ongoing engagement
in a collegial, self-reflective dialogue about the continuous improvement of student learning and
institutional processes; and support collection and analyses of data related to the needs and goals
of its diverse student populations. (I.A.1; I.B.1; I.B.2; I.B.6; II.A.1.a; II.A.1.c; II.A.2; II.A.2.d;
II.A.2.f)
I.A.1. The institution establishes student learning programs and services aligned with its
purposes, its character, and its student population.
I.B.1. The institution maintains an ongoing, collegial, self-reflective dialogue about the
continuous improvement of student learning and institutional processes.
I.B.2. The institution sets goals to improve its effectiveness consistent with its stated purposes.
The institution articulates its goals and states the objectives derived from them in measurable
terms so that the degree to which they are achieved can be determined and widely discussed. The
institutional members understand these goals and work collaboratively toward their
achievement.
I.B.6. The institution assures the effectiveness of its ongoing planning and resource allocation
processes by systematically reviewing and modifying, as appropriate, all parts of the cycle,
including institutional and other research efforts.
II.A.1.a. The institution identifies and seeks to meet the varied educational needs of its students
through programs consistent with their educational preparation and the diversity, demographics,
and economy of its communities. The institution relies upon research and analysis to identify
student learning needs and to assess progress toward achieving stated learning outcomes.
II.A.1.c. The institution identifies student learning outcomes for courses, programs, certificates,
and degrees; assesses student achievement of those outcomes; and uses assessment results to
make improvements.
II.A.2. The institution assures the quality and improvement of all instructional courses and
programs offered in the name of the institution, including collegiate, developmental, and precollegiate courses and programs, continuing and community education, study abroad, short-term
training courses and programs, programs for international students, and contract or other
special programs, regardless of type of credit awarded, delivery mode, or location.
II.A.2.d. The institution uses delivery modes and teaching methodologies that reflect the diverse
needs and learning styles of its students.
II.A.2.f. The institution engages in ongoing, systematic evaluation and integrated planning to
assure currency and measure achievement of its stated student learning outcomes for courses,
certificates, programs including general and vocational education, and degrees. The institution
systematically strives to improve those outcomes and makes the results available to appropriate
constituencies.
Progress in Addressing the Recommendation
The College is committed to an evidence-based planning structure and to continuous quality
improvement in student learning and in planning, resource allocation, and shared governance
25
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
processes. The College has devoted significant resources to support the research, evaluation, and
institutional effectiveness functions at the College. After years of sharing responsibility for the
Information Technology unit, followed by approximately two years of interim management, the
Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE) has now been reorganized as a separate office,
devoted exclusively to research, evaluation, and institutional effectiveness. It is led by a
permanent, full-time Dean of Institutional Effectiveness, who started work in May 2013 and
reports to the Vice President of Academic Affairs (3.1, 3.2, 3.3). In fall 2013 the Dean received
part-time, temporary research and analysis assistance from a research analyst at one of the other
LACCD colleges while the request for a permanent research analyst position was awaiting
approval from the District Office. In fall 2013 the College received approval from the District
Office to add that position to the organizational chart, and on January 15, 2014, a full-time
research analyst joined the OIE (3.4, 3.5, 3.6).
Primary Functions and Activities of the Comprehensive Research and Evaluation Program
The OIE serves as the center for research and evaluation at the College, and it has been actively
involved in the development and implementation of a comprehensive, systematic program of
research and evaluation to support the assessment of college processes and college effectiveness
at all levels. In support of this program, since May 2013 the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness
has undertaken the following primary functions and activities:
• Developing and implementing a formal research calendar, which includes all cyclical
production projects, as well as recurring patterns of ad hoc research and data requests
(3.7).
• Fulfilling research and data requests from college administration, faculty, and staff, and
from the District Office, in areas including, but not limited to, student characteristics,
student success/achievement, student preparedness, enrollment management, course
demand, budget planning, faculty load and assignments, faculty performance, basic skills
reporting, California Community College Chancellor’s Office data submissions, Federal
reporting requirements, and specialized program review data requests (3.8, 3.9, 3.10,
3.11, 3.12).
• Providing college leadership with daily student headcount and enrollment reports (3.13).
• Supporting assessment of and dialogue about student achievement and learning outcomes
at all levels by:
o Compiling and analyzing historical and current performance data on student
achievement outcome measures for the College as a whole and also by program,
and leading the campus in discussing the implications of these data and in
establishing institution-set standards for student achievement based on that
evaluation. The OIE will conduct an analysis of these data and lead the campus in
further discussion of them on an annual basis (3.14, 3.15, 3.16, 3.17, 3.18, 3.19,
3.20, 3.21, 3.22; also see Recommendation 2 for further discussion of this
process).
o Presenting LAMC’s available performance data on the 2012-17 LACCD District
Strategic Plan (DSP) student success measures, and leading College Council
members in a discussion of the meaning of these data at the fall 2013 College
Council retreat. The presentation and discussion at the retreat will recur on an
annual basis (3.23, 3.24, 3.25).
26
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
•
o Along with the College’s President and Vice President of Academic Affairs,
preparing and presenting a report to the LACCD Board of Trustees (BOT)
Institutional Effectiveness and Student Success Committee regarding LAMC’s
performance on the DSP student success outcome measures. This annual report
includes discussion of plans for improvement in the outcome measures and the
amount of expected improvement on each of the measures (3.26, 3.27).
o Leading College Council members in a discussion to develop the 2013-2018
LAMC Strategic Master Plan at the fall 2013 and spring 2014 College Council
retreats, which involved revising the College’s strategic goals to explicitly
emphasize student success and to make the goals measureable, and then finalizing
measurable objectives and associated performance measures for the revised
strategic goals. The data pertaining to the College’s performance on these
measures will be examined and discussed annually at the College Council retreat
(3.28, 3.29, 3.30, 3.31, 3.32; also see Recommendation 2 for further discussion of
this process).
o Serving as a member and resource on the Learning Outcomes Assessment
Committee (LOAC) (3.33).
o Serving as a resource at LAMC’s first annual SLO Summit, held October 11,
2013 (3.34, 3.35).
o Working with the SLO Coordinators and the IT manager and staff to develop
enhancements to the SLO online system (which have since been implemented), to
include a component for re-evaluation of the improvements in student learning
arising from interventions based on SLO assessment results (3.36).
o Assisting with the methodology for incorporating SLO and service area outcome
(SAO) assessment results, and coverage of improvements in student learning and
the services provided to students based on those results, within the online
Program Review system (3.37, 3.38, 3.39).
o Initiating development of an appropriate methodology for rolling up course-level
SLO assessments to assess program learning outcomes (PLOs) and institutional
learning outcomes (ILOs) (see Recommendation 2 for further discussion of this
methodology).
Providing direct support for the Program Review process by:
o Helping to develop enhancements to the online Program Review process and
system in fall 2013 as a member of the Educational Planning Committee’s
taskforce charged with doing so. The Dean also assisted in writing up a report of
the resulting enhancements that was reviewed by College Council (3.40, 3.41).
o Along with the Information Technology Director, providing training sessions on
the online Program Review system for users of the system in all three divisions of
the College (Academic Affairs, Student Services, and Administrative Services)
(3.42, 3.43).
o Providing a reference document, emailed to all department chairs, containing
useful tips for analyzing the datasets provided to them in their Program Review
screens in the online Program Review system (3.44).
o Providing direct assistance to individuals as they complete their Program
Reviews, for example, by answering questions about how to analyze and evaluate
specific data and how to formulate program objectives based on data, and by
27
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
•
•
providing additional data (i.e., beyond what is already provided in the online
Program Review system); (3.45, 3.46).
o Serving as co-chair on the Program Review Oversight Committee (PROC), which
was constituted in fall 2013 and meets on a monthly basis, and serving as the
voting member from the PROC on College Council (The PROC is discussed in
more detail in the response to Recommendation 6.) (3.47, 3.48, 3.49).
Collecting and analyzing data on student needs, goals, and learning styles by:
o Designing, launching, and analyzing the results of the Fall 2013 LAMC
Faculty/Staff Survey that was completed by 133 LAMC faculty and staff
members. Included in this project, which will recur annually, was a content
analysis by the new research analyst of open-ended remarks made by survey
respondents. (3.50, 3.51, 3.52).
o Designing, launching, and analyzing the results of the Fall 2013 LAMC Student
Survey that was completed by 954 LAMC students. This project, too, will recur
annually, and included a content analysis by the new research analyst of openended remarks made by student respondents (3.53, 3.54, 3.55).
o Assisting with the design and administration of a survey on the assessment and
application of student learning differences to help the College adopt and later
apply a working definition of “student learning styles and needs." The survey was
sent out to all full-time and adjunct faculty on February 5, 2014 (3.56, 3.57).
Assisting users in the use of data from the College’s Office of Institutional Effectiveness
website (http://www.lamission.edu/irp/default.aspx), which includes access to interactive,
run-time customizable data reports in the following areas:
o Selected student characteristics over time (3.58).
o Student success rates and grade distribution for the College as a whole, and by
selected discipline/course, over time (3.59).
o Degrees and certificates by gender and ethnicity for the College as a whole, and
by selected program, over time (3.59)
o Two enrollment management tools: the Enrollment Reporting System for detailed
analysis of daily enrollment trends at the program and institutional levels, and a
section status report for information at the section level (3.60).
o A comparative analysis of instructional productivity measures (e.g., FTES, FTEF,
census enrollment, average class size, etc.) at the program level over time (3.61).
Furthermore, the OIE actively works with campus constituencies launching interventions,
providing training, workshops, and/or other services so that the impact of those interventions can
be assessed and improved. For example, in fall 2013 the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness
helped develop assessments to provide meaningful and useful data for improving the following:
• The LAMC Fall Kickoff event for new and returning students that was offered for the
first time on August 21, 2013 (3.62, 3.63).
• The transfer fair and workshops offered by the Transfer Center (3.64).
• The website compliance training offered by the Disabled Students Programs and Services
Office (3.65).
• The workshops provided by the Counseling Department regarding the services they
provide (3.66).
• The SLO Summit for faculty, staff, and administrators (3.67).
28
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
•
•
The College Council planning retreat (3.68, 3.69).
The services provided by all the Student Services offices and programs on campus,
through the development of a point-of-service survey to be used by all Student Services
units (3.70).
The OIE also works with Career-Technical Education (CTE) programs in the development of
industry surveys to assess the demand for specific CTE programs and training in the College’s
service area (e.g., Culinary Arts) (3.71). The OIE also assists with the collection and
interpretation of student outcome data for interventions in which improvements in student
success are expected. For example, OIE has helped evaluate the success/retention/persistence
rates for students participating in Achieving the Dream English and math interventions compared
to those not involved in the interventions. This information was shared and discussed at the fall
2013 College Council retreat (3.72). The OIE has also evaluated the
success/retention/persistence rates of students attending the LAMC Fall 2013 Kickoff event
compared to students who did not attend the event (3.73). By providing support for such
analyses, the OIE helps the various campus constituencies determine whether specific
interventions had the desired effect and how they can be improved in the future.
Other Elements of the Comprehensive Program of Research and Evaluation
While the OIE is the core of the College’s comprehensive program of research and evaluation, it
is not the only element. In addition, three principal committees – the Research Advisory Task
Force (RATF), Learning Outcomes Assessment Committee (LOAC), and the Program Review
Oversight Committee (PROC) – all contribute to the comprehensive program of research and
evaluation through oversight and consultation in their respective areas.
Research Advisory Task Force (RATF)
In late spring 2013, the Accreditation Steering Committee (ASC) established a subcommittee
called the “Research and Evaluation Theme Team” to help address the College’s needs in this
area by promoting sustainable practices and systems that support an evidence-based collegial
culture (3.74). This team, chaired by the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness, met five times
during the summer and fall of 2013, and accomplished the following:
• Formulation of the charter and membership of the Program Review Oversight Committee
(PROC), which received College Council approval on July 18, 2013 (3.75, 3.56, 3.76).
• Development and initiation of the process to establish institution-set standards for student
achievement outcomes, as required by the ACCJC and U.S. Department of Education
(3.77). Please also see Recommendation 2 for further discussion of this process.
• Development of a system by which the OIE sets priorities among research requests and
projects, approved by College Council and the President (3.78, 3.79, 3.80, 3.81).
• Identification of a preliminary list of campus training needs in the development,
application, and interpretation of data, particularly though not exclusively, for
participants in the program review and outcomes assessment processes (3.82, 3.83, 3.84).
At its meeting on October 8, 2013, the group discussed its charge and recommended that it
henceforth be called the Research Advisory Task Force (RATF), and report directly to College
Council (the primary shared governance body on campus), rather than the Accreditation Steering
29
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
Committee (3.85). This change was approved by the College Council and President (3.86, 3.87).
Tasks of the RATF scheduled for completion in spring 2014 include the following:
• Recommend specific improvements in the data that OIE collects and provides for
program review and other major planning and evaluation processes (such as the outcomes
cycle), in light of the increasing need for data disaggregated in multiple ways to
illuminate diverse student needs.
• Recommend additional concrete improvements in OIE support of ongoing, robust, and
pervasive dialogue about the continuous improvement of student learning and
institutional processes. (For example, one item of discussion has been a series of periodic
research briefs, reports, or newsletters to inform the campus community about research
resources and findings, to further promote development of a culture of evidence and
campus-wide dialogue about institutional effectiveness and student learning.) (3.88, 3.89,
3.90).
Learning Outcomes Assessment Committee (LOAC) and Program Review Oversight Committee
(PROC)
Beginning in the fall of 2013, the College established two new committees:
• The Learning Outcomes Assessment Committee (LOAC) to oversee and support the
assessment of student, program, and institutional learning outcomes (3.91).
• The Program Review Oversight Committee (PROC) to oversee and support the
assessment of the program review process (3.92).
A main purpose of both these committees is to assess the effectiveness of institutional processes
in their respective areas and to develop and implement recommendations that will lead to
improvements in those processes. The establishment of these committees has institutionalized
two additional broadly representative forums for ongoing engagement in collegial, self-reflective
dialogue about the continuous improvement of student learning and institutional processes. The
Dean of OIE serves actively as both a member and a crucial information resource for both these
committees, and she serves as co-chair of the PROC and as the voting representative from PROC
on College Council. (See the Recommendation 2 section for detailed coverage of the LOAC, and
the Recommendation 6 section for detailed coverage of the PROC.)
Promotion of and Participation in Dialogue
Beyond the Dean’s participation in the RATF, LOAC, and PROC, the OIE also helps promote
dialogue campus-wide regarding data, research, and the continuous improvement of student
learning and institutional processes through the Dean’s service on numerous other campus
committees, as either a voting or a resource member. These committees include:
• Educational Planning Committee (EPC)
• College Council
• President’s Cabinet
• President’s Council
• Accreditation Steering Committee (ASC)
• Council of Instruction
• Chairs and Deans Committee
• Essential Skills/Achieving the Dream Committee
30
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
•
Strategic Enrollment Management Committee
The Dean of Institutional Effectiveness is also a member of three District committees related to
research, planning, and student success: the District Research Committee (DRC), the District
Planning and Accreditation Committee (DPAC), and the District Student Success Initiative/Basic
Skills Committee. Through the Dean’s participation on these District-wide committees, she is
able to engage in dialogue with colleagues and leaders from across the District on these topics
and bring this information back to LAMC’s campus to share and discuss.
The Dean has also facilitated broader dialogue about continuous improvement through her
engagement of various campus constituencies in discussions of student achievement outcomes
data, and in the process of establishing institution-set standards for student achievement based on
the evaluation of these data; a discussion of the data pertaining to LAMC’s performance on the
2012-2017 LACCD District Strategic Plan (DSP) student success measures and; discussions to
develop the 2013-2018 LAMC Strategic Master Plan at the fall 2013 and spring 2014 College
Council retreats, which involved revising the College’s strategic goals to emphasize student
success explicitly and to make them measureable, and then finalizing measurable objectives and
associated performance measures for the revised strategic goals (3.93). Furthermore, the RATF,
LOAC, and PROC, which also constitute part of the College’s comprehensive program of
research and evaluation, serve as forums through which campus constituencies engage in
collegial, self-reflective dialogue regarding improvement in student learning and institutional
processes on a continual basis.
Assessment and Improvement of the Comprehensive Research and Evaluation Program
The College has put processes in place to assess and improve the effectiveness of its
comprehensive research and evaluation program. These processes include:
• Annual, systematic self-evaluation and improvement of the reorganized OIE through the
Program Review process, beginning with the spring 2014 assessment cycle. The
recommended improvements arising from the OIE’s spring 2014 program review will be
implemented in 2014-2015 (3.94).
• Feedback gathered from the RATF regarding the following functions (see also Research
Advisory Task Force above):
o Suggested improvements in the data that OIE should collect and provide for major
planning and evaluation processes
o Suggested improvements in OIE support of ongoing, robust, and pervasive
dialogue about the continuous improvement of student learning and institutional
processes
• Annual, systematic self-evaluation and improvement of the effectiveness of the PROC
and LOAC committees through the committee self-evaluation process, beginning in
spring 2014 (3.95).
• Analysis of items in the faculty/staff campus-wide survey regarding data and planning.
Four items included in the fall 2013 LAMC Faculty/Staff Survey specifically addressed
this subject, with the following results:
o The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statements “The
College provides data that is relevant for effective program decision-making in
31
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
my area” (60.5%) and “Institutional planning results in on-going, self-reflective
continuous improvement” (63.6%). However, the relatively high proportion of
respondents selecting “Neither Agree nor Disagree” to these statements (28% for
both items) suggests that the campus community as a whole is not yet adequately
informed about resources for data-informed decision-making and the
effectiveness of institutional planning processes at the College. The work of the
RATF will be valuable in identifying useful improvements in these areas. (3.96,
3.97).
o Two open-ended items on the survey asked faculty and staff for:
“Comments/suggestions regarding data that, if provided to you, would be useful
to you in determining ways that you/your unit could more effectively serve
students,” and for “Other comments/suggestions regarding institutional
effectiveness and/or planning at LAMC” (3.98, 3.99, 3.100), which revealed that
respondents would like more of the following:
 Information about LAMC’s students, including demographic information
and information about student success rates for certain categories of
students
 Support of student success through smaller classes and basic skills
offerings
 Transparency and evaluation of planning and resource allocation processes
 Feedback from the Program Review process
The OIE has already begun to address some of the issues raised, partially through discussions
with and recommendations from the PROC concerning enhancements to the online Program
Review system to include more student demographic data (3.101, 3.102, 3.103) and discussions
concerning the timeline and transparency of the Program Review and budget allocation process
(3.104, 3.105, 3.106, 3.107). The OIE will continue to work with the RATF, PROC, and the
Strategic Enrollment Management Committee to further recommend and implement
improvements in the areas identified in the survey.
The Dean also engages in professional development and training activities so that she can better
assist the college in all aspects of its research, evaluation and planning efforts and keep current
with research methodologies and best practices. To date, these activities have included the
following:
• CAMP-R meeting (a meeting for researchers and planners in the Southern California
Region to gather and exchange ideas, share approaches, and discuss current issues
affecting institutional research and planning) at East Los Angeles College on June 20,
2013. Topics included ACCJC expectations and institution-set standards (3.108).
• Integrated Planning Presentations at District Planning and Accreditation Committee
(DPAC) meetings on May 24, 2013 (“Integrating and Evaluating Planning Efforts Across
the Institution” by Daylene Meuschke, Director of Institutional Research at College of
the Canyons, and Barry Gribbons, Asst. Superintendent/Vice President of Institutional
Development, Technology, and Online Services at College of the Canyons) and July 26,
2013 (“Integrated Planning in a Multi-College District” by Dr. Marybeth Buechner, Dean
of Planning, Research, and Institutional Effectiveness at Sacramento City College in the
Los Rios Community College District) (3.109, 3.110 DPAC Minutes – July 26, 2013).
32
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
•
•
•
•
•
•
EMSI (Economic Modeling Specialists Intl.) Online Trainings July 24, 25, and 30, 2013).
EMSI is a data tool that provides labor market data, workforce intelligence, and regional
economic analysis (3.111).
LACCD’s District Academic Senate Summit emphasizing accreditation and SLO
assessment, on September 20, 2013 (3.112).
CAMP-R meeting at College of the Canyons on September 27, 2013. Topics included
accreditation, institution-set standards, Institutional Review Boards, and data reporting.
(3.113).
“Strategic Planning Online” webinar on October 4, 2013 (3.114).
“Enrollment Forecasting for California Community Colleges” webinar on October 4,
2013 (3.115, 3.116 Predictive Modeling in Enrollment Management Webinar
Confirmation Emails).
“Building and Utilizing Student Enrollment Models” webinar on October 22, 2013
(3.117).
Next Steps
To further enhance the comprehensive research and evaluation program as well as the planning
functions at the College the OIE will:
• Continue to lend support in the development and implementation of an appropriate
methodology for rolling up course-level SLO assessments to assess PLOs and ILOs (see
Recommendation 2 for further discussion of this methodology.)
• Analyze and disseminate the results of the Survey on Student Learning Differences
(discussed above and in more detail in Recommendation 5) and, based on the analysis
and resulting College definition of “student learning styles and needs,” will assist faculty
in collecting and analyzing data to better address students’ learning styles and needs to
improve student learning (3.118).
• Continue to support collegial, self-reflective dialogue across campus about the
continuous improvement of student learning and institutional processes, through:
presentations; participation in committees, meetings, and campus events; delivery of
trainings; maintenance of the OIE website; and other reporting and distribution methods
as recommended by the RATF (e.g., research briefs).
• Complete a full self-assessment cycle of evaluation/planning, improvement
implementation, and re-evaluation by completing annual program reviews, beginning in
spring 2014.
Conclusion
LAMC has fully resolved Recommendation 3 with the establishment of a sustainable,
comprehensive, and effective program of research and evaluation to support the continuous
improvement of educational quality and institutional effectiveness (I.A.1; I.B.2; II.A.2). The
College now has a dedicated Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE), staffed with a Dean of
Institutional Effectiveness and a research analyst. The OIE provides support for the assessment
and improvement of student achievement and learning outcomes at all levels, for Program
Review, and for other data collection and analysis, including coverage of student needs, learning
styles, and goals (I.B.2; II.A.1.a; II.A.1.c; II.A.2.d; II.A.2.f). Furthermore, committees have been
33
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
established that provide institutionalized forums for ongoing campus engagement in collegial,
self-reflective dialogue about the continuous improvement of student learning and institutional
processes, including Program Review (I.B.1; I.B.6; II.A.1.c; II.A.2.f). Campus dialogue is
further promoted by the OIE’s involvement on numerous College and District committees
(I.B.1). The College has also developed and implemented processes to ensure that the research
and evaluation program itself is continuously improved (I.B.6).
List of Evidence
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.17
3.18
3.19
3.20
3.21
3.22
3.23
3.24
3.25
3.26
3.27
3.28
3.29
3.30
3.31
3.32
3.33
3.34
3.35
Dean of Institutional Effectiveness Job Announcement
Dean of Institutional Effectiveness Clearance Email
Dean of Institutional Effectiveness Welcome Email
Research Analyst Job Description
LAMC Research Analyst Classified Staffing Request
Spring 2014 Welcome Email
Office of Institutional Effectiveness Research Calendar
2012-2013 ESL/Basic Skills Allocation End-of-Year Report, Section 3 – Data Analysis
Los Angeles Mission College – Class of 2013 Graduation Email with Attached Statistics
President’s Request for Student Data and High School Student Data
ESL Placement and Enrollment Data Request
DSPS Data Requested for Program Review
Example Daily Student Headcount and Enrollment Email
Institution-Set Standards Data Summary
ASC Research and Evaluation Theme Team Minutes – July 15, 2013
Council of Instruction Minutes – November 6, 2013
EPC Minutes – November 18, 2013
EPC Minutes – December 2, 2013
Academic Senate Minutes – December 5, 2013
Institution-Set Standards for College Council Approval
College Council Minutes – December 19, 2013
President’s Approval of College Council Action Item for Institution-Set Standards
College Council Retreat Summary – August 20, 2013, page 3 and Attachment A
College Council Retreat Minutes – August 20, 2013, page 3
LAMC College Council Retreat Presentation
LACCD BOT – Institutional Effectiveness and Student Success Committee Minutes –
November 20, 2013, page 1
LAMC Institutional Effectiveness Report to the Board of Trustees
College Council Retreat Minutes – August 20, 2013, page 4
College Council Retreat Summary – August 20, 2013, page 3 and Attachment A
College Council Retreat Summary – September 6, 2013, pages 2-3
College Council Minutes – February 4, 2014)
2013-2018 LAMC Strategic Master Plan
LOAC Meeting Minutes – e.g., November 19, 2013; November 26, 2013; December 3,
2013; January 28, 2014
SLO Summit Fall 2013 Flyer
SLO Summit Fall 2013 Summary
34
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
3.36
3.37
3.38
3.39
3.40
3.41
3.42
3.43
3.44
3.45
3.46
3.47
3.48
3.49
3.50
3.51
3.52
3.53
3.54
3.55
3.56
3.57
3.58
3.59
3.59
3.60
3.61
3.62
3.63
3.64
3.65
3.66
3.67
3.68
3.69
3.70
3.71
3.72
3.73
3.74
3.75
3.76
3.77
3.78
Screenshot from SLO Online System
Program Review Assessment and Modification Report 2013, items 2 and 3
Instructional Program Review Training – Fall 2013, pages 8-10
Non-Instructional Program Review Training – Fall 2013, page 8
Program Review Assessment and Modification Report 2013
College Council Minutes – December 19, 2013, page 3
Instructional Program Review Training – Fall 2013
Non-Instructional Program Review Training – Fall 2013
Email - Tips for Reviewing Data in Your Program Reviews
DSPS Data Requested for Program Review
History Data Requested for Program Review
PROC Minutes – October 3, 2013
College Council Minutes – December 19, 2013, page 2 under “Shared Governance
Oversight Committee
PROC Minutes – January 23, 2014
Fall 2013 LAMC Faculty/Staff Survey
Fall 2013 LAMC Faculty/Staff Survey
Fall 2013 LAMC Faculty/Staff Survey Results
Fall 2013 LAMC Student Survey
Fall 2013 LAMC Student Survey Results
Fall 2013 LAMC Student Survey Content Analysis
LAMC Survey on Student Learning Differences
Email to faculty with link to Student Learning Differences Survey
Example of a Student Characteristics Report
Example of a Student Success and Grade Distribution Report
Example of a Degrees and Certificates Report
Example Enrollment Report
Example Instructional Report
Student Fall Kickoff 2013 Evaluation
Fall Kickoff 2013 Faculty/Staff Evaluation
Transfer Center Surveys
ADA Website Compliance Workshop Survey
Counseling Department Workshop Survey
Fall 2013 Student Learning Outcome and Assessment Summit Survey
Fall 2013 College Council Retreat Survey
Fall 2013 College Council Retreat Survey Report
Student Services Point of Service Survey
Culinary Arts Institute Industry Survey
LAMC College Council Retreat Presentation, pages 13-14
Fall 2013 Kickoff Data Analyses
ASC Minutes – May 22, 2013
ASC Research and Evaluation Theme Team Minutes – June 26, 2013; 3.56. PROC
Charter
College Council Minutes – July 18, 2013
ASC Research and Evaluation Theme Team Minutes – July 15, 2013
ASC Research and Evaluation Theme Team Minutes – November 12, 2013
35
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
3.79
3.80
3.81
3.82
3.83
3.84
3.85
3.86
3.87
3.88
3.89
3.90
3.91
3.92
3.93
3.94
3.95
3.96
3.97
3.98
3.99
3.100
3.101
3.102
3.103
3.104
3.105
3.106
3.107
3.108
3.109
3.110
3.111
3.112
3.113
3.114
3.115
3.116
3.117
3.118
LAMC Guidelines for Assigning Priorities to Research Requests
College Council Minutes – December 19, 2013
President’s Approval of College Council Action Item to Accept the Guidelines for
Assigning Priorities to Research Requests
ASC Research and Evaluation Theme Team Minutes – October 8, 2013, top of page 2
ASC Research and Evaluation Theme Team Minutes – November 12, 2013, page 2
Research Advisory Task Force Minutes – December 10, 2013
ASC Research and Evaluation Theme Team Minutes – October 8, 2013
College Council Minutes – November 21, 2013
President’s Approval of College Council Action Item to Create the RATF
ASC Research and Evaluation Theme Team Minutes – October 8, 2013, page 2 – “iii”
and “iv”
ASC Research and Evaluation Theme Team Minutes – November 12, 2013, page 1 –
section “2” and attached timeline tasks “iii” and “iv”
Research Advisory Task Force Email with Proposed Program Review System
Enhancement List
LOAC Charter
PROC Charter
Refer to citations in the “Primary Functions and Activities of the Comprehensive
Research and Evaluation Program” section
Program Review Structure
LAMC Committee Self-Evaluation Worksheet
Fall 2013 LAMC Faculty/Staff Survey, page 7 – questions 1 and 2
Fall 2013 LAMC Faculty/Staff Survey Results, page 22
Fall 2013 LAMC Faculty/Staff Survey, pages 7-8
Fall 2013 LAMC Faculty/Staff Survey Results, pages 27-29
Fall 2013 LAMC Faculty/Staff Survey Content Analysis, pages 3-5
PROC Minutes – December 11, 2013,
PROC Minutes – January 23, 2014, section 4
Program Review Enhancement List – February 2014
PROC Minutes – October 15, 2013, section 2
PROC Minutes – November 19, 2013, section 3
PROC Minutes – December 11, 2013, sections 3 and 7
PROC Minutes – January 23, 2014, section 6
CAMP-R Meeting Minutes – June 20, 2013, page 8, attendee #30
DPAC Minutes – May 24, 2013
DPAC Minutes – July 26, 2013
EMSI Training Confirmation Emails – July 24, 25, and 30, 2013
District Academic Senate Summit Agenda – September 20, 2013
CAMP-R Meeting Minutes – September 27, 2013, pages 1 and 7
Strategic Planning Online Webinar Confirmation Emails
Enrollment Forecasting for California Community Colleges Webinar Email
Predictive Modeling in Enrollment Management Webinar Confirmation Emails
Building and Utilizing Student Enrollment Models Webinar Confirmation Emails
LAMC Survey on Student Learning Differences
36
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
College Recommendation 4
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college develop and implement a plan for
Distance Education that includes an evaluation of Distance Education for alignment with the
needs of the college’s intended student population, an assessment of the quality of instruction
and compliance with US Department of Education regulations, infrastructure to support online
teaching and learning, and a systematic assessment of student learning and achievement
outcomes in order to ascertain how well students are learning in distance education courses. Such
a plan should be integrated with other college planning efforts and linked to the resource
allocation process (I.B.1, I.B.2, I.B.4, I.B.5, I.B.7, II.A.1, II.A.2, II.A.3, II.A.6, II.A.7, II.A.8,
II.B.3.c).
I.B.1. The institution maintains an ongoing, collegial, self-reflective dialogue about the
continuous improvement of student learning and institutional processes.
I.B.2. The institution sets goals to improve its effectiveness consistent with its stated purposes.
The institution articulates its goals and states the objectives derived from them in measurable
terms so that the degree to which they are achieved can be determined and widely discussed. The
institutional members understand these goals and work collaboratively toward their
achievement.
I.B.4. The institution provides evidence that the planning process is broad-based, offers
opportunities for input by appropriate constituencies, allocates necessary resources, and leads
to improvement of institutional effectiveness.
I.B.5. The institution uses documented assessment results to communicate matters of quality
assurance to appropriate constituencies.
I.B.7. The institution assesses its evaluation mechanisms through a systematic review of their
effectiveness in improving instructional programs, student support services, and library and
other learning support services.
II.A.1. The institution demonstrates that all instructional programs, regardless of location or
means of delivery, address and meet the mission of the institution and uphold its integrity.'
II.A.2. The institution assures the quality and improvement of all instructional courses and
programs offered in the name of the institution, including collegiate, developmental, and precollegiate courses and programs, continuing and community education, study abroad, short-term
training courses and programs, programs for international students, and contract or other
special programs, regardless of type of credit awarded, delivery mode, or location.
II.A.3. The institution requires of all academic and vocational degree programs a component of
general education based on a carefully considered philosophy that is clearly stated in its
catalog. The institution, relying on the expertise of its faculty, determines the appropriateness of
each course for inclusion in the general education curriculum by examining the stated learning
outcomes for the course.
II.A.6. The institution assures that students and prospective students receive clear and accurate
information about educational courses and programs and transfer policies. The institution
describes its degrees and certificates in terms of their purpose, content, course requirements,
and expected student learning outcomes. In every class section students receive a course syllabus
that specifies learning outcomes consistent with those in the institution's officially approved
course outline.
37
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
II.A.7. In order to assure the academic integrity of the teaching-learning process, the institution
uses and makes public governing board-adopted policies on academic freedom and
responsibility, student academic honesty, and specific institutional beliefs or world views. These
policies make clear the institution's commitment to the free pursuit and dissemination of
knowledge.
II.A.8. Institutions offering curricula in foreign locations to students other than U.S. nationals
operate in conformity with Standards and applicable Commission policies.
II.B.3.c. The institution designs, maintains, and evaluates counseling and/or academic advising
programs to support student development and success and prepares faculty and other personnel
responsible for the advising function.
Progress in Addressing the Recommendation
To meet this recommendation, LAMC has developed a comprehensive Distance Education Plan
(DEP) and has begun to implement it. The DEP aligns with the performance measures of the
LACCD Strategic Plan (4.1).
In February 2014, the DE Committee recommended adoption of the DEP. EPC will review the
recommendation and, upon approval, will forward the recommendation to Academic Senate and
College Council for final adoption (4.2, 4.3).
Alignment with the Needs of the College’s Intended Student Population
Several objectives of the DEP support the alignment with the needs of the college’s intended
population (4.4).
During the fall 2013 semester, the following activities took place:
1. Student Surveys: During the Fall 2013 term the Office of Institutional Effectiveness
conducted a comprehensive student survey to determine the level of student satisfaction with
existing programs and services and to identify areas for improvement in the quality of online
instruction and services and their alignment with student needs, and to assess the addition of
online course offerings. A total of 954 responses to the survey were received from all
demographic groups represented at LAMC.
The following five questions regarding distance education were included in the survey:
• How many online classes have you already completed at LAMC, not counting any online
classes you are currently taking this semester?
• How many online classes are you taking this semester at LAMC?
• I would like LAMC to offer more online classes (strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor
disagree, disagree, strongly disagree).
• If you would like more classes offered online, for what purpose(s) would you like to take
the online classes?
• If you would like more classes offered online, which classes would you like to be offered
online?
38
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
Less than one-fifth (18 percent) of respondents were enrolled in online classes during the fall
2013 term. The majority of respondents (73 percent) had also never previously taken an
online course at LAMC. Over half of respondents (54 percent) would like LAMC to offer
more online classes, primarily for general education and major requirements and for transfer.
The most frequently requested online classes were Math and English courses, particularly
English 101, and general education courses.
According to the results of the survey, online classes are currently being utilized by less than
one-fifth of the LAMC student body, and there is clear room for growth. However, the high
percentage of ambivalent students (i.e., those who neither agreed nor disagreed with the
statement "I would like LAMC to offer more online classes") coupled with the low
proportion of students who have taken online courses in the past indicate that many students
may be reluctant to enroll in online courses. In addition, a small minority of respondents
indicated a strong preference for face-to-face classes over the online format. Reasons for this
include individual learning style preferences as well as lack of financial and technical
resources to successfully complete online courses (e.g., no computer or internet at home, etc.)
(4.5).
2. DE Website: In fall 2013, the college transitioned to Etudes Course Management System,
with an Etudes Help Desk and tutorials (4.6). To systematically maintain, evaluate, and
improve the DE website, the DE Coordinator ensures inclusion of the following for improved
accessibility and ease of use: a Help Desk (with live phone assistance), Help Desk email
(with 24 hour email response time), student support services information (with 24 hour email
response time), tutorials, orientation, study guides, and videos.
3. Student Services: the DE Committee strengthened collaboration with Student Services,
through the development and implementation of systematic assessment of online counseling
and other support services. In fall 2013, a current list of all available student service contact,
links, and videos were posted (4.7). In addition, prior to fall 2013, two counselors were
assigned to assist online students with their counseling needs (4.8).
In spring 2014, the DE Committee began collaboration with Student Services to integrate DE
services with the goals of the Student Services Master Plan (4.9). This collaboration will
strengthen counseling services for DE Students. To ensure representation from the Student
Services Division, the DE Committee recommended at the February 12, 2014 meeting to
include an additional voting member from student services (4.10).
Online College Success Class: To expand and improve access to online educational programs
and services and better prepare students for success as online students, an online Personal
Development course, College Student Success Seminar (PD 40) was approved by the
Curriculum and the DE Committees. This course is being offered in the spring 2014
schedule of classes (4.11).
39
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
Next Steps
In spring 2014, the DE Committee will take the following steps in the implementation of the
DEP:
a) A survey for DE students will be administered to garner detailed information on the
alignment of student service support, additional course offerings, and the overall
effectiveness of DE classes at LAMC.
b) Identify areas in student services required to improve counseling support and services for
online students, including online educational planning, online career and transfer
workshops and additional online Personal Development courses to develop a plan for
implementation.
Review, edit and revise the current DE Charter to align with the goals and objectives of
the DEP.
c) Evaluate and redesign the DE website to create a more user-friendly format and ensure
accuracy of information.
Assessment of the quality of instruction
Several objectives of the DEP support the assessment of the quality of instruction (4.12).
During the spring and fall 2013 semesters, the following activities took place:
1. DE Program Review: To improve the effectiveness of Distance Education through datadriven planning and decision-making and to establish a systematic program review and
resource allocation process, EPC incorporated DE into the annual program review
process. In June 2013, EPC added supplemental screens for the DE Program (4.13).
2. Approval of Online Courses: In early January 2013, the Curriculum and DE Committees
updated the process for approval of online classes to require two new forms, the DE
Notification Form and the DE Addendum (4.14, 4.15). The addition of these new forms
certifies that the requirements under Title 5, Section 55206 are met (4.16).
3. Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes (SLOS): To increase student success and the
analysis of student achievement and learning outcomes, the DE Coordinator and the
SLOS Coordinator met in early spring 2014 to discuss the assessment of CSLOS. A
matrix of classes taught online from 2012-2014 was created (4.17).
4. Faculty Transition to a new Course Management System (CMS) – Etudes: Based on a
review and comparison of Moodle and Etudes (4.18, 4.19, 4.20) feedback, in May 2013,
the DE Committee recommended and the College approved the transition to Etudes as the
CMS for all online courses at the College (4.21). Over 100 faculty participated and
received certification from the two on-campus faculty training sessions were provided by
Etudes to assist faculty in transitioning from Moodle to Etudes (4.22).
5. Faculty Evaluation: To improve the quality of online instruction and services that
includes the results of student evaluations of DE classes, in the fall 2013 semester, the
DE Committee edited and updated the Student Evaluation of Online Instructor form to
abide by the current AFT contract on faculty evaluation (4.23). The Etudes CMS allows
40
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
for the anonymous submission of the student evaluation by students and the forwarding
of the results to the Department Chair (4.24).
Next Steps
In Spring 2014, the DE Committee will take the following steps in the implementation of the
DEP:
a) The Curriculum and DE Committees, with collaboration and feedback from the SSS
Committee, will refine and update the steps, procedures, and processes to evaluate
online instruction and student services to our online students.
b) The DE Coordinator and Staff Development will schedule training sessions for
department chairs on how to utilize the ETUDES Student Evaluation system for
evaluation of online teaching faculty.
c) A survey will be developed and implemented in the spring 2014 term, to determine
the needs of LAMC’s online students.
d) The DE Coordinator will conduct faculty and student focus group(s) to review the DE
website and information to redesign and ensure the accuracy of DE information for
our online students and faculty.
e) By fall 2014, The DE Committee will collaborate with the SLO Coordinator to
ascertain whether SLOs are being assessed in online and hybrid classes.
Compliance with US Department of Education, and Federal and State regulations
Several objectives of the DEP support compliance with US Department of Education, and
Federal and State regulations (4.25).
During the spring and fall 2013 semesters, the following activities took place:
1. US Department of Education (USDE) Regulations:
a. Student Complaints – USDE 602.16(a)(6) - In Spring 2013, the DE Committee made
available on the DE website to enrolled and prospective students, pursuant to 34
C.F.R. 602.16 (a)(6) the names of associations, agencies or governmental bodies that
accredit, contact and information for filing complaints, including filing consumer
complaints in the states in which LAMC students might reside and take its distance
education courses or program (4.26). The College has also provided the procedure for
student grievance or complaint in the catalog and the semester course schedule. The
college has updated the LAMC website information on filing a Student Grievance
Complaint (4.27).
b. Definitions of “Distance Education” - USDE 602.17(g) - and found in 602.3 to
determine which mode of delivery is being employed. At LAMC Department Chairs,
Academic Affairs, and Curriculum are tasked with deciding which courses are offered
online. The procedure is detailed on both the Curriculum and DE sites (4.28).
c. Student Identification and Authentication - USDE 602.17 (g)(1) - Student Identity
Authentication Accreditation now requires that all DE classes take steps to ensure the
students who login to online classes are the same students registered for the class.
This new accreditation requirement (as of 2010) is met when a Course Management
41
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
System uploads students directly from the student rosters maintained by the college in
its Student Information System (SIS) (4.29).
Our Etudes CMS platform communicates with the LACCD Student Database
and students registered for those classes are uploaded into the Etudes CMS system.
LAMC authenticates its students through a daily upload parser which directly
authenticates whether a student has been added or dropped or removed from a class.
The authentication of Etudes CMS classes throughout the district is reviewed, and
implemented through the district wide LACCD IT, and the individual DE
coordinators at each of the LACCD sister colleges that uses the Etudes CMS. The
District DE Coordinators in their monthly meetings discuss and coordinate the
uploads and any authentication issues that might arise.
d. Regular and Substantive Interaction with the Instructor – USDE 602.17 (g). It is the
policy of Student Services to have a 24 hour response time for emails from on
campus and online students (LAMC Evaluation Responsibilities for Compliance with
USDE Regulations (4.30).
e. LACCD Administrative Regulation E-89 – LACCD in its Administrative Regulation
E-89 (4.31) requires that each proposed or existing course offered by distance
education be reviewed and approved separately (Title 5, Section 55206), and follow
the curriculum approval procedures outlined in Administrative Regulation
(Authentication and Verification of Student Identity 34 C.F.R. Section 602.17).
2. State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA) Regulations: the DE Coordinator
participates in regular meetings of the California Community Colleges District DE
Coordinators and DE Stakeholders to keep abreast of the regulations, and DE issues.
(4.32). The DE Coordinator has posted the SARA Complaint Process on the DE website
(4.33).
3. Section 508 Compliance: Under federal law, individuals with disabilities may be
provided certain accommodations in their on-campus and online classes. The DSPS
office provides appropriate accommodations and has collaborated with Cuesta College to
convert media to an alternate format for disabled students (4.34).
On November 5, 2013, the DSPS Office and the LACCD ADA Coordinator conducted a
workshop (4.35) for faculty and staff for training to create accessible web-based
materials. The training included website accessibility and creation of accessible office
documents (4.36, 4.37, 4.38). A workshop survey was completed and will be included in
the 2014-2015 DE Program Review (4.39).
The Instructional Assistant, Assistive Technologist in the DSPS Office assist faculty with
access to alternate media for students with special needs. The Instructional Assistant,
Assistive Technologist is a resource member to the DE Committee and provides updates,
information, suggestions, and recommendations to assist with the compliance of Section
42
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
508, and other state and federal requirements on providing access to persons with
disabilities.
Next Steps
In Spring 2014, the DE Committee will take the following steps in the implementation of the
DEP:
a) The DE Committee, in collaboration with Professional and Staff Development and
the DSPS office will schedule workshops as follows:
• Assist faculty with use of alternate media in compliance with 508 standards
• Provide training for web-based access of materials, tutorials, videos, PowerPoints
and other media
b) The DE Committee develop and recommend processes and procedures in the
evaluation of online teaching faculty to ensure compliance with USDE and LACCD
regulations on “regular and substantial interaction” between instructor and student.
Infrastructure to support online teaching and learning
Several objectives of the DEP address the infrastructure to support online teaching and learning
(4.40).
During the fall 2013 semester, the following activities took place:
1. Resource Allocation: Resource allocation requests for DE are included in the Program
Review process. In the DE report and recommendations to the EPC in its meeting of May
6, 2013 (4.41), the DE Committee recommended that the annual cost of the CMS be
included in the baseline budget, and not require repeated annual “over-base” requests.
This cost has been included as a line item in the annual College budget (4.42, 4.43).
Further resource allocation requests are being considered from DE, including a part-time
online technical support assistant and the establishment of a dedicated DE cost center.
2. DE Coordinator Reassigned Time: An assessment of the DE infrastructure for its
adequacy in meeting student, instructional, and service needs was performed in the fall
2013 by the Vice President of Academic Affairs and the DE Committee. The results of
the review indicated the DE Coordinator workload warranted an increase from 0.2 to 0.4
FTEF and will be reviewed for possible augmentation in late spring 2014.
Next Steps
In spring 2014, the DE Committee will take the following steps in the implementation of the
DEP:
a) Update the scope and responsibilities of the DE Coordinator
b) Re-evaluate the reassigned time for the DE Coordinator
Systematic Assessment of student learning and achievement outcomes in order to ascertain
how well students are learning in distance education courses.
43
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
Several objectives of the DEP support the systematic assessment of student learning and
achievement outcomes in order to ascertain how well students are learning in distance education
courses (4.44).
During the fall 2013semester, the following activities took place:
1. DE Student Performance: The DE program review in fall 2013 analyzed the performance
of DE students. The data provided was in aggregate form, and compared online classes
with on-campus classes. Successful course completion of DE classes rose from 63.4% in
2008 to 71.4% in 2013, and student retention from 82.8% to 85.8% during the same
period. To support a more meaningful analysis of student success and retention in DE,
more detailed course-by-course comparisons will be provided for the Fall 2015 and
subsequent DE Program Reviews.
2. Student Success and Retention: Appropriate use of educational technology in the
classroom, online, and in hybrid courses is vital for student retention and success. A
faculty survey was conducted in February 2014 determine a working definition of student
learning styles (4.45). This is an effort to assist faculty in improving student success and
retention by more effectively addressing the learning styles of LAMC students. Upon
completion and analysis of survey results, LAMC will adopt a common definition and
schedule workshops and presentations to introduce pedagogies and teaching materials to
improve student learning and achievement for online and on-campus students.
3. Faculty Resource Center: The College has created a faculty resource center, The Eagle’s
Nest, to provide resources, equipment, supplies, and other needs for faculty teaching
online and on campus (4.46).
4. DE Faculty Etudes Sites: The DE Committee assisted the online faculty transition from
Moodle to ETUDES. The Etudes staff created a special “one click” conversion tool to
expedite the copying of materials, content, quizzes, discussions forums, videos, power
point, and web links from Moodle to ETUDES. The DE Committee will continue to
support and assist faculty in the transition and upgrades to the online course shell.
Next Steps
In Spring 2014, the DE Committee will take the following steps to implement the
recommendation:
a) With the adoption of the common learning styles definition, the DE Committee
will collaborate with the Professional and Staff Development Committee in the
development of workshops and presentations to introduce pedagogies and teaching
materials to improve student learning and achievement for online and on-campus
students.
b) In summer 2014, the OIE will compare student performance data in DE classes to
those in corresponding on-campus classes for discussion by the DE Committee
44
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
Conclusion
The College has made substantial progress and expects full resolution by the end of spring 2015,
through the implementation of the approved DE plan.
The College has developed, approved and begun implementation of the Distance Education Plan.
The DEP is aligned with the LACCD and LAMC Strategic Plans.
Based on the faculty and student surveys, the College has established and is implementing the
Distance Education Plan to determine the needs of the student population by assessing the
quality of instruction, ensuring compliance with USDE regulations and strengthening integration
to the College planning efforts through Program Review.
The DE infrastructure to support online teaching and learning includes development of the
Faculty Resource Center as well as the College adopting the annual cost of the CMS in the
baseline budget as well as approving the increased reassign time for the DE Coordinator. This
increase supports collaboration between the Coordinator and various campus constituents, such
as the SLO Coordinator and Student Services programs, to ensure there is ongoing systematic
assessment of student learning and achievement outcomes to ascertain how well students are
learning in distance education.
With resource requests through the Program Review process, distance education is linked to
Budget and Planning and the resource allocation process.
List of Evidence
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17
4.18
4.19
LACCD Strategic Master Plan
DEC Agenda and Minutes of February 12, 2014
DE Plan 2014-2017 – Approved by DE Committee on February 12, 2014
Refer to 4.3
Los Angeles Mission College – Fall 2013 – Student Survey – Distance Education
Online@Mission – LAMC DE website – http://lamission.edu/online
List of Available Student Support Services – Fall 2013
Evidence
2012-2017 Student Support Services Goals
DE Committee Minutes – 2/12/2014
Online College Student Success Seminar – Personal Development 40 – 3 units
Refer to 4.3
EPC Minutes of June 3, 2013 – “adding screens for DE Program Review”
DE Course Approval Process and New Online Course Notification form
DE Addendum Form
LAMC DE Annotated Technical Review Rubric
Matrix of Classes taught online 2012-2014
CMS Analysis – Fall 2013
Spring 2013 – CMS Faculty Survey
45
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
4.20
4.21
4.22
4.23
4.24
4.25
4.26
4.27
4.28
4.29
4.30
4.31
4.32
4.33
4.34
4.35
4.36
4.37
4.38
4.39
4.40
4.41
4.42
4.43
4.44
4.45
4.46
Spring 2013 – CMS Student Survey
EPC approval of CMS transition to Etudes – May 2013
Etudes Certificated Faculty – Spring 2013
Revised Student Evaluation of Online Instructor Survey – End of Course – November 1,
2013
Etudes Formal Course Evaluation Forms (Student Evaluation of Online Faculty)
Refer to 4.3
Student Complaint Information @ LAMC DE Website
Student Complaint Procedures at LAMC
Curriculum and DE Websites
History of Student Identity and Authentication at Mission - http://lamission.edu/de/cms
LAMC Evaluation Responsibilities for Compliance with USDE
LACCD Administrative Regulation E-89 – Distance Education
DE Coordinator participation in District DE Coordinators & DE Stakeholders Minutes
May 2009
LAMC DE Website - Student Complaints (State Authorization)
DSPS ADA Compliance and work with Cuesta College
ADA Web Accessibility Training – November 5, 2013
LACCD Introduction to Website Accessibility
Creating Accessible Office Documents – LACCD Handout
Creating Office Document for Online Accessibility
ADA Web Accessibility Training Survey – November 5, 2013
Refer to 4.3
DE Recommendation to EPC on costs of CMS – May 6, 2013
Evidence
DE Annual Program Review – November 15, 2013 - Fall 2013
Refer to 4.3
Faculty Learning Differences Survey – Spring 2014
Evidence citations here
46
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
College Recommendation 5
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college adopt mechanisms for assessing:
student learning styles and needs, the alignment of instructional delivery and pedagogical
approaches with student learning styles and needs, and how instructional delivery and
pedagogical approaches are related to achievement of student learning outcomes. (II.A.2.d)
II.A.2.d. The institution uses delivery modes and teaching methodologies that reflect the diverse
needs and learning styles of its students.
II.A.1.b. The institution utilizes delivery systems and modes of instruction compatible with the
objectives of the curriculum and appropriate to the current and future needs of its students.
[Cited in evaluation team’s narrative (p. 42), but omitted from Recommendation; “The college
does not meet Standard II.A.1.b.”]
Progress in Addressing the Recommendation
To develop systematic and sustainable mechanisms that assess the relationship among student
learning styles and needs, instructional delivery and pedagogical approaches, and student
learning outcomes across the curriculum, steps have been established to produce a plan that
focuses on specific classroom (traditional or virtual) needs and pedagogical approaches that
enhance the learning experience.
The current Vice President of Academic Affairs first came to Los Angeles Mission College in
January 2013 and immediately began to foster the creation of a faculty resource center for
teaching and learning. The Office of Academic Affairs received institutional support to create
The Eagle’s Nest, LAMC’s center for teaching and learning, which is scheduled to open on April
1, 2014. A logo has been designed and the dedicated space is known as “the faculty’s space to
land, learn, and soar.” Among other things, the Eagle’s Nest will provide a forum for
interdisciplinary research/discussions centered on student learning outcomes assessment and
improvement, promote development of innovative curriculum, and encourage alternate modes of
delivery (pedagogy) to promote improvement in teaching and student learning (5.1).
The Office of Academic Affairs has adopted spring 2014 Eagle’s Nest-sponsored professional
development training themes concentrating on learning styles, needs, and pedagogical
approaches. These themes are centered on the following:
•
•
•
Theorizing How LAMC Students' Social Identities Did and Do Impact Their Educational
Experience
Describing LAMC Students' Interests and the Skills They Bring to College
Implementing Adult Learning Theory-Based Educational Methodologies
To further support Los Angeles Mission College’s first Annual Student Learning Outcomes
Summit on October 11, 2013, the Vice President of Academic Affairs scheduled a series of fulltime faculty focus groups “Deep Dialogue Discussions”. Of the College’s 83 full-time faculty
members (71%), 60 participated (5.2). Each of the nine focus groups included faculty members
47
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
representing varying disciplines and lengths of service to the College. While the primary purpose
of the discussions was to explore student outcomes assessment, the topic of student learning
styles and needs was examined (5.3). During each focus group meeting, faculty members were
provided copies of an article by Cedar Riener and Daniel Willingham; it describes both
approaches, but the second one more fully (5.4). The Vice President summarized the article’s
contents and requested that the faculty members read the article and begin thinking more about
how LAMC should use their understanding of varied student learning styles and needs in order
to improve student learning in their classrooms.
The Vice President of Academic Affairs solicited the faculty’s feedback regarding a working
definition of “student learning styles and needs” that would best serve the LAMC student body.
Two approaches to defining learning styles for the campus were considered by each focus group:
a. Students differ in their preferred modes of learning, independent of their ability and of
the content learned. In addition, altering pedagogy to fit these so-called “styles” enhances
the learning process; or
b. Teachers can improve learning and best meet student needs by taking their students’
differences in abilities, backgrounds, knowledge, and interests into consideration. In
order to maximize learning, pedagogies can be altered based upon these characteristics of
students in the classroom.
At the conclusion of the focus groups, the Vice President submitted a report to the President
summarizing the Deep Dialogue discussions and included professional development activity
recommendations for faculty (5.5). Each group was asked to choose a team leader whose
responsibility it is to bring his/her colleagues together at least once per semester to continue
dialogue about student learning outcomes and assessment (5.6). The discussions, in which
faculty members shared strategies for conducting authentic assessment of student and program
learning outcomes, serves as the groundwork for continued Deep Dialogue discussions (5.7). To
provide for sustainable mechanisms, the Vice President of Academic Affairs will continue to
meet with faculty focus groups on a biennial basis to promote further discussions focused on
student learning needs and the achievement of student learning outcomes.
To provide additional faculty forums for discussion of teaching and learning, the following was
were established:
• “Brown Bag Discussion”
Academic Senate established monthly lunch discussions with guiding topics introduced
to stimulate deep dialogue discussions pertaining to teaching and learning. During the
fall 2013 semester, the Brown Bag discussions created an interest in adopting a common
book read. After review and discussion of several books, Mindset by Carol Dweck was
chosen and approved by the Academic Senate at the December 5, 2013 meeting (5.8).
• Campus-wide Faculty Book Club
As a result of the adoption of the common book read by faculty, the Academic Senate
created a campus-wide faculty book club. The purpose of the book club is to provide
suggestions for additional readings and activities that support innovative teaching and
learning. The first common book adopted explores how individuals learn differently and
provides information and strategies on how to create learners that have a more open
mindset. As a resource, a website was developed for the faculty book club (5.9).
48
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
•
“Spring into Spring” Winter Flex Day
The Achieving the Dream Committee, Professional and Staff Development Committee,
and Academic Senate co-sponsored this day of workshops and activities designed to
invigorate faculty as they prepare for the spring semester. The workshop topics resulted
from previous discussions that occurred within the Deep Dialogue sessions, Brown Bag
series, and the faculty book club. Over 100 full-time and adjunct instructors attended and
participated in these workshops (5.10).
These have proven to be successful forums to discuss student teaching and learning styles and
will be instituted as ongoing activities. In collaboration with the Eagles Nest, these professional
growth activities continue to provide opportunities for professional interdisciplinary discussion
and collaboration among faculty.
On February 5, 2014, the Office of Institutional Effectiveness distributed the Student Learning
Differences survey to all full-time and adjunct faculty members to broaden the dialogue about
classroom assessment of student learning styles and needs and develop a working definition of
“learning styles” for the College (5.11). The Survey consisted of seven questions inquiring about
faculty members’ assessments of and pedagogical responses to student learning differences. To
assist the College in organizing the next cycle of research and data-gathering, the following
survey question was designed to assess the relationship between learning styles, needs and
instructional delivery and pedagogy:
If you do consider learning differences in your teaching, based on your observations, what
student characteristics should be considered in LAMC’s research on student learning styles and
needs?
The survey questions were structured to collect the following information:
• The types of assessments faculty members are implementing to assess students’ learning
styles and needs
• The types of learning styles and learning needs identified
• Successful interventions that have been employed
Next Steps
•
•
•
During the spring 2014 term, responses from the Student Learning Differences survey
will be examined by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness to identify common themes
and begin gathering data for further analysis.
After a comprehensive review of the survey and focus group data, the Office of
Academic Affairs, in consultation with the Academic Senate, the Professional
Development Committee, and the Learning Resource Center/Library as applicable, will
request funding through the regular budget development process for reference materials,
training and other support designed to help the faculty align instructional delivery and
pedagogical approaches more effectively with the identified student learning styles and
needs. These resources will be available in the Eagle’s Nest.
Professional development training during the spring 2014 term, concentrating on learning
styles, needs, and pedagogical approaches based on the established Eagle’s Nest themes.
All professional development activities will be assessed by the participants (5.12).
49
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
•
•
•
Commencing in the summer of 2014, the Office of Academic Affairs, in consultation
with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and the Academic Senate, will use the data
gathered from the spring 2014 “Student Learning Differences” survey and Eagle’s Nest
training activities to identify and develop tools to assist faculty and the College to:
o Systematically assess student learning styles and needs.
o Implement and document pedagogical or curricular changes based upon the
assessment of student learning styles and needs.
o Analyze the relationship among student learning styles and needs, instructional
delivery and pedagogical approaches using both quantitative and qualitative
evidence in the achievement of student learning outcomes and seek to improve
those outcomes based on the analysis.
The Office of Institutional Effectiveness will provide an annual summary of the Eagle’s
Nest activities and disseminate the report electronically to faculty. The summary will
contribute to the development of Eagle’s Nest core themes to continue to promote
effective student engagement, learning, and achievement and link further study of
pedagogical approaches that are related to achievement.
In 2014-15, the College intends to research and apply for federal funding to further
support the Eagle’s Nest in strengthening academic quality.
Conclusion
The College will have fully resolved this recommendation by the end of the spring 2015
semester.
The College has adopted a sustainable mechanism for assessing student learning styles and needs
and the alignment of instructional delivery and pedagogical approaches with those styles and
needs through the establishment of the Eagle’s Nest center for teaching and learning, the
initiation of a regular cycle of research, assessment, dialogue, and improvement, and the
allocation of resources to support that cycle.
Based on the data and analysis of the Student Learning Differences survey, the development of
the various discussion forums, the establishment of the Eagle’s Nest, and the institution
standards/benchmarks of achievement, the College continues to assess how instructional delivery
and pedagogical approaches are related to achievement of student learning outcomes (II.A.2.d).
Listing of Evidence
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
Logo
Deep Dialogue Discussion Sign-In Sheets
ASCCC’s Authentic Assessment Power Point and Mueller’s Authentic Assessment
Toolbox
Copy of Article
Summary of Discussions
E-mail examples
Focus Group Report; Sign-In Sheets, Agendas
Brown Bag Discussions
50
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
Web site
Data Information
Survey
Preliminary Draft of Survey, Training dates?
51
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
College Recommendation 6
To meet the standards, the team recommends the college develop a set of metrics and
performance standards to better monitor the effectiveness of its planning and resource allocation
decisions in achieving improvements in student learning. (I.A.1, II.A.1, II.A.2.f)
I.A.1. The institution establishes student learning programs and services aligned with its
purposes, its character, and its student population.
II.A.1. The institution demonstrates that all instructional programs, regardless of location or
means of delivery, address and meet the mission of the institution and uphold its integrity.'
II.A.2.f. The institution engages in ongoing, systematic evaluation and integrated planning to
assure currency and measure achievement of its stated student learning outcomes for courses,
certificates, programs including general and vocational education, and degrees. The institution
systematically strives to improve those outcomes and makes the results available to appropriate
constituencies..
Progress in Addressing the Recommendation
Annual Strategic Planning
Each year, a week before the fall semester begins, the College Council convenes a retreat to
review and update the College’s strategic planning goals, which are aligned with the District’s
strategic planning goals. Representatives of the shared governance planning committees are
among the members of the College Council. These committees are as follows:
• Educational Planning Committee
• Student Support Services Committee
• Budget and Planning Committee
• Technology Committee
• Facilities Planning Committee
• Professional and Staff Development Committee
At the conclusion of the College Council retreat, the College’s updated Strategic Master Plan is
disseminated campus-wide and made available on the website (6.1). The goals in the College
Strategic Master Plan are then considered by all College programs and services as they undertake
their annual program reviews (6.2). (See also the Recommendation 2 section for a more detailed
discussion of LAMC’s strategic planning process and its incorporation of student performance
data.)
Program Review Process
The College conducts an annual Program Review cycle in which each program or unit conducts
a self-evaluation based on evidence, including student academic and/or unit performance, student
learning or service area outcomes assessment findings, and enhancements to improve student
learning and/or institutional effectiveness (6.3). Each program then develops an action plan to
improve its own effectiveness. The program review action plan identifies the annual program or
52
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
unit improvement objectives, each of which is linked to one or more of the College’s strategic
goals. In addition, the articulation of each objective includes the following elements:
• Individual(s) responsible for coordinating the work necessary to achieve the objective
• Timeline for completion
• Description of activities designed to help meet the objective
• Expected outcome and measures of progress
• Assessment of progress on objectives set in prior cycles
• Status of the objective
• Specifications for any additional resources required to achieve the objective, including its
anticipated total cost, description, type (e.g., one-time, ongoing), priority, and status
(6.4).
Improvements in the Program Review Process.
Several changes to the Program Review process were recommended by the College Council and
other bodies and approved by the President in the fall of 2013. The most important for
systematically monitoring and continuously improving the effectiveness of this critically
important planning process was the establishment of the Program Review Oversight Committee
(6.5).
The Program Review Oversight Committee (PROC) is charged with the following tasks (6.6):
• Provide systematic structure and guidelines to review, evaluate and enhance the quality
of programs and units in each college division.
• Oversee the annual and comprehensive Program Review processes to ensure that each
review process is evaluative as well as descriptive, and that the results of the program
review are consistently linked to other institutional planning processes.
• Determine the standard procedures and schedules of self-assessment and peer-validation
to ensure that the Program Review process is consistent across programs and units of all
divisions.
• Ensure that there is a meaningful linkage among Program Review and student
achievement and learning outcomes, service area outcomes, the College Strategic Master
Plan and the resource allocation process.
• Provide workshops to educate users on Program Review tools and processes as needed.
• Assign validation teams for all comprehensive program reviews.
• Review, update and revise the Program Review Handbook as needed.
The PROC met five times during the fall/winter of 2013/2014 to systematically evaluate the
effectiveness of the Program Review process and to ensure its standardization across all three
campus divisions (i.e., Academic Affairs, Student Services, and Administrative Services). The
PROC has already made several significant improvements to the process. The following are
some of the highlights of the PROC’s discussions and recommendations to date:
• All three College divisions will adopt the same schedule for conducting comprehensive
program reviews (each program undergoes a comprehensive program review every three
years, with one-third of the programs undergoing the comprehensive assessment each
year, and annual updates in the other two years of the cycle). (6.7).
• All three College divisions will follow the program review validation process as
described in the Program Review Handbook (6.8, 6.9).
53
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
•
•
•
•
•
Recommendation to move the annual unit assessment program review cycle for all
College divisions to begin in the spring semester, rather than the fall semester. The
change in schedule is designed to allow more time for units to reflect on their
performance; to allow them to project their needs farther in advance; and to allow more
time for division leadership to perform Program Review evaluation, provide feedback,
and prioritize budget requests in accord with the new set of metrics established this year
(see below). This new cycle will begin in the spring of 2014, with the online Program
Review system opening on the first Monday of March and closing on the last Friday of
May. (Fall 2013 program reviews were carried out under the previously established
schedule.) This recommendation was discussed in the College Council meeting on
November 21, 2013 and approved by the College Council on December 19, 2013 (6.10).
Discussion that the Vice President of each College division will compile the planning
objectives and budget requests coming out of his or her division’s units into a report to
PROC that summarizes the major themes of these plans and requests. PROC will then
synthesize the information from the Vice Presidents’ reports into an institution-level
report to the College Council. PROC plans to formalize this recommendation and present
it as an action item to the College Council in spring 2014 (6.11).
Discussion and prioritization of Program Review participant feedback regarding data
enhancements, training needs, and improvements in the process (6.12).
Revision of the Program Review structure and of the assignment of units to each College
division (6.13).
Revision of the Program Review Handbook (6.14).
Maintaining Institutional Effectiveness and Quality
The Program Review system is set up so that the following are included among the areas on
which each program must report annually:
• Its responses to the recommendations it received in the validation of prior program
reviews;
• The status of the objectives and improvement plans and activities it formulated in prior
years, including evaluation of the results/outcomes of these undertakings;
• Evaluation of student data, including data regarding student achievement in the program;
• Changes designed to improve student learning (implemented based on outcomes
assessments conducted in the prior year); and
• Improvements in student learning as a result of the changes made.
These requirements enable the College to monitor the implementation of program action plans,
evaluate contributions made toward meeting the College strategic goals, and evaluate
institutional progress in improving student learning and achievement. This process is an
important way in which the college maintains institutional effectiveness and quality (6.15).
Planning and Resource Allocation
Once the Program Reviews are completed, they are forwarded to their respective administrative
divisions: President’s Office, Academic Affairs, Administrative Services, and Student Services.
The President and the respective Vice Presidents, in coordination and consultation with
appropriate faculty and staff, review the action plans and resource requests, and rank the requests
54
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
according to the budget priorities rubric and the new set of metrics described below. The
resource requests that receive the highest ranking are given the highest priority. The prioritized
requests are forwarded to the BPC for discussion and final prioritization. After deliberations, the
BPC sends its final prioritized list of resource requests to College Council as an action item,
which is then forwarded to the College President for approval (6.16).
This year, the BPC developed a crucial new set of metrics that relies in part on student learning
outcomes (SLOs)/service area outcomes (SAOs) and performance standards, and recommended
that they be added to the prioritization process. After discussion by the College Council and
further refinement by the BPC, the College Council and President approved the new metrics,
which were implemented in Spring 2014 for the 2014-15 and subsequent budget years. The end
product is an enhanced resource allocation prioritization process that has been fully vetted
through the College’s established shared governance process (6.17).
In the enhanced prioritization process, the new metrics comprise six questions, which each
division must answer about each of its resource requests:
1. Is this position or equipment new, or is it a replacement?
2. Is this position or equipment needed to satisfy a mandate, safety or accreditation
requirement, or a workload distribution (position only)?
3. What are the on-going costs associated with this position or equipment?
4. How does this request meet college strategic goals and program/unit objectives?
5. How will this request meet SLOS and/or SAOs in your program or unit?
6. How will this request assist the college to meet its student achievement benchmarks?
The answers to these questions illuminate the broader institutional implications of each resource
request beyond the immediate needs of the program. The final three questions are particularly
important in using metrics and performance standards to gauge planning and resource allocation
effectiveness. They require each division to explain the extent to which every resource request
contributes toward meeting college strategic goals and program objectives and, more
importantly, student learning and student achievement (6.18)
In subsequent years, each division that received a resource based upon its answers to questions 4,
5 and 6 in the prior budget prioritization cycle will be required to illustrate (1) the effects the
resource had on improving or maintaining the achievement of the respective SLOs or SAOs, (2)
how the resource contributed to the related student achievement benchmarks, and (3) what
effects the resource had on the pursuit of the College’s Strategic Master Plan goals and/or
program objectives. In turn, the BPC will send a summary of the resources’ effects and provide
conclusions about the effectiveness of the resource allocation process in improving student
learning and achievement and advancing the College’s goals and objectives to College Council.
Any College Council recommendations to change the allocation process will be forwarded to the
College President for action.
Furthermore, the overall effectiveness of improvements in student learning arising from planning
and resource allocation decisions will be monitored through the Program Review process and
through an annual report called the Mission Learning Report (MLR). The SLO Coordinators and
the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness have initiated development of an online system to conduct
55
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
and report on roll-up assessments of both program learning outcomes (PLOs) and institutional
learning outcomes (ILOs) based on student performance on course SLOs, with full
implementation of this system scheduled for the end of March 2014. The results of these roll-up
summary assessments are planned to be incorporated into each discipline’s program review
starting in spring 2015, so that they will be able to evaluate their performance on their PLOs, and
on the contribution of their discipline’s courses to each ILO in relation to the benchmarks that
have been established for those outcomes. Based on these evaluations, programs will be able to
determine improvement strategies that have been effective, and will also be able to create
planning objectives and resource requests through the Program Review system to address areas
found as needing improvement. The PLO and ILO roll-up assessment results will also be
included in the MLR, which will be reviewed annually by the College’s shared governance and
other committees, and these committees will consider the information in the MLR as they make
updates to their plans and processes for the coming year. (Please see the “Program and
Institutional Learning Outcomes” and the “Mission Learning Report” sections of
Recommendation 2 for a more detailed discussion of these processes and the MLR.)
The institution-set student achievement benchmarks referred to in Question 6 were developed by
the Council of Instruction, discussed and reviewed by the Educational Planning Committee, and
approved by the Academic Senate, College Council, and the President. (Please also see the
Recommendation 2 sections on the consideration of these institution-set student achievement
benchmarks in Program Review, the Strategic Master Plan, and the MLR.) Those benchmarks,
which are reported annually to the ACCJC, are as follows (6.19):
Student Achievement Outcome
Successful Course Completion Rate
Course Retention Rate
Persistence Rate
Student Degree Completion
Student Certificate Completion
Student Transfer to 4-year Colleges/Universities
Approved Benchmark (Standard)
64%
85%
48%
450 degrees
214 certificates
205 transfers
The timeline followed by the BPC, PROC, and the College Council ensures that appropriate
planning and evaluation occur prior to resource allocations. The timeline allows for setting
budget priorities, planning a year in advance, implementing Program Review action plans,
conducting an evaluation of the previous year’s plans and allocations, and modifying processes,
plans, and allocations as necessary.
Next Steps
Beginning in February 2014, the Budget and Planning Committee, using the budget priorities
rubric and the new set of metrics adopted by the College, is scheduled to review the FY 2014-15
resource allocation requests that originated in the fall 2013 program reviews. The effectiveness
of these resource allocation decisions in improving student learning will then be assessed the
following year by each division, as described above. In addition, the Program Review process
will continue to be enhanced so that programs can evaluate PLO and ILO summary data to
56
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
determine program effectiveness and to make improvement plans and resource requests that will
advance student learning at the College.
While the College has made substantial progress in tying the over-base resource prioritization
process to achieving student learning improvements, the College leadership has begun
conversations as to how to further assess the effectiveness of that process. To that effect, the
College has developed concrete next steps in order to establish a closer relationship between
learning outcomes, planning, and resource allocations for the following fiscal year. The LOAC
and PROC have scheduled three spring 2014 joint meetings. The College Council has charged
these two Committees with the task of developing recommendations for the creation of a
structure and process that will more strongly correlate SLO assessments and improvements in
student learning to institutional planning and resource allocation. The recommendations from
these joint meetings will go to EPC, College Council, and the President and they (or a variation
thereof) will be implemented in the spring of 2015.
One strategy that has already been identified by PROC is to use the Program Review process to
tie program improvement objectives not only to one or more of the College’s strategic goals, but
also to SLO/SAO assessment results. As a way to do this, when an objective is created in the
Program Review system, there could be a checkbox that, if checked by the respondent, means
that the improvement objective is tied to improving SLOs/PLOs/SAOs in that program. Thus,
requests for which this box is checked would get more weight in resource allocation decisions.
Each year, the PROC will examine the amount of overall institutional improvement in SLOs,
PLOs, and ILOs, as well as student achievement outcomes (i.e., completion, retention, and
transfer rates) in order to confirm that the College’s planning and resource allocation decisions
have been reasonably effective in improving student learning, and, if applicable, make
recommendations for improving the College’s planning processes and/or resource allocation
model to College Council.
Conclusion
With the improvements made to the Program Review process, including oversight of the process
by the PROC, and the development and implementation of the new set of metrics by the BPC,
which relies in part on student performance standards to better monitor the effectiveness of
planning and resource allocation decisions in achieving improvements in student learning, the
College has partially resolved the Recommendation and is well-underway to fully resolving it by
spring 2015.
List of Evidence
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
2013-18 LAMC Strategic Master Plan
PR Sample
Annual Program Review Cycle
PR Template or pdf of sample completed high-quality PR
PROC approval from College Council and PROC charter
PROC Charter
PROC Minutes – XX/XX/2013
57
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
6.17
6.18
6.19
PROC Minutes – XX/XX/2013
Revised Program Review Handbook
Evidence Citations
PROC Minutes – 2 to 3 Sets
PROC Minutes and Handouts
PROC Minutes and Assignment Chart
PROC Minutes and Refer to Handbook
Pdf samples of Fall 13 Program Review
Ranking Rubric and Metric Worksheet
Matrix and Evaluation Questions, Supporting Minutes and Agendas
Copy of the Form; Sample set of answers to the six questions
Evidence citations
58
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
College Recommendation 7
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college undertake an overall assessment of
its student support service offerings to determine the full scope of services it needs to offer to
meet the diverse needs of its students as well as all federal and state requirements. The
assessment should also determine the level of staffing needed to deliver an acceptable level of
services based on its budgeted student enrollment, and develop the resources needed to employ
the staff required to deliver the planned services. (II.B.1, ER 14)
II. B.1. The institution assures the quality of student support services and demonstrates that
these services, regardless of location or means of delivery, support student learning
and enhance achievement of the mission of the institution.
ER14. Student Services: The institution provides for all of its students appropriate student
services that support student learning and development within the context of the
institutional mission.
Progress in Addressing the Recommendation
The College uses the Program Review process to assess the services delivered by the Division of
Student Services. This process includes setting priorities on the allocation of requested resources
in accordance with procedures developed by the Budget and Planning Committee and approved
by the College Council and the President (7.1).
Between fiscal years 2008 and 2012, categorical budgets in Student Services were significantly
reduced. LACCD Colleges experienced significant cuts, ranging from 30 to 45 percent in State
categorical programs as well as a significant reduction in the general fund (7.2). These cuts
reduced services in the Counseling Department, Extended Opportunity Program and
Services/Cooperative Agencies Resources for Education (EOPS/CARE), Disabled Student
Program and Services (DSPS), Matriculation, Admissions and Records, Tutorial Services and in
overall service hours.
Currently, the College has 4.5 full-time general counselors (six full-time general counselors with
1.5 FTEF release time for other necessary functions) to advise approximately 9,400 students.
Adjunct faculty, as well as classified substitute relief, that work in student services was reduced
to meet the reduction in funding targets specified by the State and the District. Fall 2012-13
adjunct instructional faculty was reduced by 23.9% from fall 2008-09. In the same time period
counseling faculty was reduced by 96.7%. Classified substitute relief was reduced by 72.4%.
The College recognizes the need to assess the support services offered, particularly given the
impact of these reductions. In summer 2013, the President of the College directed the Vice
President of Student Services to coordinate an evidence-based review and assessment of the level
of service, supervision, and staffing of all units of Student Services, including student support
services that report to Academic Affairs (CalWORKS and Tutorial Services) (7.3).
Assessment of Student Support Services
59
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
Throughout the fall 2013 and spring 2014 terms, LAMC is conducting the following research
pertaining to Student Services:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Staff Comparison Study
Comprehensive Faculty/Staff Survey
Comprehensive Student Survey
Point of Service Surveys
Focus Groups of Students and of Student Services Staff (February 26-27, 2014).
Federal and State Requirements Analysis
Based on the findings from these research activities, which are detailed below, the College is
developing an action plan to improve student services and allocate the necessary resources to
meet the diverse needs of its students. The focus groups are that last piece of data that will
formulate the Student Support Services Action Plan. The action plan will cover a two year
period for Fiscal Years 14-15 and 15-16.
1. Staff Comparison Study
LAMC conducted an analysis of staffing levels in student service areas at two similar-sized
colleges (West Los Angeles College and Los Angeles Harbor College) to determine how staffing
levels at LAMC compared (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Headcount, FTES and Total Budget at LAMC, West LA College and LA Harbor
College
Headcount
FTES
Total Budget
College
Fall 2012
Spring
2013
Fall 2012
Spring
2013
FY 12-13
LAMC
10,194
9,699
3,031
2,855
$26,965,097
Harbor
9,448
9,490
3,283
3,222
$29,564,584
West
9,954
9,614
3,176
3,046
$32,186,888
The Staff Comparison Study found that six out of 14 student support services units at LAMC had
less staff, and in some cases significantly less staff, than the comparable colleges (Los Angeles
Harbor College and West Los Angeles College). The following units had the largest
discrepancies in Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staffing levels:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Assessment and Matriculation— two less staff than Harbor and two less staff than West
International Students— one less staff than Harbor and .5 less than West
Counseling— two less staff than Harbor and nine less staff than West
Athletics— eight less staff than Harbor and seven less staff than West
Admissions and Records— three less staff than Harbor and five less staff than West
DSPS—1.5 less staff than Harbor and 2.5 less staff than West
Student Services--.5 less than Harbor and 1.5 less than West
Financial Aid— one less staff than Harbor and West
60
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
Based on the analysis of this data, LAMC appears to have comparable staffing deficiencies in
Admissions and Records, Assessment and Matriculation, Athletics, DSPS, Financial Aid,
Student Services, Counseling, and International Students (7.4). These data further indicate the
College need to add staff and review the funding resources in specific departments to ensure
adequate staffing to adequately meet student needs.
2. Comprehensive Faculty/Staff Survey
A comprehensive faculty/staff survey was administered to all LAMC faculty and staff during the
fall 2013 term (7.5). One hundred thirty three responses were received from all employee
groups, including full-time faculty, adjunct faculty, classified staff, administrators and
unclassified staff.
The survey section on student support services revealed that faculty most frequently refers
students to the following services: Tutoring, Learning Resource Center, Library, and Counseling.
About six in ten faculty and staff (59 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that The College
provides sufficient student support services to meet student educational needs. In order to
determine which areas do not meet student needs, the College’s Office of Institutional
Effectiveness conducted a content analysis of the open-ended responses to the relevant survey
questions (7.6). This analysis found that faculty and staff felt improvements were needed in the
following areas:
•
•
•
Additional staff and resources for student services areas, particularly in tutoring, counseling
and support for underprepared students;
Extended hours of operation to include evening and weekend hours;
Establishment of a coordinated program to serve underprepared students at LAMC more
effectively.
Faculty also believed that many students lacked guidance and needed mentoring in financial
resources, academic planning and career planning. This observed need is likely related to the
high proportion of first-generation college students at LAMC, and underscores the importance of
student services, particularly counseling and tutoring.
3. Comprehensive Student Survey
A comprehensive, college-wide student survey was conducted during the fall 2013 term, with
954 students responding (approximately 10 percent of the student body), representing the diverse
student body (7.7).
• 71% of the respondents were continuing students, 17% new and 12% returning
• 31%of the respondents had been at Mission three to four semesters, 20% five to six and
13% seven semesters or more
• 75%identified themselves as LAMC students; 12% were from another community
college and 12% from a four-year institution
• 43% were 25 and older, 57% were under 25
• 67% were female and 33% were male
• 73% identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino, 4% Black or African American, 17%
white, and 7% Asian or Asian American
61
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
•
•
•
•
•
•
93% indicated their preferred language was English
33% had children under 18 living with them
34% had parents who did not complete high school, 29% had parents who had a high
school diploma or GED and 12% had parents with some college, and 20% had parents
with an AA degree or higher.
49% stated they worked off campus
15% worked 40 hours per week or more and 26% between 20 and 39 hours per week
22% had not applied for federal financial aid. 56% had applied and indicated that they
were eligible for financial aid, 15% had applied and reported that they were not eligible,
and 8% had applied but did not know whether they were eligible. When non-applicants
were asked why they did not apply for financial aid, 33% chose “I did not think I would
be eligible.”
The survey found that 85 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they were able to
find services they need on campus; 82 percent were able to find the services on line. Eighty
three percent (83%) agreed or strongly agreed that "overall LAMC provides sufficient support
services to meet my educational needs"; and 80 percent indicated that they felt LAMC was
effective or very effective at providing them with the support they need to succeed.
Distance education students (respondents who reported they were enrolled only in online courses
during fall 2013) were slightly more satisfied with student support services than students who
were taking classes on campus; 85% felt that LAMC provides sufficient support services and
83% felt that LAMC was effective at providing them with support they need to succeed. Ninety
percent (90%) of online student respondents reported being able to find services they need
online. Ninety percent (90%) also felt that the LAMC website was easy to navigate.
In order to determine which areas students felt do not meet their needs, the Office of Institutional
Effectiveness conducted a content analysis of the comments in open-ended questions relating to
student satisfaction (7.8). The main areas for improvement identified by students were:
•
•
•
•
•
Enhancing services for evening and weekend students;
Improving communication between the college and the student body;
Refining professional behavior within Student Services, including Admissions and Records,
Financial Aid, and Counseling;
Expanding on-campus computing centers, including on the East Campus;
Improving the College website for relevance and ease
Based on the Faculty/Staff Survey and the Student Survey, many comments were consistent,
including the inability to get appointments in counseling and tutoring, the lack of availability of
classes, long wait times in Counseling and Financial Aid and the need for extended evening and
weekend hours. While online students reported higher overall satisfaction with counseling and
admission and records, they also reported experiencing difficulty getting appointments with
counseling staff, especially outside normal working hours. Understaffing in the Counseling
Department was mentioned in both students and faculty/staff surveys. Twenty percent of student
respondents who had used the Counseling Office reported being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied
with the services they received. The most frequently cited reasons for their dissatisfaction were
62
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
wait times (17 percent), hours of operation (14 percent), and the clarity and amount of
information provided (12 percent).
4. Point of Service Surveys
The findings from the comprehensive student survey were further investigated using point of
service surveys. These surveys were administered to students who had visited specific student
support services units during the final two weeks of the fall 2013 term (7.9). The surveys were
given to students upon completion of the service to assess the level of satisfaction with the
services they had received. A total of 674 responses were received in 20 student support services
units. The number of respondents per unit ranged from 5 to 137, with an average of 34
respondents per unit. The surveys found that:
•
•
•
•
The most common reasons for the students' visits were to get basic information (25 percent)
or guidance or advice (18 percent);
The vast majority of respondents (97 percent) were satisfied or very satisfied with the service
received that day;
Three-quarters of respondents (75 percent) reported that they had received all the information
they needed that day. However, responses indicated that the following units need to ensure
that the information they give students is more comprehensive so that students receive all the
information they need: Admissions and Records, Athletics, the Bookstore, the Business
Office and Counseling.
In order to assure that students be given comprehensive information student services plans to
expand on the information given during orientation and post FAQs on their website.
5. Student and Student Services Staff Focus Groups
LAMC is partnering with California State University, Northridge (CSUN) to conduct focus
groups with students and student services support staff. Through the efforts of Dr. William
Watkins, CSUN Vice President of Student Affairs, a research team is conducting staff and
student focus groups at LAMC during the week of February 26, 2014. The team is meeting with
administrators and staff from admission and records, assessment, counseling, Disabled Student
Services, EOPS/CARE, ASO, Athletics, Financial Aid, International students, transfer center and
veterans services. The purpose of the focus groups are to determine the level of services LAMC
provides, the number of staff allocated to each department, their workload, and gaps in services
on the campus and with online student support services. The team is also meeting with on
campus and online students to assess the level of student satisfaction (7.10). The CSUN team is
scheduled to complete its report on the results of these focus groups by the end of March 2014.
6. Federal and State Requirements Analysis
The Division of Student Services conducted an assessment to determine whether all departments
were meeting all applicable Federal and State laws and requirements. An analysis of federal and
state requirements for financial aid, EOPS/CARE, DSPS, and other student services programs
was conducted. This analysis found that without exception, all applicable Federal and State
mandates are currently being met. Based on this assessment, the Division of Student Services
disseminated a Federal and State Student Support Services Requirements Matrix to distribute
college-wide (7.11).
63
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
SB 1456: Student Success Support Program (3SP)
One of the new State requirements will be the implementation of SB 1456, the Student Success
Support Program (3SP) in AY 14-15. 3SP provides categorical performance based funding to
insure that incoming students obtain assessment, orientation, abbreviated education plans and
comprehensive education plans. Beginning AY 14-15, 10% of new students must have an
orientation, be assessed, obtain an abbreviated education plan. Thirty five percent (35%) must
have a comprehensive education plan by the end of AY 14-15. Funding will be allocated if the
colleges meet their targets. The following Academic Years the percentages of new students will
increase until eventually 100% of all new students are assessed, oriented, and have Student
Education Plans (SEPs).
These new state requirements have allocated needed resources to the College. For FY 14-15 the
college will receive $924,000 to implement 3SP. The state allocation will be integrated in the
Student Support Services Action Plan that increases staffing resources to meet the diverse needs
of our students.
Preliminary conclusions based on all the data analyzed to date from the research activities
described above include the following:
• Counseling services for both on-campus and online students require enhancement
through additional staffing and additional hours of service.
• The delivery of accurate, clear, and comprehensive information to students must be
improved, particularly in Admissions and Records, Athletics, the Bookstore, the Business
Office and Counseling.
• Training in customer service and professionalism is required in all departments, including
in particular Admissions, Financial Aid, and Counseling.
Next Steps
Based on the findings of all the research activities detailed above, the Vice President of Student
Services, in consultation with the SSSC, convened a Student Services’ retreat on January 23,
2014. The purpose was review the assessment of student services, increase customer service
delivery, and to develop a plan of action, including an augmentation of staffing and other
resources. The augmentation will bring student support services at LAMC to the level required to
meet the needs of the College’s student population. This plan will target improvements during a
two year period that includes AY 14-15 and 15-16 (7.12).
Implementation of the plan will commence in spring 2014, and the target date for initial
enhancements of service offerings is fall 2014.
Conclusion
The College has partially resolved and expects full resolution by Spring 2015 through
implementation of the Student Services Plan.
64
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
The College undertook an overall assessment of its student support service offerings and
determined the full scope of services it needs to meet the diverse needs of its students and to
meet federal and state requirements. The level of staffing necessary to meet the needs of
students was determined and the resources needed to employ staff that are required to deliver
these services have been identified in the Student Services Action Plan of 14-15 and 15-16.
The College has met eligibility requirement 14 that calls for providing appropriate student
services that support student learning within the context of its institutional mission. With the
comprehensive assessment of student services, the implementation of its action plan, and the
establishment of SB 1456 assures the college that it has met Eligibility Requirement 14 and is
adequately addressing this recommendation.
List of Evidence
7.1. Budget and Planning Resource Allocation Process
7.2. Unrestricted general fund—Trend Analysis of Hourly Expenditures
7.3. Memorandum to the Vice President of Student Services
7.4. Staff Composition, Comparable Colleges: LAMC, LAHC and WLAC
7.5. Faculty/Staff Survey
7.6. Faculty/Staff Survey Content Analysis
7.7. Student Survey
7.8. Student Survey Content Analysis Report
7.9. Point of Service Survey
7.10. Focus Group Questions
7.11. Federal and State Support Services Requirements Matrix
7.12. Student Services Action Plan
65
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
College Recommendation 8
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college develop and make available to
visiting teams a report of student complaints/grievances that details the date of the
complaint/grievance, the name of the individual filing the complaint/grievance, the nature of
the complaint/grievance, the disposition of the complaint/grievance, and the date of the
disposition. The report should cover a five year period and be updated annually.
II.B.3.a. The institution assures equitable access to all of its students by providing
appropriate, comprehensive, and reliable services to students regardless of service
location or delivery method.
II.B.4. The institution evaluates student support services to assure their adequacy in meeting
identified student needs. Evaluation of these services provides evidence that they
contribute to the achievement of student learning outcomes. The institution uses the
results of these evaluations as the basis for improvement.
ER20. Public Information: The institution provides a catalog for its constituencies with
precise, accurate, and current information concerning …major policies affecting
students, such as Grievance and Complaint Procedures…
Progress in Addressing the Recommendation
The College has developed a formal log containing student complaints/grievances that details the
date of the complaint/grievance, the name of the individual filing the complaint/grievance, the
nature of the complaint/grievance, the disposition of the complaint/grievance, and the date of the
disposition. A report of student complaints/grievances covering the five-year period from spring
2009 through spring 2014 is available for visiting teams to review and will be updated annually.
In addition, the student complaint/grievance website now includes an online form for submission
of student complaints (8.1).
Prior to the Accreditation Team visit in March of 2013, the College resolved student complaints
and grievances informally. There was no structured system in place to keep records. Student
complaints that pertained to grade appeals or other minor faculty/student conflicts were handled
by the campus ombudsperson while all other complaints were handled by the Office of the Vice
President of Student Services, following Administrative Regulation E-55 (8.2).
In the fall of 2013, the Dean of Student Services established a Student Complaint/Grievance
Task Force, comprised of the Dean of Student Services, Student Services Administrative
Secretary, Financial Aid Director, Information Technology Supervisor, and Web Architect, to
formalize the process for student complaints/grievances (8.3). The Task Force presented
documentation of the process to the Accreditation Steering Committee (ASC), from which it
received critical feedback that was included in the final development of the process (8.4).
The Task Force also developed a new electronic student complaint/grievance form (8.5). The
web-based form follows the template of the original paper form, which continues to be available
for students to submit written complaints and grievances to the appropriate division (8.6).
66
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
A log
(8.7):
•
•
•
•
•
•
was created to track the submissions received, which includes the following information
Name of the individual filing the complaint/grievance;
Student identification number;
Nature of the complaint/grievance;
Date of each complaint/grievance;
Date of the disposition of the complaint/grievance;
Final outcome.
Since a log was not kept prior to the fall 2013 term, the Office of Student Services reviewed the
paper and electronic files from the past four years, created a log and compiled the data into a
report (8.8). Beginning in fall 2013, all complaints /grievances have been entered into the log for
tracking and monitoring.
During the Fall 2013 term, student complaints/grievances were handled by the Dean of Student
Services and logged by the Administrative Secretary in the Office of the Vice President of
Student Services. According to the new student complaint/grievance process, each of the campus
divisions (Student Services, Academic Affairs, Administrative Services, the President’s Office,
and Instructional Television) will handle the complaints/grievances in their area. The respective
area’s secretary will log all incoming complaints/grievances and forward them to the appropriate
administrator.
The student complaint/grievance website has also been updated to include information on the
new complaint/grievance process and a link to the web-based form. The revised process will also
be included in the 2014-15 LAMC Catalog.
Upon submission of a complaint/grievance, the following process will commence in spring 2014
(8.9):
1. For paper forms, the student will submit the form to the Office of the Vice President of
Student Services; for web-based forms, the student will receive an e-mail confirming
receipt of the submission
2. Paper forms will be forwarded to the appropriate division/area and entered into the
electronic system. Electronically received complaints will be submitted to a shared email box that will be checked regularly by each area administrative secretary.
3. Each division secretary will enter the submission information into the log and
investigations will commence within five business days of receipt.
4. Appropriate personnel in each divisions/area (Student Services, Academic Affairs,
Administrative Services, the President’s Office, and Instructional Television) will review,
investigate, and work to resolve the issue as promptly as possible.
5. If there is no resolution to the complaint/grievance by the division/area personnel, then
the Vice-President or lead administrator will make a final decision towards resolution.
6. The progress of the complaint will be logged throughout this process by the respective
division/area secretary. Annually, at the end of the spring semester, each division/area
administrator will review his/her area complaint log and compile a summary report,
which will include an assessment of the complaints received, an evaluation of themes
67
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
(e.g. customer service related complaints, phone related complaints, faculty conflicts,
etc.), ongoing challenges, and a plan of action to address or make improvements for the
following academic year, if necessary.
7. All reports will be presented to the appropriate Shared Governance Committee and
College Council for a comprehensive review and recommendations for improvement.
Additionally, the Task Force created an instructional video presentation for office personnel in
each division/area to train them on how to maintain and monitor the log for the new Student
Complaint/Grievance process (8.10). At the start of the spring 2014 term, all faculty and staff
received an email with a link to the video presentation.
Next Steps
•
•
•
The Task Force, in collaboration with the Student Services Office and other divisions/areas,
will evaluate the new complaint/grievance process at the end of the spring 2014 semester and
suggest recommendations for improvement.
The Task Force, in collaboration with Professional and Staff Development, will train faculty
and staff on the updated student complaint/grievance process during the spring 2014
semester. This video and other instructional information will also serve as a training tool for
staff and secretaries working in divisional offices.
The revised process will be included in the 2014-15 LAMC Catalog.
Conclusion
The College will have fully resolved this recommendation by the end of the spring 2014
semester.
During the fall 2013 semester, the College developed a formal process and log for tracking and
monitoring student complaints/grievances. The log includes the date of the complaint/grievance,
the name of the individual filing the complaint/grievance, the nature of the complaint/grievance,
the disposition of the complaint/grievance, and the date of the disposition. Effective
immediately, the log will be maintained to include all student complaints/grievances and will be
reviewed annually for improvements to better serve our students (II.B.4).
Since a log was not kept prior to the fall 2013 term, the Office of Student Services reviewed files
from the past four years and compiled all of the data into a report covering the five-year period
from spring 2009 through spring 2014.
A web-based form was posted for use beginning in the spring 2014 term to help track and
monitor student complaints/grievances (II.B.3.a).
An instructional video presentation was created to train faculty and staff on the steps students
should follow when submitting complaints/grievances, and the 2014-2015 Catalog is being
updated to include the revised complaint/grievance process (ER 20).
68
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
List of Evidence
8.1.
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
8.10
Student Complaint/Grievance Website
LACCD Administrative Regulation E-55
Task Force Committee Agenda and Minutes
Accreditation Steering Committee Meeting Minutes
Student Complaint/Grievance Online Form
Student Complaint/Grievance Paper Form
Student Complaint/Grievance Log
Student Complaint/Grievance Report, 2009-2014
Student Complaint/Grievance Process
Student Complaint/Grievance Instructional Video
69
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
College Recommendation 9
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college ensure that all student support
programs, including counseling for distance education students, are actively engaged in the
program review and outcomes assessment process to determine how they contribute to the
institutional student learning outcomes. All of the student services programs and services should
complete a full cycle of review and assessment which includes gathering of data, analysis of
data, implementation of program changes for improvement and the re-evaluation of implemented
improvements. (II.B.3, II.B.3.c, and II.B.4)
II.B.3. The institution researches and identifies the learning support needs of its student
population and provides appropriate services and programs to address those needs.
II.B.3.c. The institution designs, maintains, and evaluates counseling and/or academic advising
programs to support student development and success and prepares faculty and other personnel
responsible for the advising function.
II.B.4. The institution evaluates student support services to assure their adequacy in meeting
identified student needs. Evaluation of these services provides evidence that they contribute to
the achievement of student learning outcomes. The institution uses the results of these
evaluations as the basis for improvement.
Progress in Addressing Recommendation
Since 2008, Student Services has been actively involved in Program Review and the creation and
implementation of Service Area Outcomes (SAOs). All student service areas participated in
Program Review in fall 2013 and one third of the student services programs will undergo
comprehensive program reviews in the spring of 2014. The Program Review process provides
the opportunity for Student Service areas to evaluate their respective programs, assess the
services provided to students’ and request over-base resource funding. Part of the Program
Review submission requires assessment of Service Area Outcomes (SAOs) to determine whether
appropriate and effective services are available to the student population and whether they
support institutional learning outcomes.
Service Area Outcomes
SAOs are the metrics to assess whether student services’ programs and units are meeting college
strategic goals and positively contributing to student learning. Below is a sample of the analysis
that is provided by the annual program review. As indicated below, Student Service areas have
completed a full cycle of Program Review by analyzing appropriate data, assessing SAO’s and
implementing program/area changes based on these assessments. (9.1).
Department,
Program or
Unit
Disabled
Student
SAO
Assessment
Method
Results of Analysis and
Suggestions for
Improvement
After attending the
DSP&S intake
A questionnaire
will be
Results indicated that 89%
felt the information was
70
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
Program and
Services
(DSPS)
orientation session,
students will be able to
demonstrate a knowledge
of DSP&S policies and
procedures
administered to
measure students’
understanding of
policies and
procedures.
helpful. One area for
improvement is that DSP&S
staff knowledge since only
18% of the students
disagreed that staff were
knowledgeable
Program Review provides a summary of the SAOs that have been assessed to evaluate whether
the SAOs support Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs). The ILOS for LAMC are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Written and Oral Communication
Information Competency
Problem Solving
Mathematics Competency (Quantitative Reasoning)
Aesthetic Responsiveness
Ethics and Values Applied to Decision Making
Global Awareness
The topics covered by the Student Service area 79 SAOs are broken down as follows (some
SAOs addressed more than one topic):
•
•
•
•
•
•
70 addressed College ILO Core Competencies;
46 Information Competency;
12 Problem Solving;
9 Written and Oral Communication;
2 Mathematics;
1 Ethics.
Among all of the SAOs, 97 percent had identified assessment methods, 94 percent had plans for
action, 78 percent had results for improvements, and 49 percent had undergone a re-evaluation of
the improvement plans of action.
Student Service areas, along with all campus units are required to submit an annual learning
outcomes report to the SLO Coordinator summarizing the number of outcomes assessed, results
of the outcomes and plans for improvement. (9.2).
All program reviews undergo a standardized process established by PROC. PROC is the
Program Review Oversight Committee that monitors and reviews the program review process
and ensures that all validation processes of each division are standard and consistent (9.3).
All managers of student services attended the campus wide program review training provided by
PROC this past October 2013 (9.3a). The training provided an introduction and explanation of
the updated template for program review. A new screen was added to the template requesting
information from each unit regarding how the identified SLO’s/SAO’s contribute to student
learning. The response to this question is critical as it indicates and documents how a unit
71
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
specifically makes contributions toward student learning. Program review also includes an
opportunity for unit managers to request resources in meeting objectives for program growth
and/or improvement. These requests are funneled through the resource allocation process where
they are first prioritized by the respective division and then sent to the Budget and Planning
Committee for final prioritization. Using a scoring rubric, the Budget and Planning Committee
base their prioritization for over base resource allocation on how the resource request aligns with
the colleges mission and strategic goals (9.3b)
Comprehensive Program Review and Validation Process
PROC recommended and the college approved the fall to spring change of the program review
cycle in the Fall 2013(9.3c). All units on campus completed program reviews in the fall 2013
semester and will transition to the new spring cycle beginning March 2014. To accommodate
this transition, One third of the Student Support Service programs are scheduled for
comprehensive reviews in March 2014. Each spring thereafter, comprehensive reviews of
another third of the programs will be completed so that all student services programs and units
will undergo comprehensive reviews in Academic Years 14-15, 15-16, and 16-17. The SSS
Committee has scheduled the following units for the first round of comprehensive program
reviews under the new cycle in spring 2014: Admissions and Records, Counseling, Financial
Aid, Matriculation, and Office of Student Services. At the end of the spring 2014 semester, the
SSSC will determine the second and third of the programs that will go through the validation
process (9.3d).
In addition to the Program Review cycle change, PROC standardized the method of Program
Review validation among all college divisions. In response to this standardization, The SSS
Committee created an updated rubric and questionnaire as part of the evaluation tools used in
Comprehensive Program Review validation. (9.4). The SSS Committee will also use a newly
developed validation template to assist the units undergoing comprehensive Program Review
validations in their oral presentations and program review summaries which are part of the
validation process (9.5). Each program review validation includes commendations and
recommendations for improvement from the SSS Committee. These recommendations for
improvement will be addressed by the unit and will be evaluated and reported out in the
following year’s program review.
Distance Education (DE) Students and Counseling
As counseling has been scheduled for a comprehensive program review in spring 2014, 2013
student survey results will be made available as it relates to counseling services. Part of the
student survey results revealed that DE students were slightly more satisfied with student support
services than students who were taking classes on campus;
•
•
•
•
85% felt that LAMC provides sufficient support services
83% felt that LAMC was effective at providing them with support they need to succeed.
90% of online student respondents reported being able to find services they need online.
90% also felt that the LAMC website was easy to navigate.
72
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
The Office of Institutional Effectiveness conducted a content analysis of the comments in openended questions relating to student satisfaction from on campus and online student respondents.
The main areas for improvement identified by students were:
•
•
•
•
•
Enhancing services for evening and weekend students;
Better communication between the college and the student body;
Enhancing professional behavior of staff in several offices, including Admissions, Financial
Aid, and Counseling;
Better on-campus computing centers, including on the East Campus;
Making the College website more user-friendly and keeping it up-to-date.
This data pertaining to DE students will be incorporated in the analysis and evaluation of service
outcomes in the Comprehensive Program Review for Counseling. It is expected that the
evaluation of the data of the services provided to DE students will result in objectives designed
to improve these services.
Division Service Area Outcome (DSAO) and SAOs
To establish a unified approach toward implementing improvements based on service area
outcomes within the student services division, DSAO’s (Division Student Area Outcomes) were
developed. These DSAO’s were developed at the SLO Summit in October 2013. (9.6). As
several Student Service faculty and staff were in attendance, initial discussions took place
among student service area leaders, regarding the integration and alignment of unit SAOs to the
DSAO’s which will ultimately contribute to the students’ acquisition of the ILO’s. Participating
in the SLO Summit and the development of DSAO’s has sparked many more discussions among
the student service units which has led to a more focused and unified approach to SAO
assessments. The Division Student Area Outcome that was developed is:
Students will be able to understand the processes and have the skills to access all of
student services program services.
Each unit in student services developed one or more SAOs that addressed access to their
services. The assessment of these SAOs will measure how well students are accessing student
support services on campus, meeting the DSAO that supports ILO Core Competencies.
Next Steps
Student Services has made strides in meeting this recommendation. All units of student services
are actively engaged in the program review cycle. The SSS Committee has developed an updated
rubrics and questionnaire to complete the validation process and all units have identified and
assessed their SAO’s, recommended and implemented improvements and are now tasked with
closing the cycle by re-evaluating those implemented plans for improvement.
To complete the program review cycle student services will:
• Administer the updated rubric and questionnaire in the spring 2014 program review
validations
73
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
•
•
Assess area SAO’s and make recommendations for improvements that specifically
contribute to institutional student learning outcomes by (date?)
Re-evaluate the implemented improvements to close out the cycle (date??)
In addition, the SSS Committee, in collaboration with the DE Committee will provide
Counseling more relevant DE information in program review data to better assess the services
provided to the DE students at Mission College
Conclusion
The College has partially resolved this Recommendation. The College will re-evaluate
implemented improvements based on the fall 2013 annual program review unit updates and the
spring 2014 comprehensive review submissions and validation process.
The college will evaluate the implemented improvements in the fall of 2014 and report the
results in the spring program review annual unit updates and comprehensive program reviews
scheduled for spring 2015.
Changes to the implemented improvements and other actions to increase student learning
outcomes will be made by the spring of 2015 for implementation in fall 2015.
List of Evidence
9. 1. Program Review Update Assessment of SAOs, Results, and Re-evaluation)
9.2. Division of Student Services’ SAOs
9.3. PROC Handbook
9.3a PROC Program Review Training
9.3b B&P prioritization process
9.3c College Council minutes-November
9.3d Evidence-Student Services schedule of program reviews
9.4. Validation Rubric
9.5. Program Review Validation Template
9.6. SLO Summit Report
74
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
College Recommendation 10
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college assess how effective the collegiality
efforts have been in promoting a productive collegial workplace, how it subscribes to, advocates,
and demonstrates integrity in the treatment of all employees, and then implement improvements
based on the outcomes of the assessments. It also should complete the code of conduct approval
process, and demonstrate that the college is upholding its code of conduct. (III.A.1.d, III.A.4.c).
III.A.1.d. The institution upholds a written code of professional ethics for all of its personnel.
III.A.4.c. The institution subscribes to, advocates, and demonstrates integrity in the treatment of
its administration, faculty, staff and students.
Progress in Addressing Recommendation
The College has assessed how effective its collegiality efforts have been in promoting a collegial
workplace which subscribes to, advocates, and demonstrates integrity in the treatment of all
employees. Based on the assessment, improvements have been implemented. The College Code
of Conduct (10.1) was re-affirmed by the Academic Senate on November 7, 2013, and reestablishes the appropriate collegial conduct expected in all aspects of working within an
academic institution (10.2).
In order to ensure that collegiality efforts are effective campus-wide, the College has
implemented the following activities:
• Establishment of a Collegiality Theme Team
In the spring of 2013, the Accreditation Steering Committee established a Collegiality Theme
Team to support and encourage campus constituent leadership to be responsible for
promoting collegiality through various activities (10.3). The team, co-chaired by the
Academic Senate President and the Vice-President of Student Services, met in the summer
and fall of 2013 to discuss activities and strategies to enhance the collegial environment
(10.4). A presentation (10.5) by the Collegiality Theme Team that defined collegiality and
professionalism was presented to faculty and administration during the fall 2013 Flex Day
(10.6) as well as at the College Council Retreat (10.7).
• Department/Unit Mediation Activities
The administration supported improvement of collegiality by funding four critical mediation
interventions in the following departments/units: (1) Counseling, (2) Child Development, (3)
Admission and Records and (4) Assessment Center. Each unit participated in mediation
activities that allowed individuals to openly discuss issues and concerns that were seen as
roadblocks to a positive and collegial working environment. Each unit was provided
strategies to support long-term improvement (10.8).
• Faculty and staff mediation training
Five representatives from LAMC attended the Southern California Mediation Association
Conference (10.9).
• Re-affirmation of the College Code of Conduct
The Academic Senate passed a resolution to reaffirm the College Code of Conduct originally
established and approved by the College in 2007 (10.10). This step served as a reminder of
75
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
•
•
•
•
•
the existence of the College Code of Conduct, the expectation that all employees adhere to
the tenets of the document, and as a further support for the Anti-Bullying Pledge that was
established in December 2012 (10.11). In addition, College Council further supported the
Academic Senate resolution by re-affirming the document and the need to adhere to the
College Code of Conduct (10.12).
Accountability in Upholding the College Code of Conduct
The Administration has taken corrective action, when necessary, to hold employees
accountable to the tenets of the College Code of Conduct (10.13).
Faculty Focus Groups
The Vice President of Academic Affairs facilitated spring and fall faculty focus group
providing faculty the opportunity to interact with the Vice-President in an informal setting to
strengthen relationships among disciplines. The first of these discussions addressed faculty
perceptions of LAMC’s strengths and areas in need of improvement, while the second
focused on Student Learning Outcome (SLO) assessments and student learning styles
(10.14).
Faculty Brown Bag Discussion Groups
The Academic Senate re-instituted monthly Brown Bag discussions to provide opportunities
for faculty to engage in informal interaction with each other to support a more collegial
environment (10.15).
Faculty and Staff Recognition for Years of Service
College unions, in collaboration with the Academic Senate, held faculty and staff recognition
pinning ceremonies honoring years of service to the District (10.16).
Other Activities
- AFT Faculty Guild-sponsored monthly union leadership summit meetings, which
included all 6 campus unions (10.17).
- Magna Online Seminar on Collegiality from a Positive Leadership Perspective. (10.18).
- Union workshops around collegiality to improve communication amongst diversity –
communication, intercultural story telling (April 23, 2013), anti-bullying – creating a
civil environment, etc. (10.19).
- Support of faculty through the monitoring and observance of contract-specific issues
The College was able to assess the effectiveness of these collegiality efforts from the following:
1. Faculty and Staff Feedback
• Department/Unit Mediation Feedback
The College has assessed these specific mediation activities by requesting feedback from
faculty and staff who participated. The feedback highlighted participants’ views of the
process and outcomes of the mediation. The results of the feedback indicated that
participants have experienced improved working relationships, more effective
communication, and an improved understanding of participants’ roles and responsibilities
(10.20).
• Training of Faculty and Staff
Feedback from participants who attended the Southern California Mediation Association
Conference and/or the Magna Online Seminar on Collegiality from a Positive Perspective
indicated that the experience motivated them to help develop additional initiatives to
further promote collegiality efforts (10.21).
76
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
2. Campus-Wide Assessment of Collegiality Efforts
The Office of Institutional Effectiveness conducted a faculty/staff survey between November
26 and December 15, 2013, which included several questions on collegiality. On the whole,
the majority of respondents (64 percent) reported that they felt the campus climate was more
collegial during Fall 2013 than in the past (Figure 1). A slightly larger majority (68 percent)
reported that they believed an effort was being made by the College community to be more
collegial this year (10.22).
The results of the Faculty/ Staff Survey are summarized below.
Figure 1: Responses to Campus Climate & Collegiality Questions
Strongly
Agree
I feel well supported by member of the College
community.
LAMC offers adequate opportunities for me to meet
and socialize with other College employees.
Agree
19%
54%
16%
I feel a sense of belonging to the LAMC community
26%
I feel a sense of camaraderie with other LAMC
employees.
26%
I am respected by my colleagues at LAMC.
Neither
49%
0%
14% 6% 2%
58%
14% 3% 2%
47%
25%
4%
52%
42%
22%
13% 2%
15% 7%
55%
22%
10% 2%
18%
27%
The climate on campus this year is more collegial
than in prior years.
Members of the College community are making more
of an effort to be collegial.
16%
52%
23%
I am treated with integrity by my colleagues at LAMC.
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
11% 6% 2%
26%
28%
50%
75%
Percent of Respondents
8% 2%
4%
100%
When asked about their relationships with faculty, staff, and administrators in their own
department/unit and in other departments/units, the vast majority of respondents (87 percent)
reported "collegial" or "extremely collegial" relationships with all six groups, with staff being the
most collegial group. No respondents reported "not at all collegial" relationships with staff in
any department, their own or others (Figure 2).
77
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
Figure 2: Level of Collegiality at LAMC
Extremely
Collegial
My relationships with faculty in my own
department/unit
Collegial
Somewhat
Collegial
43%
42%
My relationships with faculty in other
departments/units
57%
29%
My relationships with staff in my own
department/unit
44%
48%
My relationships with staff in other
departments/units
My relationships with administrators in my own
department/unit
My relationships with administrators in other
departments/units
AVERAGE
0%
25%
50%
1%
8%
2%
12% 1%
50%
37%
13%
11% 1%
56%
32%
2%
14%
43%
41%
13%
13%
53%
34%
Not at All
Collegial
75%
100%
Percent of Respondents
In addition, the following representative feedback was given in the open-response section for
comments relating to LAMC's campus climate and communication.
• "Overall, communication has improved with staff and other colleagues." - Adjunct
Faculty;
• "The atmosphere (faculty) at LAMC is improving. The President is much more
interactive - more present - with the faculty and staff than previous presidents." - Adjunct
Faculty;
• "Faculty should seek out opportunities to learn from and support each other, rather than
trying to find ways to embarrass and prove others wrong publicly." - Regular Faculty.
• The following comments from another section of the survey summarizes the overall
opinion on campus climate: "I believe from my experience, especially during the last
year, that the College climate has improved significantly. I also believe that the majority
of my faculty colleagues, administrators, and staff care about the students and work
diligently in their respective positions for students' success."
Next Steps
•
•
•
Training for improved customer service by the Division of Student Services.
Regular scheduling of campus-wide Town Hall meetings to enhance communication of
campus news, updates, and activities in an effort to reinforce campus collegiality. The
first Town Hall meeting is scheduled for March 18, 2014.
The College is supporting mediation training for faculty and staff in the spring of 2014.
Twenty faculty and staff will go through a 40-hour program conducted by the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). FMCS is a national organization that
78
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
•
•
provides mediation, conciliation, and training services for governmental, educational, and
other public agencies. As a result of the training, LAMC will have a core group of
skilled individuals who will provide conflict resolution, conflict prevention, and informal
mediation services for faculty, staff, students and community members. These individuals
will undergo a rigorous screening and application process that the FMCS utilizes to select
the most promising and committed individuals. The College mediation experts will have
annual training updates and participate in college activities training other faculty, staff,
and students on an annual basis.
Regular Faculty/Staff surveys and ongoing evaluation and assessment of all activities will
take place to continue to promote a collegial workplace.
A report providing an outline and assessment by faculty, consultants, staff and others on
LAMC's collegiality activities for AY 13-14 will be sent to the Collegiality Team for
review, building on the report summarizing activities undertaken during AY 2012-2013.
Conclusion
The College has met this recommendation.
To date, the campus climate at Los Angeles Mission College has significantly improved as a
result of the participation in the many activities and trainings that have been provided. With the
establishment of the Collegiality Theme Team to encourage and support campus events,
collegiality efforts have proven effective, as evidenced by the assessment and evaluation of those
events and the responses in the faculty staff survey administered in fall of 2013.
•
•
•
The re-affirmation of the College Code of Conduct, coupled with the Anti-Bullying
Pledge, have demonstrated that LAMC advocates and expects integrity in the treatment
and behavior of all employees (Standard III.A.4.c). The campus and its leadership have
resolved to actively maintain accountability by upholding the College Code of Conduct
(Standard III.A.1.d).
College departments/units have participated in mediation and the College has established
a sustainable plan for continued improvement through training of key faculty and staff on
mediation, conflict resolution, and conflict prevention.
Finally, through these systems, the College will continue to assess and evaluate campus
climate and effectiveness of collegiality efforts to implement improvements, workshops
and training as necessary.
List of Evidence
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
LAMC Code of Conduct
Academic Senate Agenda and Minutes - 11/7/2013
Accreditation Steering Committee Agenda and Minutes - 5/2013
Collegiality Theme Team Agenda and Minutes
6/26/2013 – Agenda and Minutes
Collegiality and Professionalism Presentation
Flex Day Agenda – August 2013
College Council Retreat Agenda and Minutes – August 2013
79
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
10.8
10.9
10.10
10.11
10.12
10.13
10.14
10.15
10.16
10.17
10.18
10.19
10.20
10.21
10.22
Mediation Activities Summary/Report
Counseling
Child Development
Admissions and Records
Assessment Center
Southern California Mediation Association Conference Agenda
Academic Senate Agenda and Minutes
Anti-Bullying Pledge
College Council Agenda and Minutes - 12/19/2013
Redacted Incident Reports
Faculty Focus Groups
Deep Dialogue Discussions I: Summary, Participant List
Deep Dialogue Discussions II: Summary, Participant List
Academic Senate Brown Bag Discussions (link)
Years of Service Recognition
Union Leadership Summit Meetings (Nov 26, 2012; April 29, 2013; May 20, 2013)
Magna Seminar Announcement
Union Workshops
Mediation Services Feedback
Faculty/Staff Training Feedback
Southern California Mediation Association Conference
Magna Online Seminar on Collegiality from a Positive Perspective
Fall 2013 Faculty/Staff Survey Results on Collegiality
80
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
College Recommendation 11
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college integrate human resources planning
into its institutional planning in order to maintain a sufficient number of qualified faculty, staff
and administrators to support the college’s mission, purposes and programs. (III.A.2; III.A.6)
III.A.2. The institution maintains a sufficient number of qualified faculty with full-time
responsibility to the institution. The institution has a sufficient number of staff and
administrators with appropriate preparation and experience to provide the administrative
services necessary to support the institution's mission and purposes.
III.A.6. Human resource planning is integrated with institutional planning...
Progress in Addressing the Recommendation
The College integrates human resources planning into its institutional planning through the
following established processes: (1) Program Review (2) Faculty Hiring Prioritization (3)
Adjunct Hiring, (4) Administrator Hiring and (5) Classified Hiring. The College uses these
processes to help maintain a sufficient number of qualified faculty, staff and administrators to
support the College’s mission, purpose, and programs.
The College's Mission Statement serves as the foundation for institutional planning, stating that:
Los Angeles Mission College is committed to the success of our students. The College provides
accessible, affordable, high-quality learning opportunities in a culturally and intellectually
supportive environment by
• Ensuring that students successfully transfer to four-year institutions, prepare for
successful careers in the workplace, and improve their basic skills;
• Encouraging students to become critical thinkers and lifelong learners;
• Providing services and programs that improve the lives of the diverse communities
we serve.
Los Angeles Mission College is committed to maintaining high academic standards, promoting
student success, and creating opportunities for life-long learning. LAMC has academic programs
for students with varying goals, including transfer to a university, career technical education and
basic skills. The College encourages an environment where students can become informed,
active citizens through a diverse curricula, and cultural, academic, and creative activities.
Los Angeles Mission College engages in ongoing collegial, self-reflective dialogue, and
continuous improvement of student learning and institutional processes. Institutional planning is
done through the College's strategic planning goals. Each division program and/or unit develops
objectives to meet the college's strategic planning goals. LAMC uses such dialogue and the
Program Review process for continued improvement and institutional planning. The College
uses program review to evaluate the quality of its programs. This process is integrated with the
Budget and Planning Committee to set determine allocation of appropriate resources, including
human resources (11.1 PROC Hand Book).
81
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
As part of the program review process, the Educational Planning Committee (EPC), Student
Support Services Committee, Technology Committee and the Facilities Committee review
internal and external data provided by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness to assess whether
the programs and services offered by the College support its mission and purpose and address the
needs of the student population.
Beginning in spring 2014, Program Review will change from fall to spring with updated program
review screens, which include department’s goals and objectives, Mission Statement, Staffing,
Outreach, Quality and Accessibility of Services, Student Area/Learning Outcomes, Human
Resources Planning, Evaluations and Assessments and their interrelationship with the College’s
strategic planning goals. Faculty department chairs, managers, supervisors, deans and vice
presidents are asked to evaluate their individual programs, to include any hiring and/or resource
requests. Review by the appropriate Vice President allows each administrator to prioritize the
requests from their respective Divisions. The results of the Prioritization are communicated to
the Budget and Planning Committee, College Council and the President of the College (11.2
Program Review Planning Process).
The College conducted a Student Support Services Assessment to evaluate the staffing needs in
Student Services (11.13 Refer to 7.2 Student Survey). The overall assessment found that:
Mission appears to have staffing deficiencies in Admission and Records,
Assessment/Matriculation, Athletics, Child Development, Counseling, and International
Students. In addition, there may not be a sufficient number of administrators to manage the array
of programs and units within the Student Services Division.
This assessment was completed fall 2013 and has provided the College’s institutional planning
committees (e.g. Budget and Planning, Student Support Services Committee) and the Division of
Student Services data that will be used in their resource requests for fall 2014. The steps for
resource allocation that are over base budget (not replacements but new positions) are the
following:
1. Annual program review unit updates that identify resource needs including staffing
2. Prioritization by the three Divisions of the college
3. Prioritized funding request for next fiscal is submitted to Budget and Planning
4. Budget and Planning rank all requests using metrics that are contained in the Resource
Request Rubric for Prioritization
5. Budget and Planning makes recommendations to the College Council.
6. College Council makes recommendations to the President
7. The President approves, modifies, or does not approve College Council recommendations
Hiring Processes
Faculty Hiring Prioritization Process - Full Time Tenured Faculty
Requests for faculty hires must be included within Program Review. In addition to the
Program Review Process an application must be submitted to the Faculty Hiring
Prioritization Committee (FHPC) (11-3evidence: FHPC Application). The FHPC, under the
auspices of the Academic Senate, annually reviews departmental requests for full-time
tenured probationary instructional and non-instructional (counselors, librarians) faculty
82
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
positions. The FHPC, in conjunction with the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness, ensures
accuracy of the data provided and reviews and prioritizes all requests. The FHPC verifies
that any request for full time faculty positions is part of the program review prior to
considering it for approval. This ensures that academic hiring is integrated with budget and
planning and in line with institutional priorities and strategic planning goals. The FHPC
ranks these requests so that available resources for faculty hiring can be prioritized (11.3
FHPC Criteria, Ranking Form, and FT Tenure Track Request Forms). The rankings from
FHPC are reviewed and approved by the Academic Senate, are forwarded to the Budget and
Planning Committee, and in consultation with the President, recommends to the College
Council the number of faculty positions to be filled in a given year (11.4. Faculty Hiring
Prioritization Charter). This process takes into consideration the attrition and the District’s
FON requirement.
Adjunct Hiring Process
Prior to the beginning of each academic session, the department chair and supervising
academic administrator are responsible for reviewing the staffing of all proposed classes, as
per the AFT Faculty Guild contract (11.5 evidence: site that one only). Class offerings for
fall, spring, summer and winter intersession are determined by the Vice President of
Academic Affairs in consultation with the College Strategic Enrollment Management Plan
and the Council of Academic Deans and Department Chairs. The Strategic Enrollment
Management Plan is reviewed annually and updated as needed by the Strategic Enrollment
Planning Committee (11.6 Strategic Enrollment Plan). Once course offerings are staffed
with full time faculty, any remaining available courses will be staffed by adjunct faculty
based on the discipline seniority list (evidence: contract language for seniority list; website
of seniority lists). If the seniority list is exhausted, or there is no seniority list for the
discipline, then the Department Chair, in collaboration with the Vice President of Academic
Affairs, is responsible for hiring new adjunct faculty (contract: new adjunct).
Administrator Hiring
If a division determines the need for an administrative hire (academic or classified), requests
must be included in the Program Review. The division Vice President prioritizes and ensures
that all resource requests are integrated with budget and planning and in line with
institutional priorities and strategic planning goals. The Vice Presidents submits the
prioritized resource allocation requests using the Budget and Planning “Resource Request
Rubric for Prioritization” (11.7 Resource Requests Rubric for Prioritization). This rubric
outlines the metrics and supporting data necessary for Budget and Planning to make resource
allocations. The criteria include 6 elements:
1. Is this position or equipment new or is it a replacement?
2. Is this position or equipment needed to satisfy a mandate, safety or accreditation
requirement, or a workload distribution (position only)?
3. What are the on-going costs associated with this position?
4. How does this request meet college strategic goals and program/unit objectives?
5. How will this request meet SLOS and/or SAOs in your department, program or unit?
6. How will this request assist the college to meet student achievement benchmarks?
83
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
All division rankings are reviewed, prioritized and approved by the Budget and Planning
Committee who forwards their recommendations to the College Council. College Council
forwards these recommendations to the College President for final approval.
Upon campus approval, to fill a senior classified administrative position, the College will
submit a request for a certified listing of the senior classified administrative position to the
Personnel Commission (11.8 What is the Personnel Commission). The College President, or
designated administrator, will review the unranked alphabetical listing of persons who have
been found qualified for the administrative position as determined by the District Chancellor
and Personnel Commission (11.9 Personnel Commission Rule 519). The College President,
or designated administrator, reviews application materials, and selects three or more persons
on the listing to interview. After the interviews are conducted, one person is selected to fill
the position. The College’s Personnel Office will complete the appropriate paperwork and
forward the packet to the Personnel Commission for processing.
Classified Staff Hiring
Individual departments or areas may request a classified position through Program Review,
including Classified Management positions (11.9 Classified Staffing Request). If a division
determines the need for a classified hire, the division Vice President prioritizes and ensures
that all resource requests are integrated with budget and planning and in line with
institutional priorities and strategic planning goals. The Vice Presidents submits the
prioritized resource allocation requests using the Budget and Planning “Resource Request
Rubric for Prioritization” (11.8 Resource Requests Rubric for Prioritization).
Once Budget and Planning recommend the ranking of classified staff it is sent to the College
Council for review. The College Council recommends classified staff hiring that is over base
for the next fiscal year to the President for approval, modification or non-approval. Once
approved by the President, requests are submitted to the Personnel Commission detailing the
duties for any newly created positions. The Personnel Commission reviews the form to
ensure that all of the expected duties are clearly defined and fall within their respective job
classifications for both newly created and replacement hires (11.11 What is the Personnel
Commission). Once approval to hire is be received by the Personnel Commission, an
eligibility list is sent to the campus personnel office. All eligible candidates in the first three
rankings of certified scores who accept the offer of an interview shall be interviewed (11.12
Personnel Commission Rule 635). After the interviews are conducted, one person is selected
to fill the position. The College’s Personnel Office will complete the appropriate paperwork
and forward the packet to the Personnel Commission for processing. The Personnel
Commission audits the College’s hiring and interview process to ensure that all interview
requirements were followed prior to the final offer being made to the candidate.
The LACCD Personnel Commission is responsible for developing and enforcing rules and
regulations (as required by action of the California State legislature, provisions of the
Education Code, and other applicable laws) to ensure the efficiency of the classified service
and the selection and retention of employees on the basis of merit and fitness. The Personnel
Commission assures the qualifications of classified staff hired by the College by creating job
classifications, developing and maintaining a Merit System for hiring classified employees,
84
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
administering qualifying examinations and interviews, and placing qualified candidates on an
eligibility list for each job classification. The Commission publishes duties, responsibilities,
and qualifications for all classified staff positions on its website and lists open positions in
weekly job announcement bulletins (11.10 Personnel Commission Website).
Next Steps
The Human Resource planning and recommendations for hiring of FT faculty, adjuncts,
classified staff and administrators will be completed by March 30. These human resource
requests will go the district as part of the College’s FY 14-15 budget.
Conclusion
The College has fully resolved this recommendation.
The College has integrated human resources planning into its institutional planning processes
beginning with the Program Review process, Faculty Hiring Prioritization Committee and the
Strategic Enrollment Management Committee. Recommendations are reviewed by the Budget
and Planning Committee, College Council and approved by the College President, who makes
decisions based on these institutional planning processes that integrate human resource planning
with resource allocation decisions (III.A.6).
These integrated planning processes support institutional planning to ensure the College works to
maintain a sufficient number of qualified faculty, staff and administrators to adequately support
the College’s mission, values and programs (III.A.2).
List of Evidence
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6
11.7
11.8
11.9
11.10
11.11
11.12
11.13
PROC Hand Book
Program Review Planning Process
FHPC Criteria, Ranking Form, and FT Tenure Track Request Forms
Faculty Hiring Prioritization Charter
Evidence: site that one only
Strategic Enrollment Plan
Resource Requests Rubric for Prioritization
What is the Personnel Commission
Classified Staffing Request
Personnel Commission Website
Refer to 11.8
Personnel Commission Rule 635
Refer to 7.2
85
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
College Recommendation 12
To improve its established budget development practices, the team recommends the college
determine the cost of maintaining and periodically replacing the technology acquired through
grant funding and factor those costs into their planning and budgeting process. (III.C.1.c; III.C.2;
III.D.1.d)
III.C.1.c. The institution systematically plans, acquires, maintains, and upgrades or replaces
technology infrastructure and equipment to meet institutional needs.
III.C.2. Technology planning is integrated with institutional planning. The institution
systematically assesses the effective use of technology resources and uses the results of
evaluation as the basis for improvement.
III.D.1.d. The institution clearly defines and follows its guidelines and processes for financial
planning and budget development, with all constituencies having appropriate opportunities to
participate in the development of institutional plans and budgets.
Progress for Addressing the Recommendation
In the fall of 2013 the Vice President of Administrative Services and the Information Technology
(IT) Manager conducted a campus-wide technology assessment, determined the cost of
maintaining and replacing the technology the College has acquired through grant funding, and
developed a draft Technology Replacement Plan. During the development of the plan, the Vice
President of Administrative Services and the IT Manager received guidance and
recommendations from the Accreditation Steering Committee (ASC) leadership (12.1).
The Technology Replacement Plan is a five year plan which includes a comprehensive set of
budgetary recommendations for technology that is acquired through both grant funding and the
College’s general fund (12.2).
Technology requires continuous upgrades and changes to support student learning and business
continuity. The Technology Replacement Plan lists the replacement cycle for both hardware and
software, beginning with the date of first installation, and is primarily driven by the vendor’s
product roadmap and technical support guidelines. The Plan also includes the long-term costs to
maintain, upgrade, and support the College’s technology infrastructure over time (12.3).
The annual technology replacement budget, as outlined in the new Plan, will be requested
through the program review process under the Information Technology unit beginning in spring
2014. The requests will follow the shared governance process of over base budget allocation.
The Technology Replacement Plan will guide the Technology Committee in the distribution of
the allocation of funds. If funds are limited, the distribution will be based on the criteria and
priorities stated in the Technology Replacement Plan (12.4). The following flowchart
demonstrates the process of the annual technology replacement budget request.
86
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
The Technology Replacement Plan is a living document (12.5), which will be reviewed annually
to maintain currency and effectiveness and to ensure the technological health of the College.
The Technology Committee will schedule a systematic review of the Technology Replacement
Plan each fall to review the equipment, evaluate the progress the College has made since the last
review, and make budgetary recommendations to the Plan. Revisions to the Technology
Replacement Plan will be based on the review and evaluation completed by the Technology
Committee. Opportunities for improvement will focus on maintaining an effective balance
87
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
between the resources available and the needs of the campus and on placing instruction and
supporting student success activities as the primary goals.
Benefits expected from the scheduled replacement plan include:
-
Budgetary predictability
Less disruption to teaching and learning
Systematic annual technology budget allocation
Ongoing replacement funds appearing as part of each year’s budget request
Improved IT infrastructure, organization, and support
Reductions of computer upgrading and repair requests
Conclusion
The College has fully resolved this recommendation.
The College has implemented the long-term Technology Replacement Plan to ensure that the
cost of maintaining and replacing technology is embedded in the planning and budget processes,
including technology received through grant funding. The Plan was approved by the Technology
Committee on October 31, 2013 (12.6) and College Council on November 21, 2013 (12.7).
Los Angeles Mission College is committed to the use of the Technology Replacement Plan as a
sustainable process for evaluating the infrastructure and funding for technology to ensure that the
College systematically plans, maintains, and upgrades or replaces technology and equipment
(III.C.1.c; III.C.2).
The College has integrated this plan into the shared governance process and will review the plan
annually to evaluate technology resources. The Plan is an integral part of institutional planning
and annual review and will be used as a basis for improvement to meet the changing needs of the
College (III.C.2; III.D.1.d).
List of Evidence
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
12.5
12.6
12.7
Meeting Summaries
Technology Replacement Plan
Technology Replacement Plan – Page 5
Technology Replacement Plan – Page 1.B
Technology Replacement Plan – Page 2.H
Technology Committee Minutes - 10/31/2013
College Council Minutes - 11/21/2013
88
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
College Recommendation 13
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college provide appropriate training to staff on
the proper documentation procedures identified in the audit for: “To Be Arranged” (TBA)
courses, eligibility verification for college categorical programs, and verification of census
reporting documents. The college also must establish internal controls to ensure that audit
findings are resolved prior to the subsequent audit. (III.D.2.a, III.D.2.d, III.D.2.e)
III.D.2.a. Financial documents, including the budget and independent audit, have a high degree of
credibility and accuracy, and reflect appropriate allocation and use of financial resources to support
student learning programs and services.
III.D.2.d. All financial resources, including short and long term debt instruments (such as bonds and
Certificates of Participation), auxiliary activities, fund-raising efforts, and grants, are used with integrity
in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the funding source.
III.D.2.e. The institution's internal control systems are evaluated and assessed for validity and
effectiveness and the results of this assessment are used for improvement.
Progress in Addressing the Recommendation
During the November 2012 audit, conducted by Vazquez and Associates on behalf of the
LACCD, three audit exceptions were identified (13.1). The three audit exceptions were as
follows:
1. Thirteen courses at LAMC were published in the schedule of classes without information
as to the To Be Arranged (TBA) hour requirement. (Audit report—page 14)
2. In the Disabled Student Program and Services (DSP&S) there were students who did not
have verification of disability, educational limitation assessment on file and
documentation that services were provided. (Audit report—page 16).
3. There were 8 class sections that either could not be located or were not audited because
the census rosters were not properly completed (Audit report—page 7)
Corrective action for each of these audit exceptions was implemented, to include established
internal controls, prior to the June 30, 2013 Schedule of State Findings and Recommendations
report by LACCD (13.2).
1. TBA Courses
According to the California Community College Contracted District Audit Manual, some
courses with regularly-scheduled hours of instruction may have “hours to be arranged”
(TBA) as part of the total contact hours for the course (13.3). Calculating FTES for the TBA
portion of such courses uses an alternative method of the Weekly or Daily Census
Attendance Accounting Procedure pursuant to CCR, Title 5, Sections 58003.1(b) and (c)
respectively. Counting TBA hours for FTES is not an option for credit courses to which the
Weekly or Daily Attendance Accounting Procedure pursuant to CCR, Title 5, Section
58003.1(f) applies (e.g., Distance Education courses not computed using other attendance
accounting procedures, Independent Study courses, and Cooperative-Work Experience
education courses).
89
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
The Manual suggests the following audit procedures:
a) Determine that a clear description of the course, including the number of TBA
hours required, is published in the official schedule of classes or addenda thereto.
b) Determine that specific instructional activities, including those conducted during
TBA hours, expected of all students enrolled in the course are included in the
official course outline. All enrolled students are informed of these instructional
activities and expectations for completion in the class syllabus or other document.
c) Determine apportionment and attendance record compliance as of census date by
reviewing supporting documentation such as the attendance roster (13.4).
The Vice President of Academic Affairs identified the fall 2013 WSCH (Weekly Student
Contact Hours) course sections that were scheduled with a TBA designation (13.5).
On October 2, 2013, Ms. Cathy Iyemura of the LACCD Attendance Accounting and Reporting
Systems Office to conduct a training session for the College’s Council of Instruction (COI),
Admissions and Records representatives, and the Academic Scheduling staff members (13.6). A
follow-up meeting was scheduled with the Vice President of Academic Affairs on November 12,
2013, to establish a system to ensure that TBA hours are clearly published and that the process is
in accordance with the District Audit Manual. The procedure was shared with the Academic
Scheduling staff members, whom bear the primary responsibility for implementing them (13.7).
Attendance Documentation
• TBA contact hours in credit courses which meet conterminously with the primary
term (Weekly Student Contact Hour procedure) shall be scheduled the same number
of hours each week of the term.
• The required TBA hours for weekly census classes shall be completed each week for
the duration.
• WSCH TBA hours shall be documented and maintained by the Admissions and
Records Office.
• The Course Outline of Record (COR) shall reflect the appropriate TBA information
before the class is scheduled.
• During the fall and spring semesters, the Admissions and Records Office shall
forward that list to the Academic Affairs Scheduling Office to review the list and
confirm accuracy of the schedules.
• The Office of Academic Affairs will determine what system of attendance
documentation is appropriate for each course section.
• Deans within the Office of Academic Affairs will ensure that instructors are apprised
of the proper accounting method and that those records are accurate, properly
maintained and stored for a minimum of one year. Records shall include the
following:
1. Documentation that students were informed in a timely fashion of their
individual TBA schedule and responsibility to adhere to that schedule, and
substantiating that students are under the immediate supervision of the
appropriate College employee
90
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
2. Documentation of each student’s participation in TBA schedules or
documentation of each student’s hours per week for the entire term
3. Collecting documentation at Census or collecting documentation at the
end of the term.
The Office of Academic Affairs is also responsible to ensure that faculty meet the State
Minimum Qualifications for the discipline being taught, monitor the evaluation of the TBA work
completed by students to ensure that the TBA hours are not being utilized for homework and
verify that TBA courses include the required addendum, number of TBA hours and specific
instructional activities and learning outcomes in the COR (13.8).
2. Eligibility Verification for Categorical Programs
Based on the audit findings for DSPS and EOPS/CARE, Table A summarizes the information
about the corrective action plans, internal controls and trainings that have been completed for
each of these areas.
Table A
Categorica
l Program
DSPS
EOPS/
CARE
Eligibility
Verification
Audit Exception
Establishment of a
procedure to ensure
that all students
receiving services
have met eligibility.
Insufficient
documentation
identified
in
a
minimal number of
files.
Recommended staff
training.
Corrective Action
Plan
Training
Established a checklist for DSPS
faculty and staff to verify eligibility
requirements are met and completed
as follows (13.9):
1. Application for Services
2. The Release of Information form
3. Educational Limitations Form
4. A Student Educational Contract to
include Verification of Disability
Status and Authorized Services
(3.10 for 1 – 4 above)
Training conducted on
the
use
of
the
established Checklist to
verify
eligibility
documentation in the
student file once per
semester (13.11).
Established a common system to
improve the documentation of the
student files with the following:
• Common labeling for telephone
calls and correspondence
• Rubber stamps to clearly identify
students’ first, second, and third
appointments (13.12).
Training conducted at
the 2012 Annual Staff
Retreat on the common
system established to
improve documentation
of the student files
(13.13).
91
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
Disabled Student Programs and Services (DSP&S)
DSPS utilizes a Student File Checklist to ensure that all eligibility documentation has been
verified by the DSPS Faculty and Staff. Training has been provided through team/staff meetings
to ensure proper use of the established checklist. Any eligibility-related questions are discussed
during the team meetings, held twice per month.
Title V requires an annual internal audit of DSPS students reported in the College’s Management
Information System (MIS) (13.14).
To ensure compliance of eligibility and establish internal controls, DSP&S staff has reviewed
MIS reported student files at the end of each semester to ensure students have all the proper
documentation, as listed in Table A, Corrective Action Plan. If a file was missing required
documentation, the DSPS Director was notified and an action plan to correct the omission was
implemented.
Since all DSPS office personnel will be trained on use of the checklist, beginning with the spring
2014 term, review of MIS reported student files will occur twice each semester at their team/staff
meetings. Any files with identified missing documentation can be discussed and corrected
without any delay; further strengthening review and establishing a sustainable process that
allows for multiple reviewers to verify proper documentation.
Extended Opportunity Program and Services and CARE
EOP&S/CARE follows a standardized process to ensure proper eligibility verification for each
student. EOP&S/CARE staff is trained and updated during monthly staff meetings, as needed
for corrective measures, including individualized supervision with the Director and/or other
appropriate staff to ensure that proper process and documentation policies are followed.
EOP&S/CARE permanent staff reviews files to approve applications, monitor for eligibility,
ensure accurate maintenance of records and data information (including MIS updating).
EOP&S/CARE students have three required application forms and two self-certification forms,
as applicable (13.15). At the end of each semester, student files are reviewed to verify adherence
to the EOP&S/CARE Mutual Responsibility Contract. Students must meet the following criteria:
1. Residence status
2. Attendance of three appointments with the EOPS/CARE counselor during each
semester
3. Enrollment in 12 units or more in the subsequent semester
4. Adherence to the established Student Educational Plan
5. Less than 70 degree-applicable units completed
During the audit, two of 20 student files did not meet the student contract requirements of
attending three counseling appointments each semester. To establish internal controls, during the
second month of each semester the MIS Technician provides the EOP&S/CARE director a list of
students that have not met compliance with the three counseling appointments. The director
provides this list to all staff to make follow up phone calls to remind the students to schedule a
second or third appointment with a counselor. If the director is not available, the MIS Technician
is responsible to disseminate the information to the rest of the staff.
92
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
3. Census Reporting
Attendance Accounting is the basis for state apportionment funding and is subject to annual
audits performed by the State of California. As a result of a full scope audit during the 201112 academic year, it was recommended that the College strengthen its control processes to:
• Help ensure that FTES are adequately supported, accurate, and complete in
accordance with LACCD Board Policy (13.16).
• Ensure that census rosters, mandatory exclusion rosters and other supporting
documentation is properly retained pursuant to Administrative Regulation 13 (13.17).
To establish internal controls, the fall 2012 Census Roster cover memorandum was revised and
distributed to provide more detailed instructions for faculty (13.18). The Admissions and
Records (A&R) Senior Supervisor or designee, was placed on the monthly Council of Instruction
agenda to provide training on accurate roster maintenance and updates on missing Rosters
(13.19, 13.20). The updated information was also presented at the Faculty Academy and Flex
Day (13.21). The Admissions and Records Office agreed to vigilantly review Census Rosters for
accuracy and completeness upon receipt and report any incomplete or missing Census Rosters to
Department Chairs (1/29/14 Draft Report). Lack of response by Department Chairs would result
in A&R forwarding the information to the appropriate Academic Affairs Administrator for
follow-up.
On July 18, 2013, Administrative Regulation E-13 was revised to terminate use of paper Census
Rosters (13.22, 13.23). As a result of the established collaborative process with Academic
Affairs and the implementation of electronic Census rosters, a limited scope state audit
conducted for the 2012-13 academic year resulted in zero findings. The College was 100 percent
compliant in its maintenance of accurate attendance accounting records (13.24).
Conclusion
The College has fully resolved this recommendation.
The College has provided the appropriate training of staff on the proper documentation
procedures identified in the audit for TBA courses, eligibility verification of categorical
programs and census reporting documents.
The College has implemented internal controls to resolve past audit findings and established
ongoing sustainable processes to prevent recurring audit findings in subsequent reviews
(III.D.2.e).
Listing of Evidence
13.1
13.2
13.3
13.4
13.5
Audit Report
Schedule of State Findings and Recommendations
California Community College Contracted District Audit Manual
Sample Attendance Roster
Email from Cathy on 2013 WSCH that had TBA Designation
93
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
13.6
13.7
13.8
13.9
13.10
13.11
13.12
13.13
13.14
13.15
13.16
13.17
13.18
13.19
13.20
13.21
13.22
13.23
13.24
Iyemura’s Training Minutes & Video
Memo on TBA Procedures
Min qualifications link; Procedures Memo; COR addendum and sample recording
structure for TBA
DSPS Student File Checklist
An Application for DSPS Services, A Release of Information, A Verification of
Disability Status and Identification of Educational Limitations, A Student Educational
Contract An Educational Accommodations, Support Services, and Documentation of
Service Delivery Form
Staff Training on the Use of the Established Checklist
System to Improve the Documentation of Student Files
Annual Staff Retreat Agenda and Minutes - 6/27/13
Title V State Regulations for DSPS Programs
EOP&S/CARE Application, EOP&S Student Educational Plan, EOP&S Mutual
Responsibility Contract (MRC), Self-Certification 1st Generation College Student, and
Self-Certification Non-Native Speaker
Board Rule #
Administrative Regulation E-13
Revised Memo
Updates to Department Chairs
Council of Instruction Agenda and Minutes – XX/XX/XXXX
Agendas for Faculty Academy and Flex Day 2013
Refer to 13.17
Sample Paper Census Roster
Exclusion Roster Return Rates
94
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
College Recommendation 14
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college undertake an evaluation of its collegial
governance and decision making processes, as well as the overall effectiveness of the current
administrative structure, and that it widely communicate the results of these evaluations and uses
them as the basis of improvement. (IV.A.5, IV.B.2.a)
IV.A.5. The role of leadership and the institution's governance and decision-making structures
and processes are regularly evaluated to assure their integrity and effectiveness. The institution
widely communicates the results of these evaluations and uses them as the basis for
improvement.
IV.B.2.a. The president plans, oversees, and evaluates an administrative structure organized and
staffed to reflect the institution's purposes, size, and complexity. He/she delegates authority to
administrators and others consistent with their responsibilities, as appropriate.
Progress in Addressing the Recommendation
In the fall of 2013, an evaluation of LAMC’s collegial governance and decision making
processes, as well as the overall effectiveness of the current administrative structure, was
conducted. The results of the evaluation are available to the college community and will be
used for institutional improvement.
At the College Council Retreat in fall 2013, College Council approved transitioning the Shared
Governance Task Force into the Shared Governance Oversight Committee (SGOC), a permanent
sub-committee of College Council. The membership includes two faculty members, one
administrator, and two classified staff members, who are each appointed by the appropriate
constituency leadership. The SGOC charter was updated and approved at the November 2013
College Council Meeting (14.1, 14.2).
The SGOC meets monthly to ensure that all committees are abiding by their charter, are aligned
with the College mission, and are actively participating in the process of planning and decisionmaking. The committee is charged with evaluating the effectiveness of the overall shared
governance process, and confirms that the committees are working to meet their identified
goals/objectives.
At the end of the spring term each shared governance committee completes an annual selfevaluation. The SGOC reviews each committee’s evaluation and makes recommendations for
improvement, which is presented for review by College Council. Each shared governance
committee member is responsible for disseminating the information from College Council to
his/her respective committees and for ensuring that the shared governance committee responds to
any recommendations by the following spring semester. The self-evaluations and
recommendations are posted on the SGOC website for campus-wide review (14.3, 14.4).
In addition, the College has created the Program Review Oversight Committee (PROC) that
serves to provide systematic structure and guidelines to review and evaluate the quality of
programs and units in each college division (14.5, 14.6). PROC ensures there is a meaningful
95
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
linkage between program/unit planning and the shared governance
Recommendation 6 for program review flowchart to shared governance).
process
(see
Prior to the March 2013 accreditation team visit, one challenge the College faced was the lack of
consistent administrative staffing in Academic Affairs. By the time of the visit, the College had
filled the position of the Vice President of Academic Affairs, but still lacked administrative
staffing in other key positions, including vacancies in the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness and
one of two Deans of Academic Affairs. The following summer, the existing Dean of Academic
Affairs took a position at a sister college, creating another vacancy. After two attempts to hire
two full-time Deans of Academic Affairs, the College was able to hire one Interim Dean in
February 2014 and has initiated the search for the other vacant position. The College expects to
fill this vacancy by fall 2014.
The College hired the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness in May of 2013 and a Research Analyst
in January of 2014. The hiring of the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness has had an immediate
impact on the ability of the College to address data collection and analysis/evaluation of
processes. In addition, this hire has been integral in providing the immediate support necessary to
incorporate data into the decision-making processes of the College. To further support datadriven decision-making, the Research Analyst has strengthened the College's ability to provide
immediate access to statistical information through data analysis (see Recommendation 3 for
more detail about the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness).
Fall 2013 Faculty/Staff Survey
In the fall of 2013, LAMC conducted a faculty/staff survey to evaluate a number of practices
related to institutional effectiveness. The Fall 2013 faculty/staff survey provided information for
the evaluation of collegial governance, decision-making processes and the effectiveness of the
administrative structure. In addition, results from the survey sections on Student Support
Services and Programs; Library/LRC; Technology, Financial, and Physical Resources; and
Human Resources have provided the college with information about the effectiveness of the
administrative structures for these services.
Of the College’s 491 employees, 133 (28 percent) responded to the survey. Fifty-eight percent
of respondents were faculty (both full-time and adjunct) and 37 percent were classified
employees. Over one-fourth of respondents held department or program leadership positions.
The survey was administered during the last two weeks of class (immediately before winter
break), which may have had an impact on the response rate, particularly among adjunct faculty.
Therefore, going forward, the College will administer the survey annually in November.
96
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
Full-Time Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Classified Staff
Administrators
TOTAL
Number of
Employees
88
248
146
9
491
Number of Survey
Responses
42
35
49
7
133
% of Survey
Respondents
32%
26%
37%
5%
100%
Most survey questions consisted of a statement about a College practice followed by a five-point
scale of agreement (Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree, and Strongly
Disagree) with a “Not Applicable” choice for each item. For each statement, the percentage of
respondents who agreed or strongly agreed was compared with the percentage of respondents
who disagreed or strongly disagreed in a ratio. For example, a comparatively high ratio of 8:1
means that eight respondents agreed with that statement for every respondent that disagreed with
it. This indicates a very favorable overall opinion of the associated College practice. On the
other hand, a comparatively low ratio of 3:1 or lower (where 3 or fewer respondents agreed with
the statement for every respondent who disagreed) denotes a much less favorable overall
perception of the associated College practice.
SURVEY SECTION: Institutional Effectiveness and Planning (14.7).
Survey items related to institutional effectiveness and planning were evaluated as follows:
Comparatively High Ratios
Item #
Survey Item
2
Institutional planning results in on-going, self- reflective continuous
improvement.
3
Program reviews are integrated into the overall institutional evaluation
and planning process
Comparatively Low Ratios
Item #
Survey Item
6
The College planning and resource allocation process is clearly
defined.
7
The college’s planning and resource allocation adequately addresses
the needs of my department or unit.
9
I have a voice in the College’s planning processes.
The results with comparatively high ratios confirm that faculty and staff deem the College has
integrated Program Review within the decision-making and evaluation processes and that
institutional planning and decision-making is systematic. The results with comparatively low
ratios demonstrate a need to improve communication about existing processes within the
planning and resource allocation procedures.
SURVEY SECTION: Governance and Leadership (14.8).
97
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
Items within the survey related to governance and leadership were evaluated as follows:
Comparatively High Ratios
Item #
Survey Item
1
Faculty have an appropriate level of participation in governing, planning,
budgeting and policy making bodies.
4
Administration has an appropriate level of participation in governing,
planning, budgeting and policy making bodies.
9
The College President communicates effectively with the constituencies
within the College.
Comparatively Low Ratio
Item #
Survey Item
3
Students have an appropriate level of participation in governing, planning,
budgeting and policy-making bodies.
The results with comparatively high ratios confirm that faculty and administration have
appropriate levels of participation within the shared governance and planning processes.
The item with a comparatively low ratio demonstrates a need to improve student participation
within the shared governance and planning processes. The College will resolve to support the
ASO and encourage education of the shared governance and decision-making process and their
role within these.
Question 8 of the Governance and Leadership Section of the Faculty/Staff Survey asked
respondents whether “The current administrative structure at LAMC effectively meets the needs
of the College.” About half (48 percent) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed. However,
more than one-third (37 percent) of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed, suggesting that
faculty and staff may not be familiar with the current administrative structure. Based on these
findings, the College will communicate the administrative structure to the campus-wide
community more effectively, through:
•
•
•
Defining the respective roles and
responsibilities of Academic Affairs,
Student Services, and Administrative
Services;
Explaining how these divisions are
structured
to
support
institutional
effectiveness;
Describing how each division participates
within the integrated planning and shared
governance processes.
SURVEY SECTION: Student Support
Services and Programs (14.9).
98
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
Items within the survey related to administrative structure and specific services within Human
Resources and Student Support Services and Programs were evaluated as follows:
1. Human Resources
Comparatively High Ratio
Item #
Survey Item
6
Human Resources develop policies and procedures that are clearly
written.
Comparatively Low Ratios
Item #
Survey Item
2
LAMC has a coherent and effective method for evaluating the skills of
its personnel in leadership positions.
5
There are a sufficient number of administrators to support the
College's mission and purpose.
8
The current hiring process ensures the recruitment of qualified faculty
and staff.
These results reveal that although there is an overall satisfaction with the administrative
structure, the comparatively low rating for the evaluation of leadership positions and the
recruitment of qualified faculty and staff indicate that there is a lack of understanding of the
role of the Personnel Commission in the evaluation and hiring processes. In addition, the
survey results reveal that the current administrative staffing levels in Academic Affairs and
Student Services may still not be sufficient despite the hiring of two administrators and one
research analyst since the ACCJC action letter in June 2013. Administrative, Faculty and
Classified hiring needs are currently being addressed through the 2014-15 Program Review
requests and Budget and Planning Committee Resource Allocation Process.
2. Student Support Services and Programs
Student support services and programs were rated on a four-point scale of "Very Effective",
"Effective", "Somewhat Effective", and "Not At All Effective". "Not Applicable" was also
available as a choice for each item.
Nineteen out of 21 student services received an average rating of “effective” or “very
effective”. The services which received a lower average rating of “somewhat effective”
were:
•
•
Counseling Office (rated “Not At All Effective” by 10 percent of respondents);
Student Activities/Organizations (rated “Not At All Effective” by 7 percent of
respondents).
Only six in ten faculty and staff agreed or strongly agreed that “The College provides
sufficient student support services to meet student educational needs.” This result, together
99
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
with many of the comments that accompanied it, reinforces the evaluation team’s findings
that led to Recommendation 7, which the College is working to resolve.
Based on above-mentioned data from the Fall 2013 Faculty/Staff Survey as well as on data from
the Fall 2013 Student Survey, Point of Service Surveys, and the Mission Learning Report, the
College will develop strategies for continuous improvement in collegial governance, decisionmaking processes and administrative structure. The results of the Faculty/Staff and Student
Surveys are available to the campus community, as they are posted on the College website. The
College plans to administer both the Faculty/Staff Survey and the Student Survey annually going
forward.
Next Steps
1. A town hall meeting is scheduled for March 18 to communicate the results of the
Faculty/Staff and Student Surveys to the campus community.
2. At the May College Council Meeting, the committee will review the Mission Learning
Report to identify and adopt institutional actions for improvement. The report includes
the results of learning outcome assessments and the institutional effectiveness measures
used to meet the student achievement standards identified in the College’s Strategic Plan.
3. The College will begin implementation of the institutional actions for improvement
adopted at the May retreat and continue these actions through the fall 2014 term.
4. A link to the web page that diagrams and explains the College Administrative Structure
and Status, as well as Campus Highlights and Scheduled Events, will be made available
and posted on the LAMC homepage.
5. By summer 2014, SGOC will review the Shared Governance Handbook to revise and
improve the shared governance process as necessary.
6. Student Services, in collaboration with the Director of Student Activities, will:
• Conduct focus groups with students during the spring of 2014;
• Reinstate the leadership class or create a leadership workshop for ASO leaders;
• Continue leadership workshops for the ASO governance, representatives and club
advisors;
• Ensure that the Director of Student Activities has developed well-defined objectives
related to ASO participation in shared governance.
Conclusion
The College will have fully resolved this recommendation by the end of the spring 2015
semester.
Through the institutionalization of SGOC and the creation of PROC, the College evaluates its
collegial governance and decision-making processes. Campus-wide surveys are tools utilized to
100
Response to Team and Commission Recommendations
further support the assessment of collegial governance and decision-making processes. All
evaluations and survey results are used as a basis for improvement and are posted and available
to the campus community (IV.A.5).
The College recognizes that vacancies in the administrative structure hinder the ability to
efficiently manage the mission of the College. LAMC is committed to filling replacement
positions in the Office of Academic Affairs. Using the results of the assessment of the student
service areas (see Recommendation 7) and Program Review, the College will prioritize
administrative and classified hiring to meet the identified needs through its planning processes
while recognizing and exercising fiscal responsibility (IV.B.2.a).
List of Evidence
14.1
14.2
14.3
14.4
14.5
14.6
14.7
14.8
14.9
SGOC Charter
College Council Minutes – 11/13/2013
SGOC website
College Council Minutes
PROC Charter
College Council Minutes – Spring 2013
Fall 2013 Faculty/Staff Survey Results, pages 22-29
Fall 2013 Faculty/Staff Survey Results, pages 30-35
Fall 2013 Faculty/Staff Survey Results, pages 46-80
101
Los Angeles Valley College Accreditation Follow-Up Report Summary
March 2014
Recommendation
College Recommendation 1:
In order to achieve sustainable
continuous quality improvement, the
team recommends that the college
use ongoing and systematic
evaluation and planning to refine its
key processes and improve student
learning. The team recommends that
the processes:
• Provide learning and achievement
data on students enrolled in all
delivery formats.
• Fully evaluate indicators of
effectiveness and make
improvement based on findings.
• Assure systematic analysis of data
to inform decisions
College Recommendation 2:
The team recommends that the College
evaluate its institutional planning
process, including hiring decisions,
and ensure planning practices are
integrated and aligned with resources.
Response
LAVC…
• Publishes key achievement data for all students,
disaggregated by delivery format at the course
and institutional levels
• Revised course SLO assessment form to include
results disaggregated by delivery format
• Is using indicators of effectiveness for decisionmaking in enrollment management, program
viability, and resource allocation
• Integrated targets for student achievement into
the 2014-2020 Educational Master Plan
• Analyzes data to support and evaluate numerous
college initiatives
• Is currently analyzing student performance and
evaluating data to create a DE Strategic Plan
LAVC…
• Evaluates planning and governance processes
annually
• Developed a new process to prioritize over-base
funding requests through program review
• Ensures all hiring decisions are aligned with
criteria in the College’s balanced budget plan
College Recommendation 3:
LAVC…
In order to fully meet the Standards,
• Completed assessments for 98.4% of courses
the college must assess and align SLOs • Implemented a policy to archive courses that
at the course, program, and
have not been assessed
institutional levels and use the results
• Assessed 100% of Program Pathways and
to improve student learning and
Service Outcomes, made improvements based on
institutional effectiveness.
results, and engaged in campus dialogue to share
findings
College Recommendation 4:
LAVC…
The team recommends that the college • Adopted a formal policy to define distance
develop a formal definition of
education and correspondence education
correspondence education that aligns • Set standards for online instructors to follow
with the U.S. Department of
• Updated the DE curriculum addendum
Education regulations and
• Adopted a policy that courses not updated on the
Commission policy and a process for
new addendum cannot be scheduled as DE or
determining the differences in
hybrid beginning fall 2014
practice between correspondence
education and distance education.
1
College Recommendation 5:
To fully meet the Standards, the
College should ensure that records of
complaints are routinely maintained
as required by the Policy on Student
and Public Complaints Against
Institutions.
College Recommendation 6:
To fully meet the Standards, the
College should ensure that all
employee performance evaluations are
conducted in a timely basis in
accordance with the employee
contracts.
College Recommendation 7:
The team recommends that the college,
in collaboration with the district, put
measures in place to ensure the
effective control and implementation of
the bond program and that decisions
related to facilities are aligned with
institutional planning.
College Recommendation 8:
To fully meet the Standards, the college
should establish appropriate
management and control mechanisms
needed for sound financial decisionmaking. The Institution should ensure
that it has sufficient cash flow and
reserves to maintain stability with
realistic plans to meet financial
emergencies and unforeseen
occurrences and to ensure long-term
financial stability. The team
recommends that the President
effectively control budget and
expenditures.
District Recommendation 1:
In order to meet the Standards, the
team recommends that the Chancellor
and Board put accountability measures
into place to ensure the long-term
fiscal stability and financial integrity of
the college (IV.B.1.j, IV.B.3).
LAVC…
• Routinely maintains records of complaints
against the College in division offices
• Improved internal complaint processes
• Established regular communication with the
District Office of Diversity Programs, where
compliance complaints are kept
LAVC….
• Improved internal tracking so that 98% of
evaluations for classified staff are up-to-date
• Is current on evaluations for 100% of
administrators and 89% of faculty; is working to
ensure that faculty evaluations are up-to-date by
the end of spring semester
The District…
• Has resolved a 2012 recommendation to
maintain effective control of the bond program
LAVC…
• Followed its Facilities Master Plan when
deciding which project to eliminate to contribute
its share to the construction program’s
contingency reserve
LAVC…
• Created a multi-year Enrollment Management
Balanced Budget and Debt Reduction Plan to
balance the budget in three years
• Implemented several recommendations in the
College Brain Trust Report (e.g., reduced
expenditures, strengthened enrollment
management, examined reassigned time)
The College President…
• Established new procedures to control the budget
• Revised the annual plan cycle to align with the
development of the Operations Plan
• Identified revenue and expenditure-related
actions the College will take for 2013-14
The District…
• Has worked closely with LAVC on its fiscal
issues, with frequent reports to the ECDBC and
recommendations from the CFO
• Adopted District Financial Accountability
Measures for all colleges projecting negative
end-of-year balances and approved a new
College Debt Repayment Policy
2
Los Angeles Valley College
5800 Fulton Avenue
Valley Glen, CA 91401
Follow-Up Report
March 15, 2014
Submitted to the Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges
Western Association of
Schools and Colleges
1
Table of Contents
Certification signature page…………………………….
Statement on Report Preparation……………………..…
Response to College Recommendation #1……………...
Response to College Recommendation #2………...........
Response to College Recommendation #3………….…..
Response to College Recommendation #4……………...
Response to College Recommendation #5………………
Response to College Recommendation #6………............
Response to College Recommendation #7……………....
Response to College Recommendation #8……………….
Response to District Recommendation #1……………….
2
To: Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
Western Association of Schools and Colleges
From: Alma Johnson-Hawkins, Interim College President
Los Angeles Valley College
5800 Fulton Avenue, Valley Glen, CA 91401
I certify that there was broad participation by the campus community
and believe that this report accurately reflects the nature and substance
of this institution.
Signatures:
______________________________________
Miguel Santiago, President, Board of Trustees
date
_______________________________________
Alma Johnson-Hawkins, Interim College President
date
_______________________________________
Karen Daar, Accreditation Liaison Officer
date
______________________________________
Michelle Fowles, Dean of Institutional Effectiveness
date
______________________________________
Deborah Kaye, Faculty Accreditation Chair
date
______________________________________
Josh Miller, President, Academic Senate
Chair, Institutional Effectiveness Council
3
date
Statement on Report Preparation
In preparation for submitting this follow-up report, the College’s Accreditation Liaison
Officer, Dean of Institutional Effectiveness, and Faculty Accreditation Chair formed an
Accreditation Response Team (ART), comprised of 10 key campus leaders (faculty, staff, and
administrators) knowledgeable about the issues noted in the recommendations. The team worked
with College committees (Campus Distance Education Committee, Curriculum Committee,
Outcomes Assessment Committee, Educational Programs Committee, and Institutional
Effectiveness Council) as well as many individuals to ensure that the proper steps were taken to
address the recommendations in order to meet the standards. The team solicited information and
evidence from administrators, faculty, and staff at Los Angeles Valley College and the Los
Angeles Community College District to write their sections of the follow-up report and collect
evidence. The final report was compiled and edited by the Faculty Accreditation Chair.
An Executive Steering Committee (comprised of the College President, the three
Division Vice Presidents, the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness, and the Faculty Accreditation
Chair) held several meetings to discuss the draft in progress and offer suggestions. A meeting
was held in October to solicit feedback from campus leaders. The report was reviewed and
approved by the College’s Institutional Effectiveness Council (its primary shared governance
body) and by the Academic Senate in February.
On February 26, 2014, the Board of Trustees’ Committee on Institutional Effectiveness
heard a presentation from the College and recommended approval to the full Board, which
approved the report on March 12, 2014. All of the Board members received copies of the report
prior to the meeting.
4
Response to College Recommendation 1
In order to achieve sustainable continuous quality improvement, the team recommends that
the college use ongoing and systematic evaluation and planning to refine its key processes
and improve student learning. The team recommends that the processes:
• Provide learning and achievement data on students enrolled in all delivery formats
• Fully evaluate indicators of effectiveness and make improvement based on findings
• Assure systematic analysis of data to inform decisions
(Standards I.B, I.B.1, I.B.3, I.B.4, I.B.5, I.B.6, I.B.7, II.A.1.c, II.A.2.a, II.A.2.b, II.A.6.b,
IV.B.2.b)
Recognizing the need for continual and systematic evaluation to improve its planning processes,
the College has made a number of improvements.
Providing Achievement and Outcomes Data on Students Enrolled in Distance Education (DE)
vs. Face-to-Face Classes
The Office of Institutional Effectiveness publishes key achievement data for students,
disaggregated by delivery format and demographic characteristics at the course and institutional
levels (6-Year Success and Retention Report). The College also publishes reports from
accountability agencies such as the IPEDS Feedback Report, the Scorecard and links to the State
Chancellor’s website, which hosts a variety of public data tools allowing for disaggregation and
comparison. These are accessible on the College website.
The College is vetting a modified course learning outcome assessment submission form to
disaggregate assessment results by delivery format (distance education vs. face-to-face).
Distance education courses have always been included in the sampling for course assessments,
but the form is now explicit about the reporting of results (Draft of Form).
The Campus Distance Education Committee (CDEC) set up a Strategic Plan workgroup to
conduct a comprehensive analysis of student performance and evaluate achievement and
effectiveness data to make a recommendation to the Educational Programs Committee (EPC)
regarding the DE program. The data is serving as the basis for a campus Distance Education
Strategic Plan that will assist LAVC to make constructive changes to that mode of delivery and
set goals for the next five years for the Distance Education Program (DE Strategic Plan Draft).
During workgroup meetings dedicated to writing the DE Strategic Plan, committee members
reviewed data related to learning and achievement on students enrolled in all delivery formats.
The discussion included the need to close the performance gap between face-to-face classes and
those delivered via distance education. Realizing the importance of this task, the committee
established as the first goal of the strategic plan to increase student success and retention in DE
courses over the five-year period of the strategic plan. In order to achieve this goal, the
committee developed a multi-pronged action plan. This plan includes:
• Increasing student preparedness and readiness for the online learning environment through
website tutorial and online learning orientations
• Increasing online student support by linking to current systems (e.g., online counseling and
Writing Center assistance)
5
•
Systemizing the collection of data for online learning practices and services from both
faculty and students
In order to develop specific methods that address these issues, CDEC has included retention and
success as a topic of discussion in meetings. During the February 2014 meeting, members
identified more than a dozen operational activities faculty could implement that would assist the
College in reaching this goal (CDEC minutes February 2014). The general consensus was that
increased student success and retention would come about through the development of tactics
that would increase student engagement, improve the quality of courses, and establish a stronger
sense of ‘a virtual community.’ CDEC members discussed their own experiences with these
methods and their willingness to adapt ones they were not familiar with. The committee is going
to continue to analyze issues by drilling down on the data to look at differences between specific
groups.
In addition, the new Distance Education Coordinator has met with a dean in Academic Affairs to
develop a series of workshops on how to integrate these activities in a distance education class.
The DE Coordinator and Director of Professional Development will be conducting individual
and group training sessions for faculty on implementing these practices. In addition, these
activities will be included in a best practices checklist posted to the Virtual Valley website that
chairs and instructors can use to identify specific tactics to improve student success and
retention. Future CDEC meetings will be devoted to continuing the discussion as well as further
analysis of data to determine the effectiveness of these steps.
Using Indicators of Effectiveness and Institutional Standards
In March 2013 the College completed its vetting process and established institutional standards
for student achievement (i.e. success, retention, degrees and certificates, and transfer)
(Standards Report 3/2013). The College completed analysis of 10 years of student achievement
data (Data Report) and discussed the implications of the standards in key campus committees
(EPC, PEPC, Student Success, Team Transfer, Academic Senate, and IEC). The institutional
standards were immediately incorporated into the College’s annual planning/program review and
viability processes. The institutional standards for student achievement have also been integrated
into the draft 2014-2020 Educational Master Plan (EMP).
As part of the annual plan process, the College requires programs and departments to compare
program performance to the College average on several data points (Annual Plan Data Module
2012-13). Institutional standards of student achievement are now also applied at the program
level through the validation of the modules and review process. With the 2012-13 cycle of
annual plans, the Program Effectiveness and Planning Committee (PEPC) applied the
institutional standards to its review of the modules to identify programs that were below the
institutional standard in multiple areas of achievement and effectiveness. In addition to the
standards, data considered include average class size, WSCH/FTEF, and status of SLO
assessments and program review completion. Programs with multiple triggers were
recommended for viability or self-study. Four program viability processes were initiated and are
currently in progress (Low Demand/Low Completers in CTE programs, Computer Science,
Photography, and Geology/Oceanography) (Viability Report Spring 2013). As part of the
6
process, each workgroup is looking at more detailed data on student achievement, learning
outcomes, and program effectiveness. PEPC also identified additional programs as needing more
in-depth review and response for institutional or programmatic improvement. PEPC will receive
the completed viability reports in spring 2014. Several programs (Business, Chemistry,
Education, HHLPs, and Jewish Studies) are undergoing a self-study process for specificallyidentified issues related to student achievement and program effectiveness (Department selfstudy memos). PEPC will continue to monitor the status of these programs.
Comprehensive data analysis provided a foundation for the College’s current revision of its
Educational Master Plan. During this review, the College discovered that it had exceeded the
2008-2013 EMP objectives for success, persistence, retention, certificate completion and transfer
but fell short in degree completion (EPC Minutes/summary). Areas for improvement are
reflected in the targets included in the draft of the 2014-2020 EMP. The EMP draft includes a
longitudinal overview and analysis of institutional data such as community and demographic
data, disaggregated success, retention, and persistence rates, completion data, survey data, and
community economic data (EMP Draft).
The College is currently reviewing its institutional standards identified last year and evaluating
how to increase performance on each toward the targets that will be identified in the 2014-2020
EMP (Target methodology documentation). Current performance is compared to institutional
standards to establish the baseline data for the new plan. The vetting process will identify areas
of improvement and strategies for meeting the targets and establishing priorities. The EPC will
monitor the 2014-2020 EMP annually for performance on stated goals and for possible revisions.
PEPC will continue to apply the new plan’s priorities and standards to evaluate program
effectiveness.
Proposed Targets
Success
Retention
Persistence
Degree
Comp
Cert Comp
Transfers
Institutional 2012Standards
13
64%
68.35%
84%
86.10%
32%
38.04%
722
260
618
Year 3
Goal
69.85%
87.10%
39.04%
3 Year
Change
1.50%
1.00%
1.00%
Year 6
Goal
71.35%
88.10%
40.04%
6 Year
Change
3.00%
2.00%
2.00%
729
895
749
7 (1%)
8(1%)
7(1%)
736
903
756
14(2%)
16(2%)
14(2%)
722
887
742
Assuring Analysis of Data to Inform Decisions
To achieve sustainable continuous quality improvement, analysis of data to inform decision
making is an integral part of how LAVC operates. Achievement data is readily accessible to the
college community on the LAVC website. The Office of Institutional Effectiveness serves as a
resource on campus committees and is key to the operations of several campus initiatives. Most
recently, the staff has been especially active in providing analysis for the implementation and
evaluation of the STEM grant, Basic Skills Initiative, and Achieving the Dream (PASS)
7
initiatives (PASS Data and Reports). The Office of Institutional Effectiveness is exploring
technologies to assist in sustainable data collection, distribution, and analysis.
Motions submitted to the Institutional Effectiveness Council (IEC), the College’s Tier 1 primary
governance body, include a justification linking to the EMP and supporting data. The IEC
ensures that no “naked motions” (i.e., those without appropriate data and budget implications)
are considered before being sent to the College President for approval. The College is tightening
up its procedures by also ensuring that submitted motions have required data attachments with
analysis summaries before being posted on the web (Examples of data analysis).
Established institutional processes also use data. For example, data is used extensively in
determining annual FTEF allocations and prioritizing objectives in enrollment management.
Data sources referred to in determining annual FTEF allocation by subject include, but are not
limited to:
1. Student demand patterns (includes course demand surveys) (Survey Results May 2013)
2. Previous FTEF allocations by subject (six‐year trend)
3. FTEF needed to support the Achieving the Dream Global Cohort initiative
4. Retention, course completion, and persistence rates
5. Number of degrees and certificates awarded during the past ten years
6. Analysis of transfer needs (specifically CSU GE)
7. Fill rates according to scheduling blocks and outside scheduling blocks
8. Fill rates in building usage
9. Average class size by department and subject (three‐year trend)
In addition to the above, the college FTEF Workgroup reviewed requests for additional
allocation through an enrollment management module in which departments requesting
additional allocation had to align and support with data the need for any additional classes
(Annual Plan FTEF Requests).
The 2012-13 annual plan modules were also used when funding sources such as Proposition 20
and block grants became available. All fiscal requests required alignment to annual goals and
support (as appropriate) from outcomes assessment in order to be considered for funding. An
explanation regarding how the request aligned with the goals and objectives of the EMP was also
required. This information was reviewed by validators who confirmed the information presented
was correct before final allocation decisions were made.
In 2012-13 the Technology Committee reviewed all requests from the technology annual plan
modules and prioritized them based on a ranking system of student needs. This information was
referred to when formulating the final decision on how to distribute Proposition 20 and block
grant funds. Similarly, the 2013-14 year’s annual modules were again reviewed by validators to
ensure all resource requests aligned with the department’s goals and outcomes data to inform
decisions on building the next year’s budget. Each divisional Vice President then formulated top
priorities of currently unfunded items (including staffing hires) and presented their
recommendations for prioritization to the IEC.
8
Annual plan modules continue to be reviewed whenever additional funding becomes available.
For example, at the end of spring 2013, when the Office of Academic Affairs was able to reduce
costs in one specific line item, excess funding for office supplies was then available to distribute
to academic departments. Supplies were purchased and distributed only if the department’s
request was validated through its fiscal module.
Evaluation of the College’s Achieving the Dream initiatives, being led by the Preparing All
Students for Success (PASS) Committee, is informing campus decision-making about whether or
not to institutionalize these activities, consistent with its intention of continuing to ‘scale up’
these programs. For example, data demonstrating the success of the Global Cohort/START
program led to an allocation of resources to allow it to accommodate 1,000 students in fall 2014
(U-PASS Report November 2013). Data was also used to support the decision to re-allocate
funding from an eliminated program (VCAP) in order to offer more sections of Personal
Development 1, Math and English courses in 2013-14.
Response to College Recommendation 2:
The team recommends that the College evaluate its institutional planning process, including
hiring decisions, and ensure planning practices are integrated and aligned with resources
(Standards I.B.3, I.B.4, I.B.6, III.A.6, III.B.2.b, III.C.2, III.D.4).
The building blocks of the College’s institutional planning process are its annual plan modules
and their alignment to the College’s Educational Master Plan (EMP). Campus committees
receive completed annual plan modules for review and are responsible for self-evaluations and
assessments as applied to their goal statements. Tier 2 committees review annual plan modules,
considering the EMP and other related plans (e.g. Technology Plan). These committees present
summary reports (Summary Report), including priorities where appropriate, for actions to be
considered by the Institutional Effectiveness Council (IEC) – the College’s Tier 1 primary shared
governance body.
Based on annual plan submissions, Tier 2 committees compile information to create an overview
of campus needs and identify trends, themes, and priorities for institutional planning and
resource allocation (Examples: EPC goals; Tech Committee priorities). This information is
then submitted to the IEC as resources for additional institutional decision making.
Recommendations with fiscal impacts that are submitted from Tier 2 committees to the IEC
come with budgetary analyses before being forwarded as recommendations to the College
President, who then reviews each recommendation in light of the College’s current fiscal
responsibilities (budget analyses).
College planning and governance processes have been regularly evaluated since the total
restructuring that took place in 2009, starting with the Big Picture Committee. The IEC conducts
evaluations at its annual retreat in June. At the time of the ACCJC visit in March 2013, the
College had not yet conducted an evaluation for that year.
In spring 2013, the College’s Program Effectiveness and Planning Committee (PEPC) conducted
a thorough evaluation of the 2012-13 annual planning process. The report was reviewed and
discussed at the June 2013 IEC retreat. The IEC moved to accept and act on the
9
recommendations in the evaluation (Approved Motion and Evaluation of Program Planning
Process).
The evaluation showed that there was insufficient time for review committees to complete the
work of reviewing their set of modules, and additional lead time was needed in order to be able
to use the modules to inform Operational Plan development. In addition, modules with deadlines
scheduled after the fiscal module deadline could not be used to inform the Operational Plan even
though they may have actually had a fiscal impact on the College.
The evaluation also identified a lack of infrastructure for pulling reports in different ways, which
compounded the workload of the review committees. The PEPC report recommended that to
move forward, the College needed to invest in a sustainable system that enables it to more
efficiently and effectively plan, evaluate, and prioritize those plans in order to better link budget
to planning. As a result, the College requested and was granted additional funding from the
District to develop a new online program review system to address identified gaps in the current
process (LACCD Approval of Funding). This new system will be used during the College’s
2014-15 Comprehensive Program Review cycle.
As an interim measure, the 2013-14 annual plan process was adjusted in response to some of the
weaknesses identified in the evaluation report. It was decided that a consequence for departments
and units with late submissions (or no submissions) would be not to consider them for prioritized
over-base funding requests. In addition, the modules were streamlined to ensure that only
necessary information was asked for in the annual plan format. Specifically, fiscal requests were
integrated into the goals module, and for the 2013-14 planning cycle only, the total number of
modules to be submitted was reduced from ten to three. (Fiscal, staffing, and goal modules were
determined through evaluation to be the three constant modules to be submitted each year.
Others will be included in alternating years according to the schedule recommended in the PEPC
report. All three modules to be submitted for 2013-14 had the same deadline instead of each
submission being staggered over several months. As a result of these improvements,
participation in the process in terms of initial submissions was better than it had been previously
(Module submissions).
The IEC, in consultation with the College President, has approved a new process linking
validation of annual plan modules to budgetary augmentation requests. The new Budget
Prioritization Process, which was reviewed and approved by the IEC in fall 2013, changes the
way the College allocates over-base resources, including new staff hiring. The process integrates
those requests into the next year’s budget and more clearly aligns them with goals and outcomes
assessments (Process flow chart, calendar/timeline). The IEC reviewed best practices from
other colleges (Sample rubrics) to develop a draft rubric to be used to prioritize over-base
expenditures for the resource allocation cycle (Rubric). The draft prioritization rubric is
currently being piloted by the budget task force set up by the College President. In addition, the
Academic Affairs deans, who act as validators of annual modules from academic department and
service units, volunteered to apply the rubric to their recommendations for prioritization to their
division vice presidents to further assess the usefulness of the draft rubric.
10
Approval of any fiscal request through a module is now aligned with the College’s multi-year
plan to balance its budget. The multi-year plan was developed in response to a District directive
to become fiscally solvent during the next three years. Although the College maintains some
flexibility in the proposed plan to be responsive to budgetary and enrollment trends that regularly
occur in any given fiscal year, assumptions and strategies are derived from analyzed data related
to institutional trends and capacity, prevailing exemplary practices, and District and State
mandates (Enrollment Management Balanced Budget and Debt Reduction Plan). Planning
practices assume an increase in average class size, replacement of faculty at 50% of separations,
and the ability to capitalize on FTES growth.
The College also conducted a thorough review of its 2008-2013 Educational Master Plan (EMP),
which acts as the college’s Strategic Master Plan. The EMP guides the development of all other
College planning documents, including the Facilities Master Plan, Technology Master Plan,
Enrollment Management Plan, Emergency Operations Plan, Foundational Skills Action Plan,
Matriculation Plan, Student Equity Plan, department/unit annual plans, and all fiscal decisions.
The EMP establishes measurable indicators to monitor and evaluate each objective of the plan.
Over a 12-month period, the Educational Planning Committee (EPC) surveyed 19 committees
and constituency groups and seven administrative offices to determine the strengths and
weaknesses of the plan. In addition, the EPC reviewed data from the Office of Institutional
Effectiveness which included success outcomes (i.e., persistence, completion, retention)
(Evaluation of the EMP). The committee found that the current document had failed to ignite
the decision-making process or drive the campus to prioritize, a necessary activity when
completing the difficult task of allocating resources during times of fiscal shortfalls. After faceto-face discussions with stakeholders about the preliminary EMP evaluation survey, the EPC
found the following issues:
1. The four EMP goals had too many objectives and strategies.
2. Many constituents had not used this document to drive decision-making but had instead
used the document as an expo-facto rationale.
3. The plan did not effectively integrate all college plans and initiatives.
4. College priorities could not be determined.
5. The College did not have the required infrastructure to support all of the integration and
analysis necessary to meet the stated goals.
These findings helped inform the planning process for the EPC’s work to revise the EMP. LAVC
is now embarking on its approval of the 2014-2020 EMP, which is currently in draft form (EMP
Draft) and is on track to be approved by June 2014. After a campus-wide vetting, which includes
several Town Halls (Email to campus community), the IEC will examine the fiscal impact of
each goal, review prioritized objectives, and confirm that the timeline for implementation is
aligned with the College’s budgetary cycle
The College continues to refine its faculty prioritization process to ensure that rationales for
those decisions are based on data and summary reports (HPC Prioritization Report). Faculty
requests must:
1. Be supported by data (average class size, FT/PT ratio, FTEF/FTES numbers, etc., which
are provided by various areas).
11
2. Show the need for that specific position (that it is supported by the EMP and the
department's program review, etc.).
The prioritization of divisional classified and administrative positions is performed by the
respective vice presidents and the College President and is presented along with a divisional
staffing plan to the Hiring Planning Committee (HPC), which forwards the plans to the IEC
(Divisional Staffing Plans). Each divisional five-year staffing plan identifies the year of the
proposed hire and provides a prioritized list for hiring during the next budgetary year.
The determination of whether or not to fill the prioritized position is made by the College
President when building the next year’s budget, taking into account retirements/separations and
the need to continue cost savings. When determining faculty hires, the College President
analyzes data which includes, PT/FT faculty ratios, projected retirements, faculty obligation
number, recommendations from the faculty hiring prioritization list, department FTE allocations,
and projected cost for replacing faculty. A newly created Position Control Report allows the
College to accurately analyze hiring trends, which will further a better understanding of how to
address human resource needs (Position Control Report January 2014). The decision to
replace staff is made through careful review of divisional staffing plan documents, programmatic
and institutional need, and the availability of funding to sustain the assignment. Additional staff
and administrator hires are determined through the new over-base budget process described
above.
A priority of the IEC, identified during multiple discussions on the College’s governance
structure and planning processes (IEC Retreat Minutes) is to address gaps in the College’s
budget process. During fall 2013, the IEC devoted a separate meeting each month to deal with
budget issues. In consultation with the College President, the IEC has since determined that a
separate participatory governance committee reporting regularly to the IEC on budget matters
would be a better practice to address ongoing budgetary issues. The IEC created a charter to
establish this reporting committee (Budget Committee Charter). The main objective of this
group will be to develop processes for systematic prioritization of college-wide budget requests
and evaluation of expenditures to achieve and sustain fiscal stability for the institution. As an
intermediary measure before a formal shared governance committee can be convened, the
College President has called on College constituencies to create a budget task force to complete
one task – the prioritization of over-base requests for next year’s budget (Email on Budget Task
Force). The task force will bring the results of its work to the IEC as information for review and
comment and will make its recommendations directly to the College President.
As part of its overarching review of the institution’s planning processes, the IEC also reviews
how well the Tier 2 committees that report to it are making progress toward meeting their annual
goals and the status of the implementation of college plans. Each plan owner (often delegated to
a Tier 2 committee) is required to submit a Report on Alignment and Progress (RAP) for that
plan annually (RAPs). This report includes measurable outcomes, performance measures for the
year, and challenges for implementation. It shows how each plan is aligned with the goals and
objectives of the current EMP. In addition, all reports outline the evaluation strategy for each
objective. This process facilitates communication among stakeholders. The IEC also annually
reviews Tier 1 and 2 committee self-evaluations to monitor the major issues and tasks that were
addressed at each meeting, monthly participation, major committee actions and achievements,
12
obstacles/problems with committee functions, and recommendations for improving efficiency
(Tier 2 Self-Evaluations).
The IEC, its standing committees, and workgroups collaborate to gather feedback about the
planning and decision-making processes on an ongoing basis. Modifications can be considered
by the Council at any point throughout the year via formal motions by council members or IEC
workgroups.
The evaluation process culminates at the annual shared governance retreat in June and may
include recommended revisions to one or more components of the College’s model of integrated
planning and decision-making process. All approved revisions are documented with revisions to
the Planning and Decision-Making Handbook.
Since the IEC did not hold a winter retreat this year, an Evaluation Workgroup was convened in
February 2014. The workgroup, which includes representatives from the Academic Senate and
all collective bargaining units, began the process of evaluation by gathering information on the
RAPs and the Tier 2 committees, such as self-evaluation forms, review of websites, interviews,
etc., in order to identify gaps and issues in the process of integrating and implementing plans
(Evaluation Workgroup notes). Once the Evaluation Workgroup completes its review, it will
send a report to the IEC for final input and action, if necessary.
Response to College Recommendation 3
In order to fully meet the Standards, the college must assess and align SLOs at the course,
program, and institutional levels and use the results to improve student learning and institutional
effectiveness (Standards I.B, II.A.1.c, II.A.2.a, II.A.2.b, II.A.3.b, II.A.6.b, IV.B.2.b).
The College has implemented several policies to meet the goal of 100% course assessment and
to ensure a sustainable process moving forward. The College has completed assessments for
98.4% of its courses. The College has implemented a policy not to schedule courses for spring
2013 that were unassessed as of October 1, 2013. Courses that were not assessed by the end of
the fall semester were administratively archived (IEC Motion Dec 2013). The implications of
specific cases were examined and two exceptions were made. The College has also implemented
a policy that new courses must be assessed within the first semester of being offered.
Improvement of student learning is the focus of each academic department’s outcome assessment
(LAVC Outcomes Assessment Site). Many departments report changes in curriculum and
assignments to improve student success. For example:
• Through review of their assessments, science departments are now considering validating
English prerequisites on specific courses while giving more writing assignments and
promoting the Writing Center.
• Economics instructors have determined the need to integrate basic mathematical and
geometric lessons into their curriculum.
• The Communications Department examined the use of its lab and has made appropriate
adjustments into associated course content.
• Business instructors have integrated in-class assignment activities that include businessrelated/real-life exercises along with peer review techniques.
13
To improve use of assessment results in department planning, the annual plan outcomes and
goals modules have been modified for the 2013-14 cycle to make links to outcomes results more
explicit (Revised outcomes and goals module). In the goals module, for current year (2013-14)
and future year (2014-15) goals, departments are asked to specify the planning item that each
goal supports. The options include “outcomes assessment improvement plan.” Furthermore,
under the requests for additional fiscal resources, plan owners are asked to “explain how the item
meets the goals or supports an outcome assessment improvement plan.” The Outcomes module
asks for a date for the next planned assessment and “How are results being used for
improvement?” Areas are also asked whether or not they have “set goals or targets as part of the
improvement plan” and if they are “requesting resources to implement the improvement plan.”
Modules will be reviewed by the Outcomes Assessment Committee (OAC) in order to generate a
campus synopsis of how results are being used for improvement. In order to improve campus
infrastructure to support efficient use of SLO assessment results, the College is in the early
stages of development of an electronic system for SLO submission, review, and tracking that will
allow simple and systematic access to assessment results for planning and decision-making.
All Program Pathways have been assessed and summary reports have been vetted through the
College’s shared governance committee structure (Program Pathways). The Outcomes
Assessment Committee is working on ways to modify the current course outcomes assessment
form to make more explicit links to the program outcome. Course-program alignment grids exist
for each course (Program Alignment Grids). Disciplines are scheduled to review and update
each of their course program alignment grids as part of the comprehensive program review
process. Now that departments can review their course assessments along with their program
assessments, they can more accurately determine the alignment.
Dialogue on these program SLO results and improvement plans/implementation has taken place
in department and division meetings throughout the campus (Division Meeting Notes).
Departments are able to share best practices, share common findings, and discuss other possible
plans for improvement.
All College divisions’ service outcomes have gone through one complete assessment cycle. The
College is conducting ongoing dialogue at the division level as well as campus wide to share the
results of service outcome assessments and to address common issues raised in the first cycle of
assessment (Service Area Outcomes Dialogue October 2013). The divisions have implemented
a number of improvement plans for institutional effectiveness (Service Outcomes Assessment
Reports).
For example:
• In response to assessing its outcome in publishing timely and accurate publications,
Academic Affairs made improvements to the schedule and production process by shifting
resources and responsibilities between office personnel who work on the schedule and
catalog (Academic Affairs Outcomes Report).
• In Administrative Services, Maintenance & Operations used assessment results to improve
the rate of completion of service requests (M & O Service Outcomes Report Spring 2013).
Receiving and the Mailroom are coordinating efforts to align resources to serve faculty and
staff more efficiently.
14
•
In Student Services, based on the assessment of student application attempts, Financial Aid introduced additional support mechanisms (e.g., Financial Aid TV and Facebook) to add a
24/7 customer service component, which resulted in more students being served outside of
office hours. Based on data collected by Services for Students with Disabilities, the Student
Handbook was revised and a section on self-advocacy was included. A new workshop for
faculty about accommodating students with disabilities was presented on Opening Day 2013
(SSD Outcomes Assessment Report).
Based on the criteria provided to the ACCJC in March 2013 for the College’s annual SLO report,
the Commission issued a Feedback Report to judge our progress compared to other colleges
(Feedback Report). The College has improved its performance in multiple areas since then.
Most noticeably, both the number of courses and the number of programs with ongoing
assessments have increased. LAVC continues to ensure authentic assessment though technical
review and feedback. The College has created more opportunities for widespread dialogue.
Assessment results have been incorporated into mechanisms for planning and decision-making
Response to College Recommendation 4
The team recommends that the college develop a formal definition of correspondence
education that aligns with the U.S. Department of Education regulations and Commission
policy and a process for determining the differences in practice between correspondence
education and distance education (Standards II.A.1, II.A.2, II.A.2.c, II.A.2.d, II.A.2.e, II.A.7,
II.B.1, II.B.2.c).
After receiving Recommendation #4, the Distance Education Coordinator investigated best
practices regarding the delineation between distance education and correspondence courses.
Taking language from U.S. Department of Education Guidelines section 602.3, the DE
Coordinator identified the differences between the two types of courses. In addition, he identified
the types and frequency of student contact expected in DE sections and standards regarding
weekly instructor-initiated contact.
This information was shared with the Campus Distance Education Committee (CDEC) in spring
2013 (CDEC minutes April 17, 2013) and was circulated to various committees for feedback
and suggestions. The Valley College Curriculum Committee (VCCC) also provided input and
recommendations for revisions (VCCC minutes April 24, 2013). The committee drafted a
formal policy that identified definitions of distance education and correspondence education as
well standards for our online instructors to follow to ensure that their classes have the elements
required in a DE class (CDEC policy).
The CDEC policy went through shared governance and was approved by the Institutional
Effectiveness Council and the College President (Approved Motion June 2013).
The CDEC policy has been widely distributed and shared. It was presented to Department Chairs
and Program Directors (Chairs and Directors minutes) and is posted on the Distance Education
page of the LAVC website.
15
To ensure that instructors of DE courses are following these policy standards and adhering to the
definitions in the preparation of their courses, the VCCC updated the curriculum form used for
all distance education courses (Distance Learning Course Approval Guidelines with updated
Course Outline Addendum).
Changes to the curriculum form include:
• Adding language defining distance education, hybrid, and correspondence courses and
distinguishing among these three types of courses
• Stating that LAVC does not offer correspondence courses and providing a definition
• Distinguishing among information delivery, hybrid/in person contact, and regular/substantive
contact
• Adding a statement that online courses must have regular and substantive contact as well as
contact initiated by the instructor
• Providing a checklist of options for effective information delivery and regular, substantive
contact
• Adding language about the criteria for submitting substantive change reports
The revised template was posted in the electronic curriculum system (ECD). The VCCC and
Academic Senate both approved a motion stating that all courses currently approved for either
online or hybrid delivery must be revised on the new DE form and submitted through ECD for
curriculum approval in fall 2013. Courses not updated on the new DE addendum cannot be
scheduled as DE or hybrid beginning fall semester 2014 (Notification of Curricular Policy
Changes). Working with department chairs, the VCCC Chair made sure that all courses
remaining on the DE approved list have had DE updates submitted via ECD. The majority of
these DE updates were approved by the VCCC in November 2013, with 28 additional DE
updates pending approval in December, with a handful to be discussed at the February meeting.
No classes were scheduled for fall 2014 without a DE update submitted.
The VP of Academic Affairs holds training sessions for new department chairs on evaluation to
ensure that chairs and evaluation committees are aware of the standards that have been set as
they review online instructors’ classes as part of their performance evaluation (Department
Chair training). The College is using the new policy to make more explicit the expectations of
effective contact in the faculty evaluation process.
Professional Development offered training for online instructors at workshops during Tech Fest
(Tech Fest Winter 2014) and Opening Day (Opening Day 2013 workshops). The focus of
these trainings is online pedagogy that includes teaching tools and innovative technologies for
enhanced student-faculty interaction.
The Virtual Valley website offers information and assistance for faculty teaching DE courses. To
assist department chairs in helping their faculty create robust DE courses, the webpage for
department chairs posts resources such as a Best Practices Checklist, a sample ETUDES course,
the CDEC policy on the difference between online and correspondence education, presentations
on best practices, and a comprehensive ETUDES Basics tutorial. The site also has a webpage on
evaluating online instructors.
16
LAVC has a new Distance Education coordinator, who plans to work with the Professional
Development Director to design and implement a series of training sessions targeted to online
faculty to ensure they are meeting the Distance Education standards. The DE coordinator will
also be available to meet one on one with new and continuing online faculty before the start of
the semester to review their course websites to ensure they are in compliance and to make sure
the instructor is aware of expectations regarding frequency of contact. The DE Coordinator will
work with department chairs to ensure that evaluation committees are aware of the standards that
have been set as they review an online instructor’s website for evaluative purposes. The goal is
to integrate expectations of effective contact into the faculty evaluation process.
Because the evaluation process is mandated by the collective bargaining agreement, at this point
in time, the DE Coordinator can only ensure that faculty and department chairs are aware of best
practices and encourage them to be used. However, the DE Coordinator will forward the
standards to the District Distance Education Committee (DDEC) for discussion and possible
adoption at the District level. DDEC will make these standards available to the AFT and District
negotiating teams to be considered for inclusion in current contract negotiations.
The DE Coordinator will be working with the Professional Development Director to provide
group and one-on-one training for current and potential online instructors. The focus of these
trainings will be online pedagogy that includes teaching tools and innovative technologies that
can be integrated into online classes. Furthermore, there will be a session on Opening Day in fall
2014 that is specifically for current online instructors and will promote best practices for DE
instruction and emphasize the elements required in a DE course.
Response to College Recommendation 5
To fully meet the Standards, the College should ensure that records of complaints are routinely
maintained as required by the Policy on Student and Public Complaints Against Institutions
(Standards II.B.2, II.B.2.c, II.B.3.a, II.B.4).
Student Grievances and Complaints
A grievance procedure may be initiated by students who believe they have been treated unfairly
or denied rights involving their status as students. These are generally grade grievances filed
against instructors. As directed by the Los Angeles Community College District’s Office of the
Chancellor, the procedure for all nine colleges to follow is spelled out in Administrative
Regulation E-55 (Administrative Regulation E-55). At Los Angeles Valley College, the
administration of all E-55 matters is assigned to the College Ombudsperson, who reports directly
to the College President.
The College Ombudsperson routinely maintains all E-55-related informal and formal written
complaints for all stages of the complaint process (student initiation through President’s final
decision). Notice to students of the informal and formal protocols for Student Grievances under
Administrative Regulation E-55 is updated regularly and clearly publicized in each Schedule of
Classes, the College Catalog, and on the College website. Students and the public are also able to
go directly to college divisions/departments, ensuring broad-based access.
Public Complaints
17
Members of the public have ample opportunity to express any concern, complaint, or
compliment through each division of the College through a long-standing practice of providing
the public with “walk-in” customer service. The Office of Academic Affairs, Office of
Administrative Services, Office of Student Services, and Office of the President provide the
public with the opportunity to have their concerns or complaints heard in person or by
completing a written complaint form. Staff members are trained on how to take complaints over
the phone and when individuals appear in person. Written complaints are reviewed by staff, and
if they cannot be resolved at department levels, they are then forwarded to the Office of
Ombudsperson for review/resolution. Oral complaints are accepted, logged, and handled in the
same manner.
Complaints of Alleged Prohibited Discrimination and Harassment
In fall 2012, the Los Angeles Community College District directed its colleges that all
complaints of this nature be referred to the LACCD District Office, Office of Diversity Programs
as a centralized approach and consolidation of resources. After the closure of the College’s
Compliance Office in fall 2012, all complaints of alleged prohibited discrimination and
harassment from students and/or employees have been referred to the Office of Diversity
Programs. Its website lists information about filing complaints, including complaint forms.
All files collected prior to fall 2012 were shipped to and received by the Office of Diversity
Programs in January 2013. Notice of the change in filing procedures was, and continues to be,
widely publicized to students, employees, and the public in multiple locations on the College
website, in every published Schedule of Classes and College Catalog, and on hard copy flyers,
which were prominently posted on campus (Office of Diversity Policy and Procedures).
As of March 2013, there were 15 formal complaints lodged against the College since 2008. The
District Office informed the College that in 2013, there were five complaints filed, four
unsubstantiated (LAVC Complaints 2013). Those files are properly maintained by the Office of
Diversity Programs.
Other Student Complaints
The Offices of Academic Affairs, Administrative Services, and Student Services maintain and
regularly assess formal (written) student and public complaints regarding instruction, other
academic issues, and facilities. Each department has developed its own complaint form for
students (Academic Affairs Student Complaint Form, Admin Services Student Complaint
Form, Student Services Complaint Form, Presidents Office Complaint Form). Upon intake
review, staff members assist students by referring the complaint to the appropriate supervisor for
resolution.
Occasionally, students will also contact the College President directly with their concerns and/or
complaints. The Office of the President refers individuals to the College Ombudsperson for
review and resolution.
Due to a miscommunication about the nature of the visiting team’s request while on campus, the
team members were provided with a summarized list of complaints on file at the District Office
18
instead of the actual hard copy files. These files will be made available for review by the next
visiting team.
Since receiving Recommendation 5, the College has taken this opportunity to implement a
number of improvements:
•
Strengthened Communications: Since complaints of unlawful discrimination and/or sexual
harassment are no longer managed at the campus level, a formal process has been established
between the District’s Office of Diversity Programs and the LAVC Office of Ombudsperson
to strengthen communication channels. The District Office will send regular reports to the
Ombudsperson with a list of individuals who have submitted written complaints against the
College.
•
Expansion of the Office of Ombudsperson: The Office of Ombudsperson will become the
clearinghouse for all student and public complaints. It will be responsible for ensuring that all
Division complaint processes, both hard copy and electronic, are routinely and regularly
maintained for quality control, tracking, and service outcomes assessment. New online
resources for faculty are updated and posted on the Ombudsperson webpage to train faculty
on classroom management techniques, such as how to recognize when students are in
distress. The College Ombudsperson will now act as the primary contact for the Commission
and accreditation teams requesting a physical or electronic review of complaints in the
College’s possession or in the possession of the Office of Diversity Programs.
•
Enhanced Departmental and Division Processes: The Office of Academic Affairs launched a
new online classroom complaint process using Survey Monkey (Online Complaint Form)
and updated its webpage by adding an additional element to the Current Students page. These
changes allow students, at a glance, to access six live links on how to resolve complaints
and/or issues of concern as well as access important consumer information. The Office of
Administrative Services and The Office of Student Services have updated their webpages to
allow students to express issues of concern and/or complaints. Complete online access is also
provided to the public on the College website, located on the front page within one click
under Policies & Disclosures.
•
Institutional Oversight: Through regular reports from the College Ombudsperson, the
College President is made aware of any trends or repetitive complaint patterns that may be
occurring in the divisions so that steps may be taken to resolve any recurring problems
(President’s Office Flow Chart for Complaints).
The College ensures that records of complaints, regardless of a complainant’s issue or the
physical location of initiation, are routinely maintained. The College has enhanced its efficiency
in this area by implementing improvements to its internal complaint processes, initiating a
collaborative communication channel between the College Ombudsperson and the District Office
of Diversity Programs, and expanding the scope of the Office of Ombudsperson.
College Recommendation 6:
19
To fully meet the Standards, the College should ensure that all employee performance
evaluations are conducted in a timely basis in accordance with the employee contracts
(Standard III.A.1.b).
The Los Angeles Community College District recognizes six collective bargaining units and
Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs). Classified employee evaluations are conducted
annually, on the employee’s birthday. Academic administrators’ evaluations are also done
annually, on the date when the position was assigned. The process for faculty evaluations is more
complex, based on employment categories (Articles 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 42). Notices that
evaluations are due are sent from the District’s SAP system to the designated supervisors in the
Classified and Academic Dean’s Units.
Faculty
The Office of Academic Affairs is the repository for all faculty evaluations (adjunct,
probationary, limited, and tenured) and adheres to the processes outlined in the faculty CBA.
Evaluation notices for limited, probationary, adjunct, and tenured faculty are sent directly to the
department chairs and the supervising deans. Deans work with department chairs to facilitate
timely submission. Academic Affairs maintains a database by department with the type of
evaluation and the due date, which is available in the Academic Affairs Office. Deans meet with
department chairs regarding the formation of evaluation committees and monitor the process to
ensure follow-through. Evaluation plans go to the VP for approval.
Academic Deans
Depending on the division, the Office of the Vice President and/or President is the repository for
all dean evaluations and adheres to their CBA. When the employee’s yearly evaluation becomes
due, notice is sent from the District Office, through the SAP system, to the designated supervisor
to complete. The SAP system is programmed to email reminders until the evaluation is
submitted. The Vice Presidents are responsible for tracking completion.
Classified
When the employee’s annual evaluation becomes due, notice is sent from the District Office
through the SAP system to the designated supervisor to complete. The SAP system is
programmed to email reminders until the evaluation is submitted. The Personnel & Payroll
Supervisor is responsible for tracking.
The College has made several institutional improvements to ensure consistency in evaluation of
personnel:
Under the Office of Administrative Services division, the Personnel & Payroll Supervisor has
created and implemented the following improvements:
1. Keeps tracking logs for permanent and probationary classified staff evaluations (Classified
Employee Performance Evaluation Report January 2014)
2. Follows up with managers and vice presidents on delinquent evaluations
3. Posted the policies and procedures for staff performance evaluations on the Administrative
Services website.
20
Under the Office of Academic Affairs division, the Vice President of Academic Affairs has
created and implemented the following improvements:
1. Holds area deans responsible for tracking faculty and classified staff evaluations under their
supervision in coordination with the Personnel & Payroll Supervisor.
2. Assigns area deans to work with department chairs on ensuring CBA requirements for
faculty and classified staff evaluations are met.
3. Regularly holds discussions on the importance of timely and contractually required faculty
and classified staff evaluations throughout the academic year with the deans in staff
meetings.
4. Conducts professional development training to department chairs on effective evaluation
practices, referencing CBA requirements (Department Chair training).
As of January 2014, 97% of the evaluations of classified staff (211 of 218 active employees) are
up-to-date (Classified Employee Report January 2014). (One of the seven whose evaluations
are overdue has been on medical leave.) All administrator evaluations are current. As of
February 2014, a total of 89% of faculty evaluations are current (81% of FT faculty; 91% of PT
faculty) (Faculty Evaluation Summary February 2014), and the remaining evaluations will be
completed by the end of spring 2014.
Response to College Recommendation 7
The team recommends that the college, in collaboration with the district, put measures in place
to ensure the effective control and implementation of the bond program and that decisions
related to facilities are aligned with institutional planning (Standards I.B.3, I.B.4, I.B.6,
III.B.1.a, III.B.2.a, III.B.2.b).
The Los Angeles Community College District has taken numerous actions and implemented
measures to ensure efficient control and implementation of its bond program. A detailed special
report addressing these actions was submitted to the Commission on April 1, 2013 (LACCD
Special Report). A two-person ACCJC visiting team verified the accuracy of the report on a
visit to the District Office in April 2013 and issued a report on May 7, 2013 (ACCJC Visiting
Team Report). The visiting team concluded that “tremendous progress had been made” and the
recommendation had been met. The District submitted a follow-up report on October 15, 2013 to
document continuing actions the District had taken to ensure oversight of the construction
program (Oct 2013 follow-up report). At the Commission meeting in January 2014, the followup report was accepted and the recommendation considered resolved (February 7, 2014
Commission Letter).
The College uses planning to inform all decisions related to the bond program, as noted in the
visiting team’s report (page 32), which stated that the College Facilities Master Plan “is used to
guide all processes associated with the bond program and physical resources, contributing to an
inviting learning environment that is well maintained” and that “The renovation of the campus
has been grounded in the EMP and guided by the Facilities Master Plan following the passage of
the most recent bond, Measure J in 2008.”
In January 2012, an Independent Review Panel issued a report with recommendations to improve
the District’s building program. The first recommendation was to impose a moratorium on new
21
projects to ensure colleges were not overbuilding and that infrastructure costs were appropriated.
The moratorium did result in a delay in construction and in added costs, which troubled some on
campus. However, the College responses to the District – justifications provided that eventually
removed all but one of the projects from the moratorium -- were aligned with the College’s
Facilities Master Plan and its EMP (Requests for release from the moratorium).
Although the moratorium is officially over, the one project at LAVC that remains on hold is the
Media Arts and Performing Arts (MAPA) Building. In November 2013 the District Program
Management Office (PMO) and the College started a process to develop consensus and find a
solution to present to the District for approval in order to begin construction of the project
(MAPA Charter November 2013). Since that time, the College and PMO representatives have
been holding regular meetings, and a final report and recommendation to the District is due in
late February.
The Independent Review Panel was also concerned that the District’s building program
contingency reserves were lower than usual for a program of this size. The panel recommended
that the reserve fund be augmented and that $160 million should be placed in reserves to mitigate
risks associated with the projects. A Board Resolution was approved to mandate the action
(Board Resolution). Based on the total amount of Prop J funds, the College’s pro-rated share
was $20.7 million.
Each college president was asked to decide how to take his/her college’s share out of the planned
projects. Since the Panorama City Education project was a growth project and not part of the
College’s Facilities Master Plan, it was rated by the LAVC Bond Work Group (BWG),
comprised of the College’s constituency representatives, as being #12 out of 12 projects on the
College’s priority list (BWG priority list). To fund the amount required for the contingency
reserves, the College President agreed to transfer the funds from that project (BWG Minutes
Approving Cancellation 4/12/2012, Budget Transfer).
Although the decisions to impose the moratorium and increase the reserves were out of the
College’s hands, the actions were taken to ensure that the construction program for the entire
District would remain solvent and that college projects were adequately funded and protected
from risk.
On a campus level, the BWG exercises oversight of campus construction and ensures that
decisions regarding facilities are aligned with LAVC’s Facilities Master Plan and institutional
planning. BWG members are expected to report back to their constituencies. In addition, BWG
minutes are posted on the Bond Workgroup page of the LAVC website and email notifications
are pushed out to the campus on items of significance regarding construction (LAVC
Communications update on construction sequencing, 1/29/2013).
Response to College Recommendation 8
To fully meet the Standards, the college should establish appropriate management and control
mechanisms needed for sound financial decision-making. The Institution should ensure that it
has sufficient cash flow and reserves to maintain stability with realistic plans to meet financial
emergencies and unforeseen occurrences and to ensure long-term financial stability. The team
22
recommends that the President effectively control budget and expenditures (Standards III.D,
III.D.2.c, IV.B.2, IV.B.2.a, IV.B.2.d).
The College has taken a number of actions to improve its long-term financial stability. The first
substantial action was the hiring of outside financial experts, the College Brain Trust (CBT), to
conduct a comprehensive analysis of the College’s financial situation and develop independent
recommendations on steps the College can take to bring its budget into balance. In March 2013
the consultants issued a report on their findings (College Brain Trust Report).
Using many of the recommendations from the CBT report, the College then prepared a series of
reports to the Executive Committee of the District Budget Committee (ECDBC), cited in the
response to District Recommendation 1. The most recent report is the Enrollment Management
and Balanced Budget and Debt Reduction Plan, submitted in December 2013 (Enrollment
Management Balanced Budget and Debt Reduction Plan). It describes strategies for a fiveyear plan that is currently being implemented to achieve a balanced budget by the third year of
the plan (Financial Stability Plan). In preparing the plan, the College also considered
measurement criteria cited in the District’s Financial Accountability Measures (District
Financial Accountability Measures) adopted by the Board of Trustees in October 2013.
Key actions the College has implemented or is in the process of implementing include:
Enrollment Management: Recognizing the financial effects resulting from changes in increased
efficiencies through enrollment management, the College developed multiple strategies that
focus on increasing average class size and sections offerings. To ensure proper projection of
expenditures, a Five-Year Enrollment Management projection tool was developed and is being
utilized. This tool improves long-term expenditure planning related to enrollment management
by projecting the needed Full-time and Part-time FTEF and their associated expenditures relating
to levels of efficiency (Enrollment Management FTEF Projections). Utilization of this tool
allows the College to run scenarios with built-in assumptions to project FTEF and expected
levels of efficiency to assist with monitoring budget expenditures related to instruction. To
ensure accurate analysis and cost estimates (e.g., cost per FTEF to assess efficiency), the
Academic Affairs and Administrative Services divisions collaborate on monthly projections that
monitor FTEF and hour changes in credit and noncredit section offerings (FTEF and Hours).
The five-year projection provides guidance to the College’s FTEF Workgroup -- a body that
reports to the Educational Planning Committee (EPC) on the amount of FTEF that can be
recommended for scheduling in any given fiscal year. The FTEF Workgroup reviews three-year
trend data of average class size by department and subject and, considering the needs of students
through review of student demand patterns, uses enrollment data (Fall 2012 Databook) to
determine class offerings that meet student demand yet also increase average class size to 40
over the next three years.
The College recently initiated changes to policies on enrollment caps across departments and
classroom scheduling to further ensure greater productivity. The reallocation of FTEF for spring
2014 demonstrated that these changes resulted in increased efficiency based on the attendance
23
monitoring received from the District (FTEF Report). To ensure these methods continue to be
effective, the College will be monitoring efficiency on a regular basis.
In addition, the College has embarked on a thorough review of programs with low enrollments
and/or a limited number of student completions The College’s Program Effectiveness and
Planning Committee (PEPC) issued a Viability Report recommending review of multiple
instructional programs that yield low performance on data points, including average class size,
success rates, retention rates, number of program completers, WSCH/FTEF, and status in the
SLO and Program Review processes (Viability Report and Recommendations). Four viability
committees were formed and have been meeting regularly. The reports they will produce will
recommend improvements as well as cost analyses for long-term planning to address any
inefficiencies.
Budget Discipline: The College implemented several management and control mechanisms in
the form of new policies, procedures, and reports to help exercise further control of the budget
and allow for more sound financial decision making:
• To ensure that each cost center maintains a balanced budget, all purchase requisitions must
have a budget print-out attached and if any line item within the cost center budget has a
negative balance, the requisition will be denied (Requisitions Budget Docs Policy).
• To ensure compliance and prevent disallowance of expenditures that would affect the
unrestricted fund, all purchase requisitions from Specially Funded Programs must have an
expenditure certification attached (SFP Certification Policy).
• To ensure that resources are connected to planning, all budget transfers must include
narrative tying the transfer to a College planning document/process or other operational need
(eBTA Budget Transfer Documentation Unrestricted) and (eBTA Budget Transfer
Documentation Restricted).
• To allow the President more control over expenditures, all unrestricted non-Health and
Safety related procurement now goes through an extra level of scrutiny and approval by
senior staff (8-13a). Requestors must explain how the request for procurement is connected
to the College’s vision, mission, core values, or an approved planning document.
• To better inform the President of budgetary over runs on a quarterly basis, a report will be
issued to all Senior Administrators detailing the account lines (not related to full-time
employees or adjunct faculty) that are in a negative balance, and a report will be made to the
President on how each area will bring their budgets into balance immediately (Negative
Balances 12-31-2013).
• To ensure proper monitoring of changes in personnel in the unrestricted fund, a Position
Control Report was created and updates are made monthly to the Chair of the Hiring
Prioritization Committee (HPC) and the Vice President of Administrative Services (Position
Control Report).
• To enable sound financial decision making when addressing the hiring of new full-time
faculty, a Full-Time Faculty Obligation calculation report was created to fully inform the
President of the financial effects of hiring (FON Scenario).
Training: To increase understanding about budget issues on campus, training on budget-related
topics has started to occur and will continue through the entire budgeting process. To date,
trainings/discussions have explained the monthly and newly developed quarterly budget reports,
24
the District Budget Allocation Model and its effect on LAVC, and Prop 30/EPA and its effect on
College funding (SB 361 and EPA Training). Additionally, to further promote transparency,
clarity, and use of information, new forms and easy-to-read charts are distributed at committee
meetings and prominently displayed on the Administrative Services web page.
Improvement in Budget Development: To promote participation in the budgeting process, the
IEC dedicated a second meeting per month to discuss budget and planning issues (IEC Motion).
The IEC reviewed high-level quarterly performance reports and was given the opportunity to
provide input and ask questions. Council members worked on processes and procedures related
to budget management and development that resulted in the creation of a budget prioritization
process (Flow Chart/Calendar) and a rubric (Rubric) to prioritize over-base funding. This new
prioritization process creates the link between program review annual plan modules and the
allocation of over-base resources.
To further enhance the budgetary process, the IEC approved a charter for a stand-alone budget
committee (Budget Committee Charter). The new committee, which will begin meeting in
spring 2014, will establish benchmarks to evaluate college expenditures, review and assess
budget policies, assist in the development of planning, develop recommendations for an annual
balanced budget, and promote transparency and enhance understanding of fiscal matters.
To complete this year’s budgeting process until the shared governance budget committee can be
constituted, the College President called for a budget task force to review the top 10 prioritized
requests from each of the College’s four divisions (based on program review annual plan
modules) and develop a recommendation for allocation. The College President will review each
recommendation and amend or augment the next year’s budget accordingly, while ensuring that
the augmentation does not impact the overall Multi-Year Balanced Budget Plan.
Expenditure Reductions: As detailed in the Five-Year Budget Plan presented in the December
2013 report to the ECDBC, in order for LAVC to balance its budget, the College will need to
reduce expenditures in excess of $3 million dollars over the next two fiscal years. To help
identify reductions, the College President convened a “mega consultation” group of college
constituency leaders, conducted a general survey, and met with stakeholders who were impacted
by proposed budget reductions. As a result of its efforts, the College identified $699,991 of
specific actions (Budget Actions), both revenue and expenditure-related, that it would undertake
in the 2013-2014 fiscal year. The new Budget Committee will be charged with taking on the
fiscal responsibility of proposing the additional reductions needed to balance the budget.
Reassigned Time: In an effort to ensure the College is as efficient as possible in its assignments,
LAVC undertook a critical examination of reassigned time and created a chart showing that all
but 5.6 FTE of reassigned time is contractual (required), SFP-related (no budget effect), or for
department chairs (Reassigned Time chart). Additionally, the President, in an effort to
determine if shared governance reassigned time was appropriate, required that all shared
governance chairs who received reassigned time present a description of their duties and
deliverables (Email on reassigned time). The College will continue to examine reassigned time
and will include the reduction in time as part of budget discussions with the administrative team
and those involved in shared governance.
25
Position Reduction: As noted in the CBT report, the College needs to address its extremely high
percentage of budget that is associated with salary and benefits. The District Office and College
administration have been working together closely since April 2013 to develop a plan for
financial stability, which is described in the December ECDBC report and includes partially
balancing the budget through attrition and a reduction of the College’s FON ratio (College and
District Activities).
Culture of Rapid Response to Budget Changes: The College is developing new processes, forms,
and budgeting practices to foster a culture of fiscal responsibility. The College’s Multi-Year
Balanced Budget Plan focuses on attrition, the capturing of growth funding, and increased
efficiencies. Given that much of the College’s budget is in areas that cannot be significantly
reduced, the College must turn to resource development, such as acquisition of grants or other
activities that will generate revenue to offset some of its expenditures. In order to follow the
recommendation that LAVC craft a budget balanced without anticipating any subsidy or
distribution of District reserves, all multi-year projection tools are being prepared without the
assumption of subsidy or distribution of reserves from the District (Financial Stability Plan).
Nevertheless, being part of a large multi-college district allows colleges to request funding from
District contingency reserves in case of an emergency or unforeseen circumstances. The
accessibility of District reserves ensure an ongoing cash flow and provide a mechanism to allow
colleges, even those with deficits, to meet their financial commitments.
The activities developed jointly by the College and the District are described in the response to
District Recommendation 1.
Response to District Recommendation 1:
In order to meet the Standards, the team recommends that the Chancellor and Board put
accountability measures into place to ensure the long-term fiscal stability and financial integrity
of the college (Standards IV.B.1.j, IV.B.3).
The District has been working closely with the College since April 2013 to develop a structured
response to LAVC’s fiscal issues. The LACCD initiated a series of follow-up activities to help
LAVC develop a long-term (multi-year) fiscal plan in order to balance its budget and achieve
financial stability.
In February 2013, the District provided funding to secure outside fiscal expertise (CBT
Contract Proposal). Consultants from the College Brain Trust (CBT) reviewed the College’s
spending practices and issued a comprehensive fiscal analysis report with 11 recommendations
for the College to undertake in order to bring its budget into balance (College Brain Trust
Report). The report was provided to LAVC in March 2013, allowing it to be included as part of
the College's April 1, 2013 Institutional Special Report to the ACCJC, which laid out the
College’s improvement plans and course of action (Institutional Special Report April 2013).
In April 2013, the LACCD Chief Financial Officer requested that the College provide a followup to the 2012-13 Second Quarter Review and the Institutional Special Report (CFO memo
26
April 9, 2013). The College responded with the requested information, as well as a formal
request for a budget augmentation and debt relief (LAVC Response May 14, 2013).
In response, on May 31, 2013, the LACCD Chief Financial Officer requested that the College:
• Present its debt relief request to the Executive Committee of the District Budget Committee
(ECDBC) in preparation for review by the larger District Budget Committee (DBC)
• Describe how the recommendations from the College Brain Trust Report would be addressed
• Develop and submit a multi-year action plan to balance its budget
Consideration of the College’s request for additional funding or debt forgiveness would be
contingent on the ECDBC’s review of the action plan (CFO Memo May 31, 2013).
In July 2013, the College responded to the CFO's memo requesting further follow-up
information on the 2012-13 Second Quarter Review and the Institutional Special Report. The
College response included a status update on progress in implementing the recommendations in
the CBT report (LAVC Response July 6, 2013).
In July 2013, the ECDBC reviewed LAVC's deficit. The College President discussed LAVC's
financial status and expenditure analysis of fiscal year 2012-13, its budget allocation for 201314, and its five-year plan to ensure a balanced budget within three years, based on suspension of
debt repayments and District debt relief funds (Financial Review Presentation). The ECDBC
reviewed the request and, in response, scheduled a special Committee meeting in August for
expanded review.
In August 2013, the ECDBC undertook an in-depth review of LAVC's five-year plan and
funding request and asked the CFO to respond to follow-up questions before proceeding further.
In September 2013, LAVC’s College President had to take an emergency medical leave and
subsequently retired. In September 2013, the District CFO responded to the LACCD Interim
Chancellor and LAVC’s Acting President, providing the ECDBC response to the College’s five
year plan and proposed funding request (CFO memo September 12 2013). The ECDBC
response required the College to strengthen enrollment management processes and develop a
multi-year balanced budget plan. In addition, the committee recommended that the District
develop accountability measures to ensure long-term fiscal stability and financial integrity and
hold all its colleges accountable for balancing their budgets. The ECDBC requested that the
College resubmit the revised multi-year balanced budget plan by October 31, 2013 for
consideration. In October 2013, the ECDBC reviewed its recommendations from the September
CFO memo with LAVC’s Interim President and the Vice President of Administrative Services.
In October 2013, in consultation with the District Budget Committee (DBC) and the District’s
College Presidents, the Interim Chancellor developed District Financial Accountability Measures
(District Financial Accountability Measures), effective for fiscal year 2013-14 for all colleges
projecting negative end-of-year balances. The measures provide a process to monitor and
evaluate the financial health of LACCD colleges through specific operating standards, holding
each college president responsible for his/her college’s budget, including maintaining a balanced
budget, reducing expenditures, developing a long-term enrollment plan, controlling personnel
27
assignments, developing reports and analyses, and setting aside a 1% reserve. Any college
ending the year in a deficit greater than 1% of its budget or $500,000 (whichever is less) is
required to conduct an internal self-assessment, submit a financial plan to the ECDBC, and
undergo quarterly review. In addition, the measures require a college experiencing three
consecutive years of deficit, or a deficit of 3% or $1 million (whichever is less) to submit a
detailed recovery plan. The Board might decide to appoint a special emergency response team to
monitor and regulate the fiscal affairs of a college. The Chancellor could consider a college’s
fiscal condition as part of the college president’s annual performance evaluation and could take
corrective measures, including possible non-renewal of his/her contract.
In November 2013, the District CFO met with LAVC college leadership to review the College’s
First Quarterly Budget/Expenditures and FTES projections. The College requested an extension
of the revised plan submission. Quarterly financial status reports were then provided to the
Chancellor and the Board’s Budget and Finance Committee (Budget and Finance Committee
Agenda December 4, 2013).
Also in November 2013, the Board’s Budget and Finance Committee approved the DBC
recommendation for revisions to the District’s College Debt Repayment Policy. The new policy
limits college annual debt repayment to 3% of the college budget allocation and suspend one
year of debt repayment to colleges with new or interim presidents. The amended policy was
approved by the Board of Trustees in December 2013 (College Debt Repayment Policy
December 2013).
The College presented its most recent plan to the ECDBC in January 2014 (Enrollment
Management Balanced Budget and Debt Reduction Plan). Response from the District is
pending.
28
'ft
a:
*
Bs
*
A
Bs
SB
Bg
LOS ANGELES COMMUNJTY COLLEGE DISTRICT
«t
770 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213/891-2000
:<
HH
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING & OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Educational Services Center
Board Room - First Floor
770 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Wednesday, February 26,2014
1:15 p.m.-2:15 p.m.
ATTACHMENT "B"
Committee Members
Steve Veres, Chair
Scott J. Svonkin, Vice Chair
Ernest H. Moreno, Member
James D. O'Reiily, Staff Liaison
Nabi! Abu-Ghazaleh, College President Liaison
Aqenda
tems may be taken out of order)
ROLL CALL
*
PUBLIC SPEAKERS*
II. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATiONS/ACTIONS
A. Master Pjan/Envirqnmentai Impact Report Updates
Firestone Education Center Draft Master Plan Review
»
B, Presentations/lnitiative Reviews
Professional Services Reprocurement Presentation
.
IV. NEWBUSiNESS
V.
SUMMARY--NEXT MEETING.,...,........,,.,.....,......,..,................."."..,..."...."".,,,....",....."."",,," Steve Veres
Vi, ADJOURNMENT
Members of the public are allotted five minutes time to address the agenda issues.
!f requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternate formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the American
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C Section 12132), and the rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. The agenda shall include
information regarding how for whom, and when a request for disabilily-reiated modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services may be
made by a person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in the public meeting
To make such a request, please contact the Executive Secreta^ to the Board of Trustees at 213/891-2044 no later than 12 p.m. (noon) on the Tuesday
prior to the Board meeting.
East Los Angeles College
2014 Draft Firestone Education Center
Master Plan
February 26, 2014
Facilities Master Planning and Oversight Committee
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
Master Plan Update Criteria
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
2
Historic Board Approvals
Strategic Plan: August 10, 2011
• Broad-level goals for the College
• Student success, equity, access, accountability and efficiency
Original Firestone Educational Center (FEC) Master Plan:
presented September 2011
• Includes the programming for the satellite campus
• Integrates the needs of current and future student body
Educational Master Plan: February 6, 2013
• Educational objectives to fulfill the Strategic Plan goals
Facilities Master Plan: October 9, 2013
• Facilities & infrastructure objectives to fulfill Strategic Plan goals
• Updated to incorporate ongoing facilities changes
• Includes the completion of the FEC
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
3
FEC Master Plan History
Original FEC Master Plan presented to the Board in
September 2011 included:
• Two phases
• Space for up to 12,000 students
• Unidentified funding for phase 2
Board taskforce, College and District program management
continued to refine project scope
Revised FEC Master Plan includes:
• A single phase – funding identified
• Space reduction plan to accommodate up to 9,000 students
In accordance with Board rules, formal certification of the EIR
and approval of the Master Plan are required to proceed
with development of the project.
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
4
Communities to be Served by FEC
• Bell, Bell Gardens,
Cudahy, Florence,
Huntington Park ,
Maywood, South Gate
and Vernon
• The population density
of the service area is
higher than the Los
Angeles average.
– Only 6.6% of the adult population in the City of South Gate hold a Bachelor’s
Degree or higher.
– The communities to be served by the FEC have a high proportion of children
under 5.
 These children will be served in the decades to come.
– The communities to be served by the FEC have a higher rate of poverty and
lower income than most of Los Angeles County and State.
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
5
Age Demographics of FEC Communities
(By 2020)
80,000
74,812
74,666
70,000
64,520
65,767
63,250
65,585
59,304
60,000
56,441
54,038
52,149 51,592
50,000
47,032
39,613
40,000
31,559
30,000
22,751
20,000
14,528
9,364 9,215
10,000
0
Under 5 to 9
5 years years
10 to
14
years
15 to
19
years
20 to
24
years
25 to
29
years
30 to
34
years
35 to
39
years
40 to
44
years
45 to
49
years
50 to
54
years
55 to
59
years
60 to
64
years
65 to
69
years
70 to
74
years
75 to
79
years
80 to
84
years
85
years
and
over
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
6
FEC Planning and Benefits
• The College has a complete Strategic Plan that
integrates the College educational, facilities and
technology master plans
• The FEC serves to fulfill the goal of:
– Increasing student success and academic excellence through
student-centered instruction, student-centered support
services, and dynamic technologies
• The population to be served by the FEC is
traditionally underrepresented in higher education
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
7
Demographics of South Gate Educational
Center (SGEC)
At the SGEC, only half of the students are able to take all their
courses on site.
Caucasian, 0.66%
African-American, 1.43%
Multi-Ethnic, 0.77% Native American, 0.07%
Unknown, 1.43%
Asian/Pacific Islander,
5.11%
Hispanic/Latino, 90.54%
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
8
Demographics of South Gate Educational
Center (SGEC)
3 1 ‐ 3 5 , 6 %
4 1 ‐ 5 0 , 3 %
3 6 ‐ 4 0 , 3 %
O l d e r th a n 5 0 , 1 %
2 6 ‐ 3 0 , 1 3 %
U n d e r 1 8 , 1 %
1 8 ‐ 2 1 , 4 3 %
2 2 ‐ 2 5 , 3 0 %
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
9
FEC Planning and Benefits
Underlying factors demonstrating need for new facility:
• No lab space at SGEC.
• Instructional programming at SGEC has nearly outgrown its
physical space (Fall 2005 to Fall 2011):
– 40% increase in enrollment
– 51% increase in students served
– 46% increase in average class size
• Student focus groups report that the lack of student support
services at satellite campuses is a barrier to student success.
• The SGEC serves nearly 5,000 students and is expected to grow
to 9,000 students with the development of the FEC.
• The FEC stands to annually transfer 150 students and confer
more than 100 degrees and 50 certificates.
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
10
FEC Master Plan Emphasis
• Create instructional space to allow for appropriate
growth
• Allow students to complete degree and transfer
requirements onsite
– Lab Sciences
– Expansion existing CTE and LAS footprint
• Provide same level of academic support services as
main campus
• Focus on efficient spaces that serve multiple
functions
• Target approximately 100,000 GSF building
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
11
FEC/SGEC Program Comparison
Location
Current SGEC
Proposed FEC
Classrooms/
Possible
Instructional Space Sections
17
238
32
448
Increase
82.4%
Proposed FEC Program Facilities
• 14 flexible smart classrooms
• 5 classrooms/labs for the physical and biological sciences
• 4 computer based classrooms/labs
• Specialized instructional spaces for
– Administration of Justice, Child Development, Music, Art, Architecture,
Engineering
• 1 large lecture hall
Allows students to complete their educational goals onsite
• Will lead to increased enrollment and program completion
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
12
ELAC Space Utilization-Cap Load Ratio
(Including FEC Master Plan)
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
13
FEC Enrollment/Headcount Projections
Year
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Percent
Growth Headcount
0%
5,000
7.4%
5,000
7.2%
5,178
6.9%
5,511
6.8%
5,856
6.6%
6,212
6.4%
6,579
6.3%
6,959
6.1%
7,351
6.0%
7757
5.9%
8,176
5.8%
8,608
6.9%
9,000
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
14
FEC Net Space Impact
Type
FEC Program Removal of
(ASF)
SGEC (ASF)
Net (ASF)
Lecture
24,265
-21,432
2,833
Lab
20,000
-3,925
16,075
Office
11,744
-6,302
5,442
Library
5,466
-2,208
3,258
AV/TV
0
-222
-222
Other
8,312
-1,300
7,012
Total
69,787
-35,389
34,398
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
15
FEC Master Plan
Parking structure
entry and signal
on Santa Fe
Campus area is
north of Building 3
Existing Building 4
to be demolished
Visitor drop-off
on Santa Fe
Existing Buildings 1, 2, & 3
to remain “as-is”
Improved general
entry and signal
at Firestone
DIAGRAM : Overview of Master Plan
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
16
Proposed FEC Facilities
Necessary classrooms, labs, offices, & support facilities
Proposed facilities:
• 100,000 gross sq. ft. new building (FEC)
• 1,600 space parking structure
• 60 space surface parking lot
Projected schedule: class offerings summer 2019
Estimated construction budget:
• $75M, in alignment with campus budget
recovery plan
New Building (FEC)
DIAGRAM: Overview of Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
17
FEC EIR: Impact Analysis
• No Impact or Less-Than-Significant Impact
–
–
–
–
–
–
Aesthetics
Geology & Soils
Hydrology & Water Quality
Land Use & Planning
Population, Housing & Employment
Utilities
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
18
FEC EIR: Impact Analysis
• Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation
– Air Quality (Regional Emissions)
– Cultural Resources (Archaeological and Paleontological
Resources & Human Remains)
– Hazards & Hazardous Materials (Hazardous Materials &
Emergency Response Plans)
– Public Services (Fire & Police)
• Significant & Unavoidable Impacts
– Historical Resources
– Construction Noise
– Traffic
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
19
FEC EIR: Impact Analysis
Historical Resources
• California Register-Eligible Historic District
• Buildings 1, 2, & 3 are individually Register-Eligible
• Building 4 is not individually Register-Eligible, but is a contributor
• Building 4 to be demolished for development of FEC
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
20
FEC EIR: Impact Analysis
Noise (Construction)
• Short-term impact
• Mitigation provided
• No feasible measures to reduce noise to
a less-than-significant level
Traffic
• 31 intersections analyzed
• 5 intersections not able to be fully
mitigated
Mitigation Measures
• Intersection improvements
– Collaboration with city of South Gate
• Implement public transportation, bicycle,
carpool and other Transportation Demand
Management programs
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
21
FEC EIR Process: Next Steps
Notice of Preparation & Scoping Meeting
Prepare Subsequent Draft EIR
Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion
45-Day Public Review Period
Prepare Responses to Comments/Subsequent Final EIR
LACCD Takes Action on the Subsequent Final EIR/
FEC Master Plan:
Targeted for Spring 2014
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
22
East Los Angeles College
2014 Draft Firestone Education Center
Master Plan
Q&A
February 26, 2014
Facilities Master Planning and Oversight Committee
2014 Draft Facilities Master Plan
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
ATTACHMENT "E"
Los Angeles Pierce College Strategic Master Plan Our mission and vision for the next four academic years !"#$-­‐!"#$ Table of Contents
Section
1
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3
2
Pierce College Integrated Planning Calendar ........................................................... 5
3
Pierce College Strategic Master Plan, 2014–2017 ................................................... 6
Appendix A
Fall 2013 Student Profile ........................................................................................ 17
Appendix B
Pierce Baseline and Trend Analysis ....................................................................... 21
3
Pierce College Strategic Master Plan, 2014-2017
Introduction
The Los Angeles Pierce College Strategic Master Plan 2014-2017 was born out of a desire to focus our
efforts on college attainment through degree and certificate completion and to give a voice to the entire
College community related to our mission and vision over the next four academic years.
Responsibility for the Strategic Master Plan (SMP) rests with the Pierce College Council (PCC). It is their
document to develop, implement, evaluate, and revise as needed. Since the PCC owns this plan, a
Strategic Planning Task Force was formed by the Council to represent the four major divisions of the
College, including: Academic Affairs, Administrative Services, Student Services, and the President’s Office.
The Task Force met weekly during the Fall 2013 semester to develop a strategic plan that would
incorporate the strengths of all the areas of the College to focus our goals and activities on student
success and completion during the current and the three subsequent academic years.
The Task Force began its development process by incorporating four overarching goals:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Engaging the Completion Agenda
Demonstrating Accountability
Cultivating Partnerships
Ensuring Student Success
These overarching goals provide us with the College vision of seeing more CAPS (Completion,
Accountability, Partnerships, Student Success) at Commencement—leading to a renewed commitment to
college degree and/or certificate attainment for all the students we serve. The four overarching goals were
expanded to more specific operational goals and objectives. Finally, to ensure we monitor the progress
toward the attainment of both the goals and objectives, the Task Force designed specific measures and
identified responsible parties for each of the goals and objectives. Throughout the process of drafting the
Strategic Master Plan, 2014-2017, each goal was mapped to the District Strategic Plan, 2012-2017, to
ensure that as we achieve our College goals, we are also achieving the goals of planning district-wide.
4
The plan was endorsed by the Pierce College Academic Senate on Monday, December 9, 2013. The Pierce
College Council recommended the plan at its meeting on December 12, 2013, and I approved the plan on
Monday, December 16, 2013. As a College, we will be recommending the plan for approval by the Board of
Trustees early in 2014.
Once we have all the required approvals, we will begin to adopt and incorporate all the goals and objectives
of the Strategic Master Plan, 2014-2017, into all our other plans, including our annual planning processes.
Throughout the life cycle of the plan, PCC will regularly monitor its implementation, evaluating it annually to
determine if revisions are necessary and preparing to revise and update the plan for the next four-year
planning cycle.
The focus of our Annual Planning Process (APP) is the implementation of this Strategic Master Plan. Our
individual departmental and divisional goals should strive to achieve the goals and objectives of this plan. If
we approach this task in an earnest and authentic manner, we will as a consequence of that dedication
achieve the goals and objectives not only of the SMP but of all the College’s planning documents because
they will all be linked (see page 5) and directed toward our CAPS philosophy tying the vision of greater
student success and degree and certificate attainment to everything we do. It is after all why each of us
comes to work at this fine College every day.
Thank you all for the hard work and dedication to making this vision a reality. Let the work begin, so we can
see more CAPS at Commencement.
Kathleen
Kathleen F. Burke
President, Los Angeles Pierce College
5
6
Pierce College Strategic Master Plan
CAPS—Completion, Accountability, Partnerships, Student Success
Approved December 16, 2013
Overarching Goals—CAPS
A. Engaging the Completion Agenda
District Goals
Access and Preparation for Success
(Improve equitable access; help students attain important early educational momentum points.)
Teaching and Learning for Success
(Strengthen effective teaching and learning by providing a learner-centered educational environment; help students attain their goals of certificate and degree
completion, transfer, and job training and career placement; increase equity in the achievement of these outcomes.)
Objectives
1. Increase student completion
of degrees, certificates, and
college transfer requirements
1a. Increase student completion of associate degrees
and Certificates of Achievement
1a. Increase student awards by 2%
annually
1a. Institutional
Effectiveness Office
(IE Office)
1b. Increase the number of students who complete
transfer requirements for the state universities
and University of California
1b. Increase students completing
transfer requirements by 2%
annually
1b. Institutional
Effectiveness Office
(IE Office)
1c. Increase the number of Transfer Model Curricula
(TMCs) in disciplines offered by the college by
2015
1c. Ensure 9 TMCs in disciplines
offered are available to students
1c. Academic Affairs
1d. Approve Transfer Model Curriculum in areas of
emphasis by 2016
1d. Increase by 2 TMCs in areas of
emphasis
1d. Academic Affairs
1e. Develop and implement a completion marketing
campaign to focus on the importance of obtaining
a degree, a certificate, or transfer preparation
1e. Publish an approved plan and
budget by Fall 2014
1e. President’s Office
2a. Increase the number of new students completing
assessment
2a Increase by 5% annually new
students completing assessment
2a. Institutional
Effectiveness Office
(IE Office)
2. Increase number of entering
students who complete the
matriculation process during
the first semester
Measure
Responsible Party for
Measure
Operational College Goals
7
Operational College Goals
3. Increase the long-term
persistence rate of students
4. Ensure equitable access to
education
Objectives
Measure
Responsible Party for
Measure
2b. Increase the number of new students completing
orientation
2b. Increase by 5% annually new
students completing orientation
2b. Student Services
2c. Increase the number of new students completing
an educational plan
2c. Increase by 5% annually new
students completing an
educational plan
2c. Student Services
2d. Increase the percent of new students who persist
to the end of their first year and successfully
complete 15 units
2d. Increase by 2% annually new
students completing 15 units
during their first year
2d. Institutional
Effectiveness Office
(IE Office)
3a. Increase the percentage of students who
complete 30 units in three years
3a. Increase by 2% annually students
who complete 30 units in three
years
3a. IE Office by way of the
District IE Office
3b. Increase the percentage of students who
complete 60 units in three years
3b. Increase by 2% annually students
who complete 60 units in three
years
3b. IE Office by way of the
District IE Office
3c. Increase the percentage of students who
complete English 101 and Math 125 within three
years
3c. Increase by 2% annually students
who complete English 101 and
Math 125 within three years
3c. IE Office by way of the
District IE Office
3d. Increase the percentage of students who
complete English 101 and Math 125 within six
years
3d. Increase by 2% annually students
who complete English 101 and
Math 125 within six years
3d. IE Office by way of the
District IE Office
4. Increase the percentage of eligible students
receiving financial aid
4. Increase eligible students
receiving financial aid by 2%
annually
4. IE Office by way of the
District IE Office
Overarching Goals—CAPS
B. Demonstrating Accountability
District Goal
Organizational Effectiveness
(Improve organizational effectiveness through data-informed planning and decision-making, process assessment, and professional development.) 8
Operational College Goals
1. Improve financial reporting
process for more accurate
budgetary forecasting,
allowing for fiscal stability.
2. Improve operational
efficiencies and processes
along with internal cash
controls
Responsible Party For
Measure
Objectives
Measure
1a. Conduct comprehensive quarterly budget reviews
to enforce budget variance accountability
1a. Quarterly summary report
variance analysis of all programs
not to exceed 5% threshold from
prior year reports without
justification
1a. Administrative
Services, budget
team, and Budget
Committee
1b. Enforce deadlines to prevent overruns and timeconsuming accounting adjustments and
reconciliations
1b. Using shared governance
committees (SGC) and owner
departments, reduce late
submittals by 10%
1b. Administrative
Services with backing
by SGC and
department managers
1c. Share and discuss material budget changes
through senior staff and budget committee for
appropriate disclosure
1c. All discussions recorded in
meeting notes; actions tracked by
PCC transparency documents
1c. Administrative
Services with support
from Senior Staff and
Budget Committee
1d. Assess all unrestricted and restricted funding.
Determine best uses of funding including specially
funded program (SFP) sources that can absorb
indirect costs. Same of enterprises.
1d. Budget Committee reviews
budget matrix requirement
summary each month
1d. Administrative
Services
2a. Review Administrative Services processes and
mitigate potential errors or fraud by focusing on
internal controls and associated procedures
2a. Track training of academic
schools and admin departments
in operational manuals, including
Business Office, Foundation,
Bookstore manuals
2a. Administrative
Services
2b. Reduce operational problems and increase
productivity of staff at peak cycles of semester
without diminishing quality of services,
emphasizing standardization of processes
whenever possible
2b. Track training classes for all
departments on operational
manuals, including Business
Office, Foundation, Bookstore
manuals
2b. Administrative
Services
Academic Affairs
Student Services
2c. Implement changes as a result of IAD audits in
Grants, Trusts, Cash Management, and
Foundation
2c. Track training classes for all
departments on operational
manuals, including Business
Office, Foundation, Bookstore
manuals
2c. Administrative
Services
9
Operational College Goals
3. Improve campus-wide health,
safety, and security through
enhanced risk-management
practices
4. Improve facilities oversight of
both bond-related and college
state-funded alterations and
improvements.
Objectives
Measure
Responsible Party For
Measure
2d. Create specific Web site links to disseminate
mass forms, permit and contract information,
enterprise purchases, etc.
2d. Track Web development and
training schedules on a weekly
basis
2d. Administrative
Services and
Information
Technology
3a. Refine the emergency response plan to respond
to 1) major and minor events that include fire drills
and multiday Emergency Operations Center
(EOC), 2) Assault or Active Shooter instigated on
campus or from threat arriving on campus, and 3)
Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)
training for quick triage physical response plan—
includes annual Los Angeles Fire Department
(LAFD) training
3a. Track training logs and maintain a
repository of manuals and
brochures that have been issued
3a. Administrative
Services
3b. Enhance the college’s emergency
communications system. This includes
emergency phones on the campus.
3b. Maintain a tracking log of
multiplatform communications to
students and staff
3b. Administrative
Services
3c. Enhance Emergency Notification System (ENS)
and create pre-scripted templates
3c. Track the use of templates usage
3c Administrative
Services
3d. Establish process for managing and monitoring
claims against the college. Simplify instructions
for proper use of the forms to escalate issues and
reduce financial impact
3d. Provide tracking logs, which can
be accessed easily, for all claims
3d. Administrative
Services/Sheriff’s
Department
3e. Evaluate and improve lighting on the campus in
all areas regularly used by staff and students
3e. Track quarterly exception reports
showing site lighting
discrepancies
3e. Administrative
Services/Plant
Facilities
4a. Develop stronger project management oversight
of pre- and postconstruction
4a. Track requests for proposals
(RFP) and project plan schedules
4a. Monthly CPM reviews
4b. Review projects and liaisons’ skills to ensure that
building user groups (BUGS) are involved and
have department representation
4b. Provide checklist for liaisons and
track the change orders
4b. CPM monthly
meetings
10
Operational College Goals
Objectives
4c. Participate in the commissioning process to
determine quality assurance (QA) and
thoroughness of punch-list inspections
6. Develop and implement
professional development
programs for faculty and staff
7. Continue to meet FTES base
and attempt to grow the
college’s student FTES
enrollment to 2006 levels and
then 5% per year
Responsible Party For
Measure
4c. Track and post punch lists with
Project Manager and discuss at
construction project meetings
(CPM)
4c. Director of Facilities,
Information
Technology Director,
Vice President of
Administrative
Services (VPAS), and
inspections with
Project Manager (PM)
4d. Develop a priority listing showing the annual
deferred maintenance facilities funding plan and
the source of matching moneys from the current
operating budget
4d. Post and track approved listing in
the Annual Report; include costs
within the annual budget
4d. Director of Facilities,
Facilities Advisory
Committee, VPAS
5a. Develop a master calendar for self-audit reports
5a. Produce an annual report on how
Student Services will reduce
compliance exceptions
5a. Student Services
5b. Decrease financial aid default rates by creating a
Default Prevention Task Force based on federal
model
5b. Maintain student loan cohort
default rate under 30%
5b. Student Services
6a. Develop a professional development plan for staff
and faculty
6a. Plan and budget developed by
Fall 2014
6a. President’s Office
College Planning
Committee
6b. Create a master calendar of professional
development conferences and training sessions
6b. Master calendar developed by
Spring 2015
6b. Human Resources
and Professional
Development
Committee
7a. Continue to analyze enrollment trends and
effective scheduling models
7a. Information on enrollments and
various scheduling models
7a. IE Office to provide
enrollment data; SAC
and EMC to provide
scheduling models
7b. Ensure access to essential courses
7b. Increase student completion rates
of certificates, degrees, and
transfer requirements by 2%
annually
7b. Academic Affairs
.
5. Increase self-audit to ensure
compliance with program
requirements
Measure
11
Operational College Goals
Objectives
Measure
Responsible Party For
Measure
7c. Maintain/increase efficiency
7c. Measure class size to maintain or
increase efficiency
7c. Institutional
Effectiveness Office
(IE Office)
7d. Increase the number and the type of evening
sessions offered (currently 24% below Fall 2008)
7d. Compile statistics on ratio and
enrollment trends
7d. Institutional
Effectiveness Office
(IE Office)
7e. Restore an active college marketing campaign to
attract students who may have been lost
7e. Increase enrollments to FTES
base with 2% overage
7e. IE Office by way of the
District Attendance
Office
Overarching Goals—CAPS
C. Cultivating Partnerships
District Goal
Resources and collaboration
(Increase and diversify sources of revenue in order to achieve and maintain fiscal stability and to support District initiatives. Enhance and maintain mutually
beneficial external partnerships with business, labor, and industry and other community and civic organizations in the greater Los Angeles area)
Operational College Goals
1. Develop and enhance
revenues generated through
grants, entrepreneurial
ventures, and community
partnerships
Objectives
Measure
Responsible Party for
Measure
1a. Expand educational partnerships that bring
community events and community members to
the campus for educational, cultural, social, and
recreational activities
1a. Track partnerships and permits
issued to increase revenue by 2%
1a. Academic Affairs
Administrative
Services Enterprise
1b. Create an enterprise task force that will consider
ways to expand revenue-generating opportunities
within future and existing operations including
bookstore, facilities rentals, and food services
1b. Track ideas that lead to increases
in revenue; increase revenues to
the college by 5%
1b. Administrative
Services/Enterprise
1c. Develop a self-funding grants program that will
increase college revenue
1c. Track and increase the college
grants program to increase
college revenue 10% annually
1c. President’s Office
12
Operational College Goals
2. Expand productive
sustainable community
alliances
3. Foster partnerships with
business and industry
Objectives
Measure
Responsible Party for
Measure
2a Create a database of financial and equipment
needs that can be shared with potential donors
2a. Track and increase donations
and or revenues by 5% over the
prior year
2a. Foundation
2b. Pursue financial, material, and collaborative
resources through enterprise activities and
fundraising to create a sustainable stable source
of income
2b. Track and increase donations
and or revenues by 5% over the
prior year
2b. Foundation
3a. Increase advisory committee participation of local
business and industry
3a. Increase advisory committee
participation to optimum on
committees low in number
3a. Career and Technical
Education Committee
(CATE Committee)
3b. Increase number of employers to participate in job
fairs
3b. Increase potential employers
participation in job fairs by 10%
annually
3b. CATE and Student
Services
3c. Develop internship programs with business and
industry partners to foster community relations
3c. Successful initiation of internship
programs
3c. Student Services and
CATE
.
Overarching Goals—CAPS
D. Ensuring Student Success
District Goal
Teaching and Learning for Success
(Strengthen effective teaching and learning by providing a learner-centered educational environment; help students attain their goals of certificate and degree
completion, transfer, and job training and career placement; increase equity in the achievement of these outcomes.) Operational College Goals
1. Address the basic skills
needs of underprepared
students in developmental
and introductory courses
Objectives
1a. Gather student input about the challenges faced
in introductory courses and use this information to
inform the development of strategies and
solutions
Measure
1a. Student surveys and/or focus
groups to gather data on
challenges students face in
introductory courses
Responsible Party for
Measure
1a. Academic Affairs
Student Services
13
Operational College Goals
2. Enhance customer service
interfaces considering timely
responses and quality of
experience
Responsible Party for
Measure
Objectives
Measure
1b. Increase the number of new students successfully
completing at least one English class and one
math class during their first year
1b. Increase by 2% annually students
completing at least one English
and one math class in the first
year with the existing hourly
allocation
1b. IE Office
1c. Increase the number of new students who
successfully complete their developmental
sequence within two years (English 20, 21, 28)
(Math 105, 110, 115)
1c. Increase by 2% annually students
completing developmental
sequence within two years with
the existing hourly allocation
1c. IE Office
2a. Provide external customer service training, e.g.,
Employer Assistance Program (EAP), followed by
specific internal training sessions
2a. Create and track customer
service training logs
2a. Administrative
Services
Academic Affairs
Student Services
2b. Assess internal processes and further align to
actual services rendered and governing policies
and procedures
2b. Review and track by department
the policies and procedures
2b. Administrative
Services
Academic Affairs
Student Services
2c. Streamline desk procedures to enhance efficiency
and customer satisfaction using surveys and
statistical analysis
2c. Track and review the surveys
issued by departments
2c. Administrative
Services
Academic Affairs
Student Services
2d. Develop and simplify Web-based self-service
features
2d. Track the increase in number of
Web-based forms used on the
Internet
2d. Administrative
Services
Academic Affairs
Student Services
2e. Procure and/or implement advanced software.
Provide application training to improve staff
productivity; for example, new cashier system,
Emergency Notification System (ENS), and future
Student Information System (SIS) modules
2e. Track the training that is
conducted to improve staff
productivity
2e. Administrative
Services
Academic Affairs
Student Services
Shared governance
committees
14
Operational College Goals
3. Maintain a robust and
reliable information
technology infrastructure
with current computing
equipment for the entire
college population
4. Support faculty and staff by
maximizing the effective use
of technology, enabling
academic innovation in
instructional delivery.
Objectives
Measure
Responsible Party for
Measure
2f. Assess student overall satisfaction with the
college programs and services
2f. Increase satisfaction with college
programs and services by 2% as
measured by student surveys
2f. Student Services
3a Establish a wireless network on the campus in
areas that are used regularly by faculty, staff, and
students
3a. Establish specifications and track
performance of wireless network
using surveys
3a. Senior Staff
Technology
Committee
3b. Ensure that existing infrastructure, systems,
equipment, and software are maintained to
accomplish daily operations in all functional areas
of the college
3b. Track the maintenance logs on
the network along with
maintaining a site failure log
3b. Administrative
Services Information
Technology
3c. Provide comprehensive training programs for
faculty and staff for smart classrooms and
conference rooms
3c. Track the smart classroom
training by creating a log showing
dates and training accomplished
3c. Academic Affairs
Professional
Development for
Smart Classrooms
3d. Improve customer service responsiveness and
satisfaction rates for faculty and staff using the
College Maintenance Management System
(CMMS).
3d. Create a bench mark for this year
and measure the changes for
each following year
3d. Administrative
Services
3e. Standardize audio visual equipment in all
classrooms to provide uniform experience and
training
3e. Track the number of dissimilar
platforms
3e. Administrative
Services Educational
Technology
Committee
Technology
Committee
4a. Develop plans to improve course effectiveness by
fully integrating innovative tools and delivery
methods
4a. Complete the Technology Plan
Survey students and faculty to
determine if plans have been
integrated into the curriculum
4a. Technology
Committee
Educational
Technology
Committee
Academic Affairs
4b. Increase online class offerings
4b. Increase distance education
offerings 5% annually
4b. Academic Affairs
Distance Education
(DE) coordinator
15
Operational College Goals
5. Provide a learner-centered
environment that promotes
active learning and student
engagement
6. Increase student awareness
and use of student support
services and programs
Objectives
Measure
Responsible Party for
Measure
5a. Review and revise Student Learning Outcomes
(SLOs) and assessment mechanisms
5a. Random inspection of ECD and
assessment database
5a. Academic Affairs
SLO coordinator
5b. Ensure active learning and applied knowledge
and skills are examined through authentic
assessment
5b. Inspection of assessment reports
annually
5b. Outcomes Committee
Academic Affairs
5c. Create a professional development focus that
emphasizes student active learning and
engagement
5c. Inspect professional development
plan to ensure sufficient focus
5c. College Planning
Committee (CPC) and
President’s Office
5d. Create programs that promote student and faculty
contact outside the classroom.
5d. Survey students about studentfaculty interactions
5d. Student Services
6a. Increase the number of financial aid applications
for eligible students.
6a Student surveys to measure
awareness of financial aid
6a Student Services
6b. Increase student awareness of Health Center
services.
6b. Survey students about Health
Center
6b. Student Services
6c Increase student awareness of Counseling Office
services.
6c. Survey students about
Counseling Office
6c. Student Services
6d. Increase student awareness of Child
Development Center services for eligible
students.
6d. Survey Students about Child
Development Center
6d. Student Services
6e. Increase student awareness of Assessment
Center services.
6e. Survey students about
Assessment Center services
6e. Student Services
6f. Increase student awareness and enhance the
veterans’ program to include the resources
needed, including partners and resources outside
the college.
6f. Surveys to measure student
awareness about veterans’
program and obtain outside
resources to enhance program
6f. Student Services
6g. Increase student awareness of the services
offered to foster youth.
6g Surveys to measure student
awareness of services offered to
foster youth
6g. Student Services
6h. Increase eligible student participation in Extended
Opportunity Programs and Services (EOPS)
6h. Increase participation in EOPS by
2%
6h. Student Services
16
Operational College Goals
Objectives
Measure
Responsible Party for
Measure
6i. Expand International Students Program
6i. Increase number of international
students by 25%
6i. Student Services
6j. Increase student awareness of the services
offered by Special Services
6j. Surveys to measure student
awareness
6j. Student Services
7. Increase student participation
in Associated Student
Organization (ASO) activities
and shared-governance
committees
7a. Develop a master calendar of statewide
conferences/trainings
7a. Increase by 5% student
participation in statewide
conferences and trainings
7a. Student Services
7b. Increase student participation in the Associated
Student Organization (ASO)
7b. Increase by 10% student
participation in ASO activities
7b. Student Services
8. Enhance opportunities for
student involvement in
cocurricular and
extracurricular activities that
will enrich campus life
8a. Develop student life strategic plan
8a. Implement a comprehensive
student life program by 2015
8a. Student Services
8b. Develop an office of student involvement that
supports student success
8b. Eighty percent of students
involved in student leadership will
complete their educational plan
8b. Student Services
Fall 2013 Student Profile
Appendix A
Fall 2013 Student Profile
the
18
Credit Headcount
Fall 2005 - Fall 2013
23,500
Number of Students
22,000
20,500
19,000
17,500
16,000
14,500
13,000
11,500
10,000
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Credit 17,575 18,556 19,782 22,164 22,052 21,230 20,453 19,951 20,253
Gender
Male
47%
Female
53%
25 - 34
18%
35 and
over
14%
Age
Under 20
29%
20 - 24
39%
19
Primary Language
Ethnicity
Unknown/Decline
to State
African-American
Other Non-White Latino
5%
6%
1%
35%
Multi-Ethnic
11%
Farsi
6%
Other*
5%
Armenian Tagalog (Filipino)
1%
1%
Russian
1%
English
80%
Spanish
7%
Asian
12%
White
30%
*Other includes: "Other", Vietnamese, Korean,
Chinese Languages, and Japanese
Citizenship
Student Visa (F1
or M1 Visa)
1%
Refugee, Asylee
1%
Temporary
Resident
(Amnesty)
0.4%
Pell Status
Pell
Recipient
21%
U.S. Citizen
82%
Other
4%
Permanent
Resident
11%
Non-Pell
Recipient
79%
Note: Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
20
Educational Goal
Personal
Development
Univ student
3%
fulfilling reqs
5%
Associate Degree
5%
Unit Load
Obtain HS
Diploma/GEDImprove Basic
3%
Skills
Fewer than
6 Units
33%
1%
12 or more units
30%
Vocational/JobRelated
11%
Transfer
57%
Undecided
15%
Number of UC and CSU Transfers from Pierce
2007-08 through 2011-12
Degrees and Certificates
2012 - 2013 (Total = 1,622)
1000
AA
928
TMCs
43
AS
57
927
857
845
723
600
400
C
586
934
800
Number
CS
8
6 to 11.5 units
39%
299
349
319
290
320
200
0
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
CSU
2010-11
UC
2011-12
Appendix B
Pierce Baseline
and
Trend Analysis
22
Data Analysis Relative to Objectives and Measures
Goal/Objective Measure A1a Increase student awards by 2% annually Responsible Party for Measure IE Office Degrees & Certificates Awarded
AA Degrees
AS Degrees
TMCs
State-Approved Certificates
Skills Certificates
Total
% Change Year to Year
% Change 2003-04 as Baseline
2003-04
950
47
91
414
1502
-
2004-05
1044
47
103
335
1529
1.8%
1.8%
2005-06
1095
55
110
404
1664
8.8%
10.8%
2006-07
997
43
87
325
1452
-12.7%
-3.3%
2007-08
953
50
102
338
1443
-0.6%
-3.9%
2008-09
889
44
80
315
1328
-8.0%
-11.6%
2009-10
799
44
198
164
1205
-9.3%
-19.8%
2010-11
902
44
380
51
1377
14.3%
-8.3%
2011-12
979
57
557
22
1615
17.3%
7.5%
The suggested increase was 2% annually: Current 2012-­‐13 2013-­‐14 2014-­‐15 2015-­‐16 2016-­‐17 2% Change Year to Year 1622 1654 1687 1721 1755 2% Change from Baseline (+32) 1622 1654 1686 1718 1750 Additional data for consideration from District IE Office: Completion Rate in 3 Years Fall 2007 Cohort Fall 2008 Cohort Fall 2009 Cohort 3 Year % Change Pierce 22% 22% 21% -­‐6% LACCD 16% 15% 14% -­‐17% Fall 2004 Cohort Fall 2005 Cohort Fall 2006 Cohort 3 Year % Change Pierce 45% 46% 46% 1% LACCD 36% 35% 35% -­‐2% Completion Rate in 6 Years 2012-13
928
57
43
586
8
1622
0.4%
8.0%
23
A1b Increase students completing transfer requirements by 2% annually IE Office 2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
CSU Transfers
770
768
808
934
934
857
723
845
927
696
UC Transfers
221
247
254
316
299
290
319
349
320
288
Total
991
1015
1062
1250
1233
1147
1042
1194
1247
984
% Change Year to Year
-
2.4%
4.6%
17.7%
-1.4%
-7.0%
-9.2%
14.6%
4.4%
-21.1%
% Change 2003-04 as Baseline
-
2.4%
7.2%
26.1%
24.4%
15.7%
5.1%
20.5%
25.8%
-0.7%
Current 2012-­‐13 2013-­‐14 2014-­‐15 2015-­‐16 2016-­‐17 2% Change Year to Year 984 1004 1024 1044 1065 2% Change from Baseline (+20) 984 1004 1024 1044 1064 The suggested increase was 2% annually: A2a Increase number of new students completing assessment by 5% annually IE Office by way of the District IE Office Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 3 Year % Change English -­‐ Pierce College 65% 69% 74% 14% English -­‐ LACCD 65% 65% 64% -­‐2% Math -­‐ Pierce College 66% 71% 75% 13% Math -­‐ LACCD 70% 70% 70% 1% 24
The suggested increase was 5% annually: English Assessment-­‐ Current Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Change Year to Year 74% 78% 82% 86% 90% Change from Baseline (+4) 74% 78% 82% 86% 90% Math Assessment-­‐ Change Year to Year 75% 79% 83% 87% 91% Change from Baseline (+4) 75% 79% 83% 87% 91% A2d Increase new students completing 15 units in their first year by 2% annually IE Office Headcount Completed 20+ Units Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 3713 3348 3636 4128 3926 1677 45.2% 1567 46.8% 1604 44.1% 1800 43.6% 1408 35.9% Fall 2010 3646 1436 39.4% Fall 2011 3340 1182 35.4% Fall 2012 3510 1249 35.6% Successfully Completed 20+ Units 827 22.3% 791 23.6% 825 22.7% 19.6% 804 22.1% 620 18.6% 637 18.1% Headcount % Change Yr to Yr -­‐9.8% 8.6% 13.5% -­‐4.9% -­‐7.1% -­‐8.4% 5.1% Headcount % Change from Baseline -­‐9.8% -­‐2.1% 11.2% 5.7% -­‐1.8% -­‐10.0% -­‐5.5% 9.8% -­‐10.1% 0.6% 952 23.1% 771 20+ Units % Change Yr to Yr 3.6% -­‐5.7% -­‐1.2% -­‐17.8% 20+ Units % Change from Baseline 3.6% -­‐2.3% -­‐3.5% -­‐20.6% -­‐12.8% -­‐21.6% -­‐21.2% 20+ Succ Units % Change Yr to Yr 6.1% -­‐4.0% 1.6% -­‐14.8% 12.3% -­‐15.8% -­‐2.2% 20+ Succ Units % Change from Baseline 6.1% 1.9% 3.5% -­‐11.8% -­‐1.0% -­‐16.7% -­‐18.5% 25
The suggested increase was 2% annually: Completed 20+ Units 2% Change Year to Year 2% Change from Baseline (+.7) Current Fall 2012 35.6% 35.6% Fall 2013 42.6 42.6 Fall 2014 43.5 43.3 Fall 2015 44.4 44 Fall 2016 45.3 44.7 Fall 2017 46.2 45.4 18.1% 18.1% 18.5 18.5 18.9 18.9 19.3 19.3 19.7 19.7 20.1 20.1 Successfully Completed 20+ Units 2% Change Year to Year 2% Change from Baseline (+.4) A3a Increase students who complete 30 units in 3 years by 2% IE Office by way of the District IE Office Fall 2007 Cohort Fall 2008 Cohort Fall 2009 Cohort 3 Year % Change Pierce College 66% 66% 68% 2% LACCD 60% 59% 61% 3% The suggested increase was 2% annually: Current Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 30 Units-­‐ Change Year to Year 68 69 70 71 72 30 Units-­‐ Change from Baseline (+1) 68 69 70 71 72 A3b Increase students who complete 60 units in 3 years by 2% IE Office by way of the District IE Office Fall 2007 Cohort Fall 2008 Cohort Fall 2009 Cohort 3 Year % Change Pierce College 33% 34% 34% 4% LACCD 29% 27% 28% -­‐3% 26
The suggested increase was 2% annually: Current Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 60 Units-­‐ Change Year to Year 34 34.7 35.4 36.1 36.8 60 Units-­‐ Change from Baseline (+.7) 34 34.7 35.4 36.1 36.8 A3c Increase students who complete Eng 101 and Math 125 in 3 years by 2% IE Office by way of the District IE Office Fall 2007 Cohort Fall 2008 Cohort Fall 2009 Cohort 3 Year % Change Pierce College 33% 32% 34% 4% LACCD 24% 22% 23% -­‐2% The suggested increase was 2% annually: Current Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Eng 101 & Math 125 in 3-­‐ Change Year to Year 34 34.7 35.4 36.1 36.8 Eng 101 & Math 125 in 3-­‐ Change from Baseline (+.7) 34 34.7 35.4 36.1 36.8 A3d Increase students who complete Eng 101 and Math 125 in 6 years by 2% IE Office by way of the District IE Office Fall 2004 Cohort Fall 2005 Cohort Fall 2006 Cohort 3 Year % Change Pierce College 39% 40% 44% 14% LACCD 31% 30% 33% 8% 27
The suggested increase was 2% annually: Current Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Eng 101 & Math 125 in 6-­‐ Change Year to Year 44 44.9 45.8 46.7 45.6 Eng 101 & Math 125 in 6-­‐ Change from Baseline (+.9) 44 44.9 45.8 46.7 45.6 A4a Increase eligible students receiving financial aid by 2% IE Office by way of the District IE Office 2009-­‐10 2010-­‐11 2011-­‐12 3 Year % Change Pierce College 61% 83% 82% 34% LACCD 55% 70% 71% 29% 2% annually: Current Fall 20011-­‐12 2012-­‐13 2013-­‐14 2014-­‐15 2015-­‐2016 Financial Aid-­‐ Change Year to Year 82 83.6 85.3 87 88.7 Financial Aid-­‐ Change from Baseline (+1.6) 82 83.6 85.2 86.8 88.4 Current Fall 20011-­‐12 2012-­‐13 2013-­‐14 2014-­‐15 2015-­‐2016 Financial Aid-­‐ Change Year to Year 82 86 90 95 100 Financial Aid-­‐ Change from Baseline (+4) 82 86 90 94 98 5% annually: 28
B7c. Measure class size to maintain or increase efficiency IE Office Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 3 Year % Change Pierce College 41.3 41.2 41.8 1% LACCD 41.1 41.0 39.9 -­‐3% 0.5% annually: Current Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Avg Class Size-­‐ Change Year to Year 41.8 42 42.2 42.4 42.6 Avg Class Size-­‐ Change from Baseline (+.2) 41.8 42 42.2 42.4 42.6 B7d. Compile statistics on ratio and enrollment trends IE Office All Sections Offered Fall 2008 to Fall 2013 -­‐ By Day of the Week & Time of Day Summary Weekday Morning Afternoon Evening Fri/Sat/Sun TBA Grand Total Weekday Morning Afternoon Evening Fri/Sat/Sun TBA Grand Total 20083 20091 1489 1486 506 490 478 504 505 492 133 133 469 433 2091 2052 20093 20101 20103 20111 20113 20121 20123 20131 20133 1459 508 467 484 133 444 2036 1337 478 428 431 105 440 1882 1450 499 479 472 113 473 2036 1390 481 479 430 104 468 1962 1386 501 461 424 109 450 1945 1358 491 464 403 105 448 1911 1328 526 437 365 99 162 1589 1312 504 425 383 89 123 1524 1442 546 510 386 105 103 1650 % Change % Change -­‐0.2% -­‐3.2% 5.4% -­‐2.6% 0.0% -­‐7.7% -­‐1.9% -­‐2.0% 0.4% -­‐2.3% -­‐4.2% 0.0% -­‐5.3% -­‐2.6% % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change -­‐10.2% -­‐5.5% -­‐10.5% -­‐14.7% -­‐21.1% -­‐6.2% -­‐10.0% -­‐6.6% -­‐4.9% 0.2% -­‐14.9% -­‐21.8% -­‐0.2% -­‐6.2% -­‐6.9% -­‐1.0% -­‐3.6% -­‐16.0% -­‐18.0% -­‐4.1% -­‐7.0% -­‐10.8% 4.0% -­‐8.6% -­‐27.7% -­‐25.6% -­‐65.5% -­‐24.0% -­‐11.9% -­‐0.4% -­‐11.1% -­‐24.2% -­‐33.1% -­‐73.8% -­‐27.1% -­‐2.6% -­‐1.4% 0.2% -­‐6.5% -­‐15.0% 0.9% -­‐2.6% -­‐8.8% -­‐3.0% -­‐2.9% -­‐20.2% -­‐21.1% -­‐4.5% -­‐8.6% -­‐3.2% 7.9% 6.7% -­‐23.6% -­‐21.1% -­‐78.0% -­‐21.1% Grand Total 15437 5530 5132 4775 1228 4013 20678 29
B7e. Increase enrollments to FTES base with 2% overage IE Office by way of the District Attendance Accounting Office Credit Headcount % Change Year to Year
% Change 2003-04 as
Baseline
Fall 2004 16,764 Fall 2005 17,575 4.8% 4.8% Fall 2006 18,556 5.6% 10.7% Fall 2007 19,782 6.6% 18.0% Fall 2008 22,164 12.0% 32.2% Fall 2009 22,052 -­‐0.5% 31.5% Fall 2010 21,230 -­‐3.7% 26.6% Fall 2011 20,453 -­‐3.7% 22.0% Fall 2012 19,951 -­‐2.5% 19.0% Fall 2013 20,253 1.5% 20.8% FTES % Change Year to Year
% Change 2003-04 as Baseline
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
12,743 12,302 -­‐3.5% -­‐3.5% 13,424 9.1% 5.3% 14,758 9.9% 15.8% 15,110 2.4% 18.6% 14,763 -­‐2.3% 15.9% 14,793 0.2% 16.1% 13,914 -­‐5.9% 9.2% 13,868 -­‐0.3% 8.8% EMSI Growth Potential Data Demographic
Under 5 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 35 to 39 years 40 to 44 years 45 to 49 years 50 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60 to 64 years 65 to 69 years 70 to 74 years 75 to 79 years 80 to 84 years 85+ years 2013 Population
66,184 62,991 67,871 65,115 73,912 78,496 72,103 70,496 73,723 75,043 73,395 66,516 55,113 39,501 28,715 21,511 17,523 18,057 2014 Population
2015 Population
2016 Population
2017 Population
Change
% Change
2013 % of Pop
67,054 62,074 67,406 63,939 74,044 79,966 72,400 70,704 72,477 74,995 73,215 67,604 56,316 41,548 29,851 21,919 17,373 18,114 68,170 61,119 66,975 62,565 73,844 81,449 72,711 71,123 71,182 74,801 72,891 68,503 57,332 43,597 31,137 22,457 17,189 18,186 69,216 60,576 66,509 61,173 73,363 82,842 73,152 71,705 69,966 74,494 72,526 69,203 58,233 45,612 32,582 23,121 17,005 18,270 70,472 59,822 65,522 60,218 72,482 83,519 74,040 71,819 69,324 73,541 72,340 69,394 59,249 47,058 34,271 23,846 17,033 18,223 4,288 (-­‐3,169) (-­‐2,349) (-­‐4,897) (-­‐1,430) 5,023 1,937 1,323 (-­‐4,399) (-­‐1,502) (-­‐1,055) 2,878 4,136 7,557 5,556 2,335 (-­‐490) 166 6% (-­‐5%) (-­‐3%) (-­‐8%) (-­‐2%) 6% 3% 2% (-­‐6%) (-­‐2%) (-­‐1%) 4% 8% 19% 19% 11% (-­‐3%) 1% 6% 6% 7% 6% 7% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 30
Source: EMSI 2013.4 -­‐ The demographic data in this report is compiled from several sources using a specialized process. Sources include annual population estimates and population projections from the US Census Bureau, birth and mortality rates from the US Health Department, and projected regional job growth. The suggested increase was 2% annually: Current Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017 Headcount-­‐ Change Year to Year 20253 20658 21071 21492 21922 Headcount-­‐ Change from Baseline (+405) 20253 20658 21063 21468 21873 C2a. C2b. Track and increase donations and or revenues by 5% over the prior year Track and increase donations and or revenues by 5% over the prior year Foundation Foundation 2006-­‐07 2007-­‐08 2008-­‐09 2009-­‐10 2010-­‐11 2011-­‐12 2012-­‐13 Foundation Revenues $1,635,879.00 $2,345,584.00 $818,873.00 $616,095.00 $514,807.00 $254,270.00 Pending The suggested increase was 5% annually: 2011-­‐12 2012-­‐13 2013-­‐14 2014-­‐15 2015-­‐16 Change Year to Year $254,270.00 $266,983.50 $280,332.67 $294,349.30 $309,066.76 $324,520.09 Change from Baseline (+$12,713.50) $254,270.00 $266,983.50 $279,697.00 $292,410.50 $305,124.00 $317,837.50 D4b. Increase Distance Education offerings according to demand DE Type Hybrid Online Grand Total % Change Year to Year % Change from Baseline 2016-­‐17 2006-­‐07 2007-­‐08 2008-­‐09 2009-­‐10 2010-­‐11 2011-­‐12 2012-­‐13 50 43 47 45 41 36 33 13 24 35 38 47 54 51 63 67 82 83 88 90 84 6.3% 22.4% 1.2% 6.0% 2.3% -­‐6.7% 6.3% 30.2% 31.7% 39.7% 42.9% 33.3% IE has some data 31
There was no suggested increase; average Year to Year % change was 5%: Current 2012-­‐13 2013-­‐14 2014-­‐15 2015-­‐16 2016-­‐17 2% Change Year to Year 84 88 92 97 102 2% Change from Baseline (+4) 84 88 92 96 100 D5d. Survey students about student-­‐faculty interactions IE has some data District Student Survey: 72. How would you describe your interactions with instructors?
I talk about educational/career plans with an instructor
I discuss ideas with instructors outside of class
I discuss ideas from my readings with instructors outside of class
I visit instructors during their office hours
Spring 2012
Fall 2009
Fall 2007
Spring 2012
Fall 2009
Fall 2007
Spring 2012
Fall 2009
Fall 2007
Often
13%
10%
11%
12%
9%
10%
9%
6%
7%
Sometimes
26%
27%
24%
24%
22%
20%
23%
21%
18%
Seldom
29%
31%
29%
28%
32%
25%
32%
34%
27%
Never
33%
32%
36%
36%
37%
44%
45%
40%
47%
32
Achieving the Dream Campus Climate Survey, Administered Fall 2011: Of the survey respondents 27% Latino, 29% Other, and 44% White 1. To what extent do you agree with the following statements about your college experience?
I feel like I belong here at Pierce College
I feel like my instructors genuinely care about me and my
success
I feel comfortable talking with my instructors
I feel that I can learn a lot from my instructors
Faculty understand me and the challenges I face
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
N/A
411
613
130
52
37
33%
49%
10%
4%
3%
464
577
139
49
22
37%
46%
11%
4%
2%
505
560
128
44
11
40%
45%
10%
4%
1%
554
563
82
27
16
45%
45%
7%
2%
1%
249
462
240
93
196
20%
37%
19%
8%
16%
Ethnicity
1. To what extent do you agree with the following statements
about your college experience?
I feel like I belong here at Pierce College
I feel like my instructors genuinely care about me and my success
I feel comfortable talking with my instructors
I feel that I can learn a lot from my instructors
Faculty understand me and the challenges I face
Agree
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Agree
Latino
279
45
286
42
281
%
86%
14%
87%
13%
85%
Other
289
57
290
65
305
%
84%
16%
82%
18%
86%
White
456
80
465
81
479
%
85%
15%
85%
15%
87%
Total
1024
182
1041
188
1065
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
49
307
25
178
105
15%
92%
8%
63%
37%
51
315
36
190
106
14%
90%
10%
64%
36%
72
495
48
343
122
13%
91%
9%
74%
26%
172
1117
109
711
333
33
2. How would you describe your interactions with instructors?
I talk about educational or career plans with instructor(s)
I discuss ideas from my readings or classes with my
instructor(s) outside of class
I visit instructor(s) during office hours
Often
Sometimes
Seldom
Never
178
442
321
294
14%
36%
26%
24%
182
375
315
360
15%
30%
26%
29%
126
312
324
469
10%
25%
26%
38%
Ethnicity
2. How would you describe your interactions with instructors?
I talk about educational or career plans with instructor(s)
I discuss ideas from my readings or classes with my instructor(s)
outside of class
I visit instructor(s) during office hours
Often/Sometimes
Latino
151
%
45%
Other
176
%
49%
White
293
%
54%
Total
620
Seldom/Never
Often/Sometimes
Seldom/Never
Often/Sometimes
184
147
188
120
55%
44%
56%
36%
181
155
200
116
51%
44%
56%
33%
250
255
287
202
46%
47%
53%
37%
615
557
675
438
Seldom/Never
215
64%
239
67%
339
63%
793
D6a Conduct student surveys to measure awareness of financial aid IE has some data 17. How often have you used the following college services?
Financial Aid Office
Spring 2012
Fall 2007
Multiple times
per Semester
27.3%
12.9%
Fall 2007
Available
When Needed
27.1%
Once a
Semester
25.1%
14.5%
Once ever
14.3%
9.9%
Never
33.2%
54.2%
18. Availability of the following college services.
Financial Aid Office
Usually
Available
17.4%
Not Available
When Needed
3.1%
Not
Applicable
37.2%
19. Your satisfaction with the following college services.
Financial Aid Office
Spring 2012
Fall 2007
Very Satisfied
31.4%
22.2%
Somewhat
Satisfied
28.3%
16.0%
Not
Satisfied
8.9%
4.0%
Not
Applicable
31.5%
41.3%
34
D6b. Survey students about Health Center IE has some data 30. How often have you used the following college services?
Health Center
Spring 2012
Fall 2007
Multiple times
per Semester
7.3%
4.7%
Once a
Semester
9.3%
6.6%
Fall 2007
Available
When Needed
20.3%
Usually
Available
13.8%
Spring 2012
Fall 2007
Very Satisfied
19.0%
16.5%
Somewhat
Satisfied
15.2%
12.6%
Once ever
13.6%
7.5%
Never
69.8%
72.7%
31. Availability of the following college services.
Health Center
Not Available
When Needed
1.9%
Not
Applicable
47.3%
32. Your satisfaction with the following college services.
Health Center
Not
Satisfied
3.4%
1.6%
Not
Applicable
62.4%
51.5%
D6c. Survey students about Counseling IE has some data 27. How often have you used the following college services?
Counseling
Spring 2012
Fall 2007
Multiple times
per Semester
14.5%
14.6%
Once a
Semester
23.5%
20.6%
Fall 2007
Available
When Needed
32.3%
Usually
Available
22.9%
Spring 2012
Fall 2007
Very Satisfied
25.0%
26.1%
Somewhat
Satisfied
27.4%
22.4%
Once ever
24.3%
20.0%
Never
37.7%
36.2%
28. Availability of the following college services.
Counseling
Not Available
When Needed
4.1%
Not
Applicable
25.8%
29. Your satisfaction with the following college services.
Counseling
Not
Satisfied
11.5%
6.7%
Not
Applicable
36.1%
27.7%
35
D6d. Survey students about Child Development Center IE has some data 20. How often have you used the following college services?
Child Development Center
Spring 2012
Multiple times
per Semester
2.2%
Once a
Semester
1.2%
Once ever
2.6%
Never
94.6%
Spring 2012
Very Satisfied
7.5%
Somewhat
Satisfied
7.1%
Not
Satisfied
1.5%
Not
Applicable
84.0%
29. Your satisfaction with the following college services.
Child Development Center
D6f. Survey students about Assessment Center services IE has some data 20. How often have you used the following college services?
Assessment Office
Spring 2012
Fall 2007
Multiple times
per Semester
2.1%
2.8%
Once a
Semester
9.1%
11.1%
Fall 2007
Available
When Needed
28.8%
Usually
Available
21.5%
Spring 2012
Fall 2007
Very Satisfied
24.3%
23.8%
Somewhat
Satisfied
33.1%
20.7%
Once ever
52.8%
35.0%
Never
36.0%
42.5%
28. Availability of the following college services.
Assessment Center Services
Not Available
When Needed
3.4%
Not
Applicable
30.9%
29. Your satisfaction with the following college services.
Assessment Center Services
Not
Satisfied
7.7%
4.1%
Not
Applicable
34.8%
34.5%
36
D6g Survey Veteran students about Veteran Programs IE has some data 46. How often have you used the following college services?
Veteran Programs
Spring 2012
Multiple times
per Semester
1.8%
Once a
Semester
1.2%
Once ever
1.6%
Never
95.3%
Spring 2012
Very Satisfied
5.8%
Somewhat
Satisfied
7.4%
Not
Satisfied
1.5%
Not
Applicable
85.2%
29. Your satisfaction with the following college services.
Veteran Programs
D6i. Increase participation in EOPS by 2% IE has some data 46. How often have you used the following college services?
EOPS
Spring 2012
Multiple times
per Semester
6.2%
Once a
Semester
3.0%
Once ever
6.0%
Never
84.9%
Spring 2012
Very Satisfied
10.5%
Somewhat
Satisfied
8.7%
Not
Satisfied
2.9%
Not
Applicable
78.0%
29. Your satisfaction with the following college services.
EOPS
D6j. Increase number of international students by 25% IE has some data 46. How often have you used the following college services?
International Student Services
Spring 2012
Multiple times
per Semester
1.7%
Once a
Semester
1.2%
Once ever
2.6%
Never
94.6%
37
29. Your satisfaction with the following college services.
Spring 2012
International Student Services
Very Satisfied
5.7%
Somewhat
Satisfied
7.5%
Not
Satisfied
1.7%
Not
Applicable
85.2%
All International Students Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 389 384 391 379 565 363 347 297 287 306 -­‐1% 2% -­‐3% 49% -­‐36% -­‐4% -­‐14% -­‐3% 7% -­‐1% 1% -­‐3% 45% -­‐7% -­‐11% -­‐24% -­‐26% -­‐21% 135 165 204 201 291 165 159 120 103 142 22% 24% -­‐1% 45% -­‐43% -­‐4% -­‐25% -­‐14% 38% 22% 51% 49% 116% 22% 18% -­‐11% -­‐24% 5% % Change Year to Year % Change from Baseline New International Students % Change Year to Year % Change from Baseline The suggested increase was 25% annually: All International Students Current Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017 Change Year to Year 306 459 689 1033 1549 Change from Baseline (+153) 306 459 612 765 918 New International Students Change Year to Year 142 213 320 480 720 Change from Baseline (+71) 142 213 284 355 426