Statement of Report
Preparation
Hartnell College received a letter from the Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western
Association of Schools and Colleges on June 29, 2007, placing it
on probation effectively immediately. That letter, which was based
on information gleaned in the college’s 2006-07 self study, a site
visit on March 12-15, 2007, and the Commission’s team report
after that visit, required the college to submit two progress reports:
the first on October 15, 2007, and the second on March 15, 2008.
Each report would be followed with a visit by a team representing
the Commission.
A two-person team reviewed the first progress report and visited
the college on October 30-31, 2007. The team assessed the
college’s progress through interviewing key individuals and groups
and reviewing material housed in the evidence room within the
Office of Academic Affairs. The college demonstrated that, during
a short period of time, significant accomplishments had been
achieved with regard to addressing the seven recommendations and
two Commission concerns cited in the June 29, 2007, letter.
The Commission took action at its meeting January 9-11, 2008, to
accept the report, remove the college from probation, and place it
on warning.
Following the college’s submission of its second progress report, a
two-person team visited the college on April 29-30, 2008. The team
interviewed key individuals and groups and reviewed materials
housed in the Office of Academic Affairs’ evidence room. The
college had demonstrated focus and direction in resolving the seven
recommendations and Commission concern two cited in the June
29, 2007, letter.
At its June 2008 meeting, the Commission accepted the report,
removed the college from warning, fully reaffirmed accreditation,
and required the college to submit a progress report March 1, 2009.
This progress report reflects the work of the whole college. All the
activity occurring at the college--formal and informal gatherings,
Board meetings and workshops, town hall meetings, shared
governance committee and departmental meetings, student, faculty,
and classified meetings, web postings, blogs, and e-mails-demonstrates a growing understanding of the accreditation
standards as well as the continuous improvement model that the
college adopted for assessment, planning, and resource allocation
decision-making. This report was approved by the Board of
Trustees and has been posted on the college website. As with the
previous two reports, the work reflected in this progress report is
faculty-driven and administratively supported.
i
Resource Documents
Hartnell Documents
1. Hartnell College Mission and Vision Statements:
http://www.hartnell.edu/academics/policies/mission.html
2. Educational and Facilities Master Plan:
http://www.hartnell.edu/accreditation/Facilities_Master_Plan/Hartnell_College_EFMP_F
inal_June_2008.pdf
3. Shared Governance Handbook:
http://www.hartnell.edu/academic_senate/governance/Committee_Handbook_April_2008.pdf
4. The Hartnell College Salinas Valley Vision Project: Ensuring a Valley That Matters
Survey:
http://www.hartnell.edu/accreditation/documents/Ensuring_A_Valley_that_Matters.pdf
5. The Hartnell College Salinas Valley Vision 2020 Project: Ensuring a College That
Matters: http://www.hartnell.edu/accreditation/documents/2020_report.pdf
6. Capital Outlay Projects
http://www.hartnell.edu/accreditation/Facilities_Master_Plan/CAPITAL_OUTLAY_PROJECTS.
ppt
7. King City Educational and Facilities Master Plan 2008-2011:
http://www.hartnell.edu/accreditation/Facilities_Master_Plan/King_City_EFMP_Final_April_2008.pdf
8. Screening Data: R:\Academic Affairs\Screening Data
9. Student Learning Outcomes: http://www.hartnell.edu/slo/
10. Hartnell Accreditation Progress Report:
http://www.hartnell.edu/accreditation/documents/March_Progress_Report_.pdf
Chancellor’s Office
11. Accountability Reporting for California Community Colleges:
R:\Academic Affairs\ARCC Report
12. Non Credit (Adult and Community Education)
http://www.cccco.edu/SystemOffice/Divisions/AcademicAffairs/InstructionalProgramsan
dServicesUnit/Noncredit/tabid/531/Default.aspx
13. Basic Skills and English as a Second Language
http://www.cccco.edu/SystemOffice/Divisions/AcademicAffairs/BasicSkillsEnglishasaSe
condLanguageESL/tabid/461/Default.aspx
14. Chancellor’s Office Data Mart
http://www.cccco.edu/SystemOffice/Divisions/TechResearchInfo/MIS/DataMartandRepo
rts/tabid/282/Default.aspx
ii
Accreditation Commission
15. Accreditation Evaluation Team Report:
http://www.hartnell.edu/accreditation/documents/June_30_Letter_from_ACCJC.pdf
16. Rubric for Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness Part I: Program Review; Part II
Planning; Part III Student Learning Outcomes
http://www.hartnell.edu/accreditation/documents/Rubric_Table.pdf
iii
The following is a list of the individuals and groups that provided
information for submitting this required Progress Report to the
Accrediting Commission on March 1, 2009:
Dr. Kelly Locke, President, Academic Senate
Dr. Ann Wright, President, Hartnell College Faculty Association
Dr. Ignacio Pando, Chair, Shared Governance Focus Group
Kathy Mendelsohn, Chair, Curriculum Committee
Cheryl O’Donnell, Chair, Student Learning Outcomes
Melissa Stave, Program Planning and Assessment Committee
Armando Cortes, Associated Students, Hartnell College
Langston S. Johnson, Research Analyst, Academic Affairs
Margie Wiebusch, President, California School Employees Association
Dr. Jennifer Fellguth, Dean, Distance Education, Evening/Weekend
Programs
Dr. Greg Peterson, Associate Vice President, Student Affairs
Dr. Kathleen Rose, Associate Vice President, Academic Affairs
Dr. Esteban Soriano, Interim Associate Vice President, Career and
Economic Development
Liz Estrella, Dean, Developmental Education
Gary Hughes, Associate Vice President, Administrative Information
Systems and Library Services
Terri Pyer, Interim Director, Human Resources
Barbara Yesnosky, Associate Vice President, Support Operations
SLOA Committee
Curriculum Committee
Program Planning and Assessment Committee
iv
Table of Contents
Statement of Report Preparation ...................................................................................................... i
Resource Documents ...................................................................................................................... ii
Contributors to the Report ............................................................................................................ iv
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................1
Accomplishments and Timelines .....................................................................................................4
Report on Resolution of Recommendations 2, 3, and 4 and Commission Concern 2 ...................11
Resolution of Recommendation 2 ..................................................................................................15
Resolution of Recommendation 3 ..................................................................................................26
Resolution of Recommendation 4 ..................................................................................................31
Resolution of Comission Concern 2 ..............................................................................................36
Appendix A
Shared Governance Model
Appendix B
Shared Goverance Faire Agenda
Appendix C
Hartnell College Organizational Chart
Appendix D
Vision of 2020 from Retreat
Appendix E
Integration of Assessment/Program Review and Planning, Shared Governance
and Continuous Improvement Process
Appendix F
Program Review Module Flowchart
Appendix G
2016 Financial Plan (updated)
Appendix H
FTES: A Beginning Process to understand the FTES/Budget Relationship
Appendix I
Bodies of Work that Require Improvement
Appendix J
Sample 2009-2010 Catalog Pages as evidence of publication of SLO’s at the
program level
v
List of Tables
Table I – Page 17
Comparison of number of sections and enrollments in online courses
Table II – Page 17
Comparison of number of sections and enrollments in evening and weekend courses
Table III – Page 18
Comparison of number of sections, average class size, and enrollments in ESL and Basic Skills Courses
Table IV – Page 19
Comparisons of years one and two, Accountability: Focus on Results
Table V – Page 21
Comparison of two years of outcomes data
Table VI – Page 32
Course Level Assessments – Fall 2008
Table VII – Page 34
Information Competency Assessment – Fall 2008
Table VIII – Page 34
Communication Competency Assessment – Fall 2008
vi
Executive Summary
Introduction
As a result of the March 15, 2008, report and visit, the Commission
removed Hartnell College from warning status, reaffirmed
accreditation, and required a March 1, 2009, report and visit. This
third progress report, together with the October 2007 and March
2008 reports, provides evidence of the resolution of
Recommendations 2, 3, and 4 and Commission Concern 2 as
required in the Commission’s letter of June 30, 2008.
The college is eager to demonstrate that, in resolving these specific
recommendations, it is continuing a process and building on the
progress that began 18 months ago. During this time, the high level
of engagement, volunteerism, and ownership demonstrated by the
entire community, and the development of systems and tools to
support a renewed commitment to shared governance, give us
confidence that the college can sustain these changes. Through joint
planning and broad-spread communication, we regard the important
business of the college as a shared responsibility.
Since the team visit in April 2008, at least six major activities
provide evidence of this shift. Evidence includes the number: 1)
participating in the shared governance faire; 2) participating in the
hiring of administrators; 3) willing to invest in changing the culture;
4) examining the effectiveness of student services processes; 5)
supporting resource development; and, 6) engaging in learning and
capacity building. These major activities are briefly described
below.
In May 2008, the architects of the new shared governance processes
conducted a college-wide faire to acquaint faculty and staff with the
duties and functions of each committee and to solicit membership.
As a result, more than 60 faculty and staff volunteered to serve on
the various committees. Also in May 2008, more than 60 employees
were trained to serve on the screening and hiring committees to
select seven administrators. They developed screening criteria and
interview questions and voluntarily spent two days on a holiday
weekend screening applications. They interviewed candidates and
made recommendations to the president, who invited one or more
of the committee members to sit in on the final interviews with her
as a way of demystifying the process and increasing trust. This level
of engagement most likely grew out of the fact that a broad-based
group of faculty and staff were the ones who redesigned the
administration of the college, wrote job descriptions, and elicited
college-wide input on the redesign through blogs, e-mails, and town
1
hall-type meetings. Their input was evident in the final documents.
A growing understanding of the effort and expertise needed to
sustain and grow the desired organizational and cultural change is
evidenced by faculty and staff recommending that the Board
contract with the Monterey Institute of Social Architecture (MISA)
to guide this process and build the capacity of the college to sustain
it. Much of the past six months has been devoted to examining the
processes in student services, with the expectation that many of
those processes will be redesigned over the next 18 months to
improve efficiency and effectiveness.
Not only were the leadership areas of the college involved in the
decision to allocate resources as described above, they have taken
specific steps to generate additional resources. These efforts are
most evident in the number of grants obtained by faculty and staff
and by the decision to offer, for the first time, an intersession in
January 2009. The intersession decision grew out of a discussion
with the Resource and Allocation Committee, which is the umbrella
committee in the shared governance structure. This committee,
upon learning that this was the last term in which the college could
acquire full restoration of $1.8 million lost in 2005-06 as a result of
enrollment decline, took the lead in turning this around. They
encouraged a broader discussion of the relationship between
revenues and enrollments, which occurred during a town-hall type
meeting. With this increased understanding of the budget, everyone
embraced the new enrollment goals.
Many faculty, staff, and administrators have been working in many
ways to create shared understandings, build the capacity of the
organization to do its work, and improve the work that it does.
These activities include a two-and-a-half-day retreat involving more
than 160 faculty and staff, along with the Board chair; and various
trainings for trustees, administrators, faculty, and staff. The large
retreat focused on honoring history and creating a shared vision for
the college and the community. The training for the board is
ongoing and has focused almost exclusively on improving
members’ ability to hear each other and communicate effectively.
In addition to providing tools and practice simulations, this training
includes monitoring and feedback sessions at each Board meeting.
Two training sessions have been held for administrators: one was
conducted by MISA and one by the state Chancellor’s Office.
Additionally, almost 40 faculty and staff have completed the
Faculty Experiential Learning Institute (FELI) hosted by Cabrillo
College. This program prepares employees to support student
success through the Digital Bridge Academy (DBA), a program
2
designed by Diego Navarro that has proven to be highly effective
with at-risk students. It is notable that, while the college paid for
the training, the employees participated without additional pay
(stipends, travel, etc). In spring 2009, the college launched the DBA
Foundation Semester for two cohorts of students. Thirty more
employees are expected to complete the FELI in June 2009. The
results of the DBA pilot will be assessed and analyzed by the
Academic Senate. If successful, this model could become an
important pathway to college for a wide variety of students. This
commitment to our own learning and to implementing and
evaluating new models for student success is continuous
improvement in action.
We believe that the activities since the March 2008 report and visit
give evidence of the college anchoring new approaches in the
culture, which is the eighth step in initiating comprehensive cultural
transformation, as described by Kotter in his book, Leading
Changes. We believe that our newly adopted processes are
sustainable and hold individuals, as well as the collective college,
accountable for meeting the educational and workforce needs of our
community.
3
Accomplishments
and Timelines
To provide the reader with a greater sense of continuity, the
Accomplishments and Timelines are inclusive July 2007 to March
2009. If the reader would like to focus only on the past year, these
accomplishments begin on page 7.
July 2007
ƒ Held two Board workshops: 1) Goals for FY ’08, and 2) Policy
Development: Ethics and Sanctions.
ƒ Appointed Dr. Kathleen Rose to interim associate vice president of
academic affairs to provide leadership for accreditation and
establish an office to facilitate and house the documentation of that
work.
ƒ Faculty and administrative leadership established timelines for
compliance.
ƒ Faculty continued the evaluation of the existing shared governance
structures.
August 2007
ƒ Board reviewed, as a first reading on August 7, 2007, its newly
developed ethics policy and disciplinary/sanction processes.
ƒ Board approved $150,000 for stipends and reassigned time for
faculty--as a one-time, non-precedent setting payment--to complete
the review and revision of all course outlines and programs,
including student learning outcomes.
ƒ Board authorized hiring Dr. Esteban Soriano to conduct an
assessment of the education and training needs of the businesses and
residents of the District and, in concert with the business and
government leaders of the District, to create a vision for the valley.
The resulting document, Salinas Valley 2020 Vision, will be used
by the college to update its Educational and Facilities Master Plans.
The data from this study are critical to the college’s processes for
determining priorities and updating its courses and programs.
ƒ Convocation focused entirely on the accreditation requirements and
resulted in 100% of the faculty participating in course and program
review training sessions.
ƒ Select faculty and administrators met on August 23, 2007, to discuss
the guaranteed course schedule for spring 2008.
ƒ A representative group of faculty, staff, and administrators met on
August 24, 2007, to begin to formulate the progress report.
ƒ Faculty curriculum workshops began on August 25, 2007.
4
September 2007
ƒ The college offered a three-hour ethics certification training on the
6th and again on the 12th. All members of the Board and 150 other
members of the Hartnell College community completed the training.
ƒ The Board, at its second reading on September 13, 2007, adopted
the Ethics Policy and disciplinary/sanction processes.
ƒ In a town hall meeting on the 14th, faculty and staff reviewed and
discussed initial drafts and processes involved in Recommendations
1 through 6. In this meeting, faculty and staff broke into five groups
that focused on each of these areas:
ƒshared governance,
ƒcurriculum, and student learning outcomes,
ƒprogram review,
ƒplanning and budgeting, and
ƒHartnell’s image.
Feedback given to the progress report team and posted on the Hartnell
College website indicated this activity had successfully engaged the
faculty in these issues.
ƒ Shared governance workshops were conducted September 19-21,
2007, by Dr. Leon Baradat, retired professor from Mira Costa
College, for the Board of Trustees, members of the faculty,
classified, and student senates, and leaders of the unions and
administration.
ƒ The Board engaged an external consultant to complete a “forensics
analysis” of the college’s finances and develop a sustainability plan.
October 2007
ƒ Report draft made available on September 28, 2007, to members of
the college and the community via postings on the website.
Members of the Board and the college were notified via e-mail of
the availability of the report and were provided a link to the website.
Feedback was obtained via a blog and e-mail.
ƒ The student, classified, and faculty senates and the Board adopted
resolutions embracing shared governance.
ƒ Board approved the October Accreditation Report.
ƒ Faculty and students were trained on assessment and student
learning outcomes by Marcy Alancraig from Cabrillo College.
ƒ Town hall meetings of all employees and student representatives
reviewed the final progress report and prepared for the team visit.
ƒ President conducted focus groups with 50 students, replicating
Raymond Padilla’s research on student success.
ƒ Western Association for Schools and Colleges Team Visit with
Board, college, students, faculty, and staff occurred on the 30th and
31st.
5
November 2007
ƒ Guaranteed Course Schedule was launched.
ƒ Four Board members elected, including three new members.
ƒ Three faculty hired – English, Physics, and PE/Soccer
December 2007
ƒ Six town hall meetings held to discuss results of the district-wide
needs assessment: Salinas Valley 2020 Vision.
ƒ Instructional Planning Day held to begin the development of an
Educational Master Plan based on the themes derived from the 2020
Vision Study.
ƒ The 2016 Financial Realignment Plan–which resulted from the
financial trend analysis conducted by Steve Mangelsen–was
presented to the Academic Senate.
ƒ Board workshop on Salinas Valley 2020 Vision findings, budget
and financial analysis–2016 Financial Realignment Plan.
ƒ Board passed resolution noticing all administrators and directing the
reorganization of the college.
ƒ Holiday social introduced Board members to the college and
recognized the retirement of the Vice President of Administrative
Services.
ƒ Presentation to King City Chamber of Commerce updating them on
the college and work on accreditation.
ƒ Presentation to Alisal Community regarding outreach programs,
services, and partnerships with public schools and community and
family services.
ƒ Presentation to Foundation Board regarding new programs in
agriculture and commercial construction and progress with
accreditation.
ƒ Small Business Development Assessment and expansion options
with California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office.
January 2008
ƒ Ad hoc Audit Committee of Board, controller, and president
interview and recommend new auditors, Vicenti, Lloyd, and
Stutzman.
ƒ First meeting of Board, including new members, called by new
chairperson, Kari Lee Valdés.
ƒ Registration Rally–registering 2,600 units in 30 hours and
ultimately, with other efforts, resulting in an increase of 1,700
students (23%) and 8,500 units (14%).
ƒ Faculty completed certificate and degree program outcomes and
began the course mapping of core competencies at Flex Day.
ƒ Five Board members, assistant to the Board, and the college
president participated in California League of Community
College’s Effective Trusteeship Workshop. Two trustees stayed
for the legislative workshops.
6
ƒ Ad hoc Audit Committee of the Board reviewed quarterly report and
adopted the 15 check points as guide for future reviews of the
college’s finances in relation to budget projections.
ƒ College president gave an update on the college to the Salinas Union
High School District Board. Five trustees, including the student
trustee, attended.
ƒ President addressed the Steinbeck Rotary and the Hartnell College
Retiree Club on the Board/college’s goals and accomplishments,
including accreditation.
ƒ Professional Code of Ethics for all college employees available on
the web. The basic promise underlying this document is that we
agree to examine our performance–individually and collectively as a
college–in a systematic way and with integrity and transparency.
ƒ Presidential search launched.
February 2008
ƒ Salinas Valley 2020 Vision Study presented to the Statewide
Agriculture Advisory Committee.
ƒ Town hall meeting on Accreditation Progress Report, Educational
Master Plan, and Facility Master Plan. College-wide Professional
Code of Ethics completed.
ƒ Draft of March Progress Report posted on the website for
community–internal and external--review and comment.
ƒ Draft of Reorganization/Transformation of the college posted to
website for review and comment.
ƒ Campus-wide hearing on reorganization.
ƒ Statewide Presidents (CEOs) Meeting on 08-09 Governors Budget.
March 2008
ƒ Town hall meeting on accreditation report, King City Educational
and Facilities Master Plans, and Transformation (reorganization)
Plan for the college.
ƒ Hartnell College blog: http://panther.hartnell.edu/blog/ posted draft
documents and encouraged input.
ƒ Cesar Chavez Day–a historical educational training and celebration
planned and conducted by faculty and staff.
April 2008
ƒ Board of Trustees adopted King City Educational and Facilities
Master Plans after participating in a workshop on the plans.
ƒ Flex Day Ag. Tour – virtually 100% of the full-time faculty and
numerous staff members participated in a historical, industry
supported, day-long tour of the agricultural industries in the Valley
and of the King City Center.
ƒ Accreditation Team visit.
7
May 2008
ƒ Shared Governance Faire resulted in more than 60 employees
volunteering to serve on committees.
ƒ Approximately 60 faculty and staff were trained to serve on
screening and hiring committees for administrative positions.
ƒ Committee members spent two days on a holiday weekend
screening applications.
ƒ Alisal Campus groundbreaking celebration with business and
industry leaders and the college community.
June 2008
ƒ Shared Governance Model and Committee Handbook presented to
the Board of Trustees by faculty leader Dr. Ignacio Pando.
ƒ Seven faculty (five in nursing), the assistant dean of nursing and
health sciences, and the interim superintendent/president completed
the eight-day Faculty Experiential Learning Institute (FELI)
designed to increase student success and hosted by Cabrillo College.
ƒ Nursing faculty, full- and part-time, completed a week of
development aimed at improving curriculum, clinical experience,
assessment of student learning, and NCLEX performance led by
Sylvia Rayfield and Associates.
ƒ Board of Trustees appointed Dr. Phoebe K. Helm as
superintendent/president, following a national search.
ƒ Transformation: The Way Ahead, was presented to classified staff
by faculty leader Joe Welch.
ƒ Contract with the Monterey Institute of Social Architecture (MISA)
launched study and redesign of student services.
ƒ New commercial and residential construction program roll out with
national, regional, and local industry leaders.
July 2008
ƒBoard approved superintendent/president contract.
ƒ Board approved five administrative appointments: associate vice
president (AVP) of student services and athletics, Dr. Greg
Peterson; AVP of academic affairs and accreditation, Dr. Kathleen
Rose; AVP of support operations, Barbara Yesnosky; vice president
for advancement, Beverly Grova; and dean of distance learning,
evening and weekend programs and adjunct faculty support, Dr.
Jennifer Fellguth.
ƒ Accreditation Commission informed Hartnell College that it had
been removed from warning status and had its accreditation fully
reaffirmed with a March 1, 2009, report and follow up visit required.
ƒ College leadership group recommended contract for MISA group to
guide the cultural transformation of the college.
ƒ Screening committee and college president agreed to postpone
hiring of the executive vice president position.
8
August 2008
ƒ Board approved administrative appointment of Liz Estrella as
interim dean of developmental education.
ƒ Board member Kari Valdes resigned due to a change in residence,
effective subsequent to the monthly meeting.
ƒ Board interviewed all four applicants for the vacant board position
and appointed Celia Perez Martinez, representing sub-district 5.
ƒ Registration Rallies conducted on the main campus and in King
City resulted in 8% growth in FTES.
ƒ Town hall meeting on the state of the college, Summer University
Mathematics and Science (SUMS) bridge program, FELI, shared
governance processes, and assessment of SLO’s was conducted.
September 2008
ƒ DBA rollout planning meeting with college leaders and Diego
Navarro at Cabrillo College.
ƒ First-ever faculty and staff sponsored Community BBQ to introduce
the new superintendent/president was attended by 1,200-1,400
community members.
ƒ South County Business and Industry reception to introduce
superintendent/president to the community.
ƒ Board of Trustee Effective Communication Workshop conducted
with MISA.
ƒ MISA conducted an all-employee two-and-a-half-day retreat
designed to “heal the pains of the past and create the vision of the
future.” One hundred sixty-three employees participated.
ƒ Board of Trustees ratified appointment of two temporary full-time
faculty, one in speech and one in nursing.
October 2008
ƒ Board of Trustees adopted the 2008-09 budget.
ƒ Developed the School and College Partnership Council, comprising
district high school superintendents and college president, along
with designated staff, who agreed to meet quarterly to guide
articulation and develop bridges to college designed to increase the
college-going rate and improve student success.
ƒ Superintendent/president addressed the Gonzales Unified School
District Board of Education meeting.
November 2008
ƒ Held first School and College Partnership Council meeting.
ƒ Town hall meeting on the budget and attendant enrollment goals, as
well as the decision to offer the first-ever intersession in January
2009.
ƒ Business office reorganization completed, controller and senior
accountant positions authorized, providing a career path for
employee advancement.
9
December 2008
ƒ Cabinet level administrators’ training conducted by the Chancellor’s
Office in Sacramento.
ƒ MISA conducted a two-day retreat for cabinet level administrators to
build relationships and a shared vision.
ƒ Board of Trustees approved appointment of Alfred Munoz, controller,
and Jackie Cruz-Ortega, development officer (privately funded
position).
ƒ Board of Trustees approved recommendation to close the campus for
two weeks for winter break. This resulted in $18,000 in voluntary
salary savings.
January 2009
ƒ MISA conducted Effective Communication Workshop for Board of
Trustees.
ƒ School and College Partnership Council meeting held.
ƒ Registration Rallies for King City and the main campus resulted in
significant free radio, television, and print media coverage.
ƒ Decision to design task-centered project management training. The
purpose is to solve a real problem and to build the effective project
management capacity of the college. NASA project leaders will
mentor faculty and staff participants enrolled in the online course.
ƒ Approximately 30 faculty and staff completed, on their own time,
eight days of FELI training at Cabrillo College.
ƒ Launched the first DBA Foundation Semester with two cohorts of
students.
ƒ Two flex days devoted to course and institutional (core) SLO
assessments, training in scoring and using rubrics, selection of two
additional courses, per discipline, for SLO assessment in spring, and
SLO assessment results entered into curricUNET.
ƒ President gave a state of the college address and reviewed the
assessment and planning process as a continuous improvement model.
An electronic copy of the presentation was distributed college-wide,
as well as to the Board of Trustees.
ƒ Draft Accreditation Report posted on the web.
February 2009
ƒ Bond Workshop training provided for two members of the Bond
Oversight Committee and two Trustees, as well as related staff.
ƒ Board approved Accreditation Report.
ƒ March 2009 Accreditation Report submitted to the Commission.
ƒ School and College Partnership Council meeting regarding K-16
Bridge Program with Chris Piercy.
ƒ Capacity building workshops planned for faculty interested in serving
as department chairs.
ƒ MISA retreat with student services staff.
ƒ Cross department group of faculty and staff enroll in on–line project
management course and select redesigning the adjunct hiring process
as their project.
10
Report On Resolution Of
Recommendations 2, 3, 4, and Commission Concern 2
Introduction
Hartnell College believes in its individual and collective accountability
and accepts the responsibility to assure the students, the public, and
each other of the integrity, effectiveness, and quality of its educational
programs and services. Thus, the college has adopted an assessment
and planning model that will be utilized to systematically examine its
student learning outcomes at the course, program, and institutional
(core) levels. Data from those assessments will be utilized by the
college to set priorities, direct interventions, and guide the distribution
of resources to ensure continuous improvement. The assessment and
planning model, which is a continuous improvement model, is depicted
below:
ASSESSMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
RESOURCES
ANALYSIS
PLANNING
The Academic Senate has worked with student and employee groups to
adapt and adopt the model as the Shared Governance Planning and
Assessment Model. The shared governance model (see Appendix A)
has four committees that take responsibility for the assessment and
planning model. They are: 1) Technology, Human Resources,
Facilities Planning; 2) Enrollment Management; 3) Finance; and 4)
Program Planning and Assessment. The work of these four committees
flows through the Resources and Allocation Committee (formally
called the Institutional Action and Resource Allocation Committee) to
the president and the Board. The decisions made in those areas are
shared
college-wide
through
a
website
(http://www.hartnell.edu/shared_governance/) created to make readily
available all information about these committees, including the
description of their work, a roster of members, meeting schedules,
agendas, and minutes.
The college has made a concerted effort to involve everyone in
developing a common understanding of and familiarity with the
continuous improvement and shared governance processes. On May 9,
2008, the entire college participated in a Shared Governance Faire (see
Appendix B). As a result, more than 60 employees volunteered to serve
on the various committees. In June 2008, the Shared Governance
Process and Handbook were presented to the Board. Since then, the
committees have been staffed and the Handbook revised to reflect the
reorganization of the college.
11
The college is committed to transparency and ownership in its decisionmaking processes and uses a variety of techniques to create awareness
and obtain input, including web postings, blogs, e-mails, and town hall
meetings. Numerous examples of the use of these communication
techniques are evident throughout this document. One of the most
obvious uses was in the transformation of the college and the filling of
the vacancies resulting from that reorganization.
First, it is important to recall that the Board directed that the college be
reorganized in response to the findings in the district-wide needs
assessment (Salinas Valley 2020 Vision) and the financial assessment
(2016 Financial Plan). A group of approximately 20 faculty, staff, and
students drafted the initial response to those assessments and described
the transformation of the college in five phases. This draft was posted on
the website and feedback was invited and obtained through blogs, emails, senate discussions, and a college-wide town hall meeting. The
same process was used for developing and revising the job descriptions
of new administrators who would be needed to support this
transformation. The positions were advertised and more than 60 faculty,
staff, and students were trained to serve on screening committees. These
committee members then spent much of a three-day weekend, over
Memorial Day, screening applications. They interviewed candidates and
made recommendations to the president. The president invited members
of the screening committees to sit in on the final interviews. This was
done to add transparency, inspire trust, and remove any sense of
“mystery” surrounding the final decisions.
As a result, the Board approved five administrative appointments in July
and two interim appointments in August 2008. They were associate vice
president (AVP) of student services and athletics, Dr. Greg Peterson;
AVP of academic affairs and accreditation, Dr. Kathleen Rose; AVP of
support operations, Barbara Yesnosky; vice president for advancement,
Beverly Grova; and dean of distance learning, evening and weekend
programs and adjunct faculty support, Dr. Jennifer Fellguth. Interim
appointments included Liz Estrella, interim dean of developmental
education, and Dr. Esteban Soriano, interim AVP of Career and
Economic Development. The organizational chart is in Appendix C.
After finishing Phase I of the transformation of the college, the
reorganization committee was expanded to include upper level
administrators and members of the Resources and Allocation Committee.
This committee, referred to as the “dream tenders,” continues to meet
quarterly to guide the implementation of the other phases of the
transformation. As a result of their assessment that external assistance
was needed to attain the deep cultural changes required to reach our
vision of Hartnell College in the year 2020, the Board approved a
contract with the Monterey Institute of Social Architecture (MISA). This
12
group has provided continuous guidance as the college and the Board
work to develop a culture of learning, service, and continuous
improvement.
Phases II and III of the transformation are under way. In September, 163
employees participated in a two-and-a-half day, college-wide retreat to
honor our history and develop a stronger consensus around the vision of
the college in 2020. A mural of that vision was created (see Appendix
D). Since then, two half-day communication workshops have been held
for the Board, followed by short training and/or monitoring sessions at
each Board meeting. Capacity building sessions have been held for
administrators, students, and faculty leaders. In-depth work to improve
student flow, workflow, processes, programs, and services in the student
services areas is under way. Another group of cross-departmental
administrators, faculty, and staff have enrolled in an online project
management course. The project they have chosen to complete during
this course is to redesign the adjunct faculty hiring process. Two
employees--one faculty member and one staff member--who taught
project management to our students in an award-winning NASA-funded
project are serving as mentors and guides for this project. A group of
classified staff are reviewing and simplifying forms and routine
processes to shorten time lines, reduce the number of signatures required,
and increase efficiency.
This new level of engagement in transforming the college embraces the
concept of transformational leadership as described by Peter Block in his
book, Community: The Structure of Belonging.
He describes
transformational leadership as shared ownership, stating that it is “not a
personality trait… it is about intention, convening, valuing, relatedness…
shared ownership!” He discards the notion of a leader as “one person in
charge” in favor of the great leader who creates experiences for others–
increases engagement, increases capacity–and enables them to create
something new. He further states that the core task of leaders is to create
the conditions for civic or institutional engagement, recognizing that
every gathering is the opportunity to deepen accountability and
commitment through engagement to ownership. Ownership is viewed as
necessary to have impact and sustainability. According to Block,
engagement and accountability ask people to be in charge of their own
experience and act on the well-being of the whole. He sees what we
normally call problems–low performance, high costs–as symptoms of a
breakdown of community.
We believe the college is well on its way to developing a sustainable
community in the greatest sense of Block’s description. Further, the
college believes that its response to Recommendations 2, 3, and 4
provide evidence that the Program Review, Planning, and Resource
13
Allocation processes have been developed and implemented in a way
that is ongoing, systematic, transparent, and continuous. We believe that
the level of engagement provides evidence that the continuous
improvement and shared governance processes are becoming a pervasive
way of life at Hartnell. The college is committed to improving its
processes as well as improving student learning, year after year.
We believe that this report provides evidence that Recommendations 2,
and 3 and Commission Concern 2 have been fully met at the sustainable
level.
In addition, we believe that the college’s response to
Recommendation 4 exceeds the expected developmental level for
Student Learning Outcomes.
14
Recommendation 2
The team recommends that College constituencies agree upon and
implement an ongoing, systematic, integrated process for program
review, planning, budgeting, and hiring, and that a means be developed
to communicate decisions made in those arenas back to the campus at
large. (Standards I.B.3; I.B5; III.A.6; III.B.2.b; III.C.2; III.D.1.a;
III.D.2; III.D.2.b)
Resolution of
Recommendation 2
As described earlier, the college has adopted, as its ongoing process for
program review and planning, a continuous improvement process
consisting of five phases: assessment, analysis, planning, resource
allocation, and implementation. The shared governance process has
four committees (Technology, Human Resources, and Facilities
Planning; Enrollment Management; Finance; and, Program Planning
and Assessment) that take responsibility for the continuous
improvement process. The work of these four committees flows
through the Resource Allocation Committee to the president and the
Board. Decisions, including those involving budgeting and hiring
priorities, made in these arenas are communicated to the campus at
large through web postings, blogs, e-mails, and town hall meetings.
The college has adopted a three-tiered system of assessment (see
Appendix E) that supports program review and planning as an ongoing,
systematic, and integrated process. The tiered assessment system starts
at the district level and narrows, providing greater detail at each
succeeding level. The three tiers or levels are:
1. District-wide needs assessment (Salinas Valley 2020 Vision) and
financial assessment.
2. a. College-wide review, external (Accountability: Focus on Results),
an annual study conducted in conjunction with the Chancellor’s
Office that provides comparisons to colleges with similar
demographics.
2. b. College-wide review, internal (Program Review Electronic
Screening Model), an annual review that looks at five data
elements: enrollments, course completions, revenue/cost ratios,
efficiency/WSCH, and number of degrees and certificates earned.
3. In-depth program review, which includes both qualitative data and
attention to process, as well as data. In addition, in the academic
programs, this is an on-going annual process where data, including
SLOs, are entered into CurricUNET, reviewed annually and then
culminate in a fifth year report. This annual planning process
functions as a five-year cycle in that 20 percent of the academic
programs will complete an in-depth review each year. Non-academic
support areas will be reviewed, in whole or in part, at least every five
years. For example, student services staff have been fully engaged in
a Tier III review this year. The primary focus is on improving
student flow, relationships, and integration of services. The results of
15
this effort will likely inspire a more in-depth review of other areas of
student services. A description of this and other Tier III reviews are
found later in this section.
Each of these assessment processes was described in depth in the March
2008 report. The focus in this, March 2009, report is on the outcomes of
each assessment and how they function in the continuous improvement
process and the shared governance processes. Through the use of
examples, this report demonstrates how the data gathered in the
assessment phase were analyzed and how those findings drove the
planning, resource allocation, and implementation processes.
The second tier of the assessment process provides a comparison of
numbers, i.e. , enrollments, completions, graduation rates, and overall
district efficiency. The first and third tiers are more intense, provide
more detailed information, and speak to the deeper quality-level issues.
The following paragraphs will describe each tier, with examples of
current outcomes as appropriate.
Tier I – District-wide Needs Assessment
The district-wide needs assessment (Salinas Valley 2020 Vision) and the
financial analysis resulted in two basic planning documents: The
Educational Master Plan and the 2016 Financial Plan. Faculty and staff
analysis of these findings could be broadly summarized in three primary
areas for improvement:
1. Student access (time, place, and modality)
2. Student success (basic skills, ESL, and retention and completion
rates)
3. Student Services
The administration of the college was reorganized to address these
findings. The first two are addressed in Tier I, and the third, Student
Services, is addressed as an example of a Tier III – In-depth Program
Planning and Assessment, activity (see page 22). To reorganize the
college, the administration was reduced by approximately 30% and new
positions were created to respond to the need for greater student access
and success. Funds were allocated to hire two new deans, one to support
access and the other to support student success. The implementation of
these two positions completes step five in the continuous improvement
process and leads naturally to the next level of questions: Did these
interventions make any difference? Did they result in improvement?
Thus, to answer these questions, the cycle starts over again with
assessment – was there an increase in access? Were there more sections
offered and/or more enrollments in distance learning, evening, and
weekend classes? An analysis of the data in the tables below indicates
that the number of sections and the number of enrollments increased.
16
TABLE I
Comparison of number of sections and enrollments in online courses
Online
Course sections
Enrollments
FA07
SP08
FA08
SP09
35
36
46
57
961
1084
1,420
1552*
* Data as of 1/23/09
The data in the Table I above indicate that there were 58% more online
sections offered, with 43% more enrollments in spring 2009 than in spring
2008.
TABLE II
Comparison of number of sections and enrollments
in evening and weekend courses
Evening/Weekend
Course sections
Enrollments
FA07
SP08
FA08
SP09
283
314
268
342
5671
6810
6220
7340*
* Data as of 1/23/09
As evidenced in Table II above, the number of sections in the evening and
weekend program grew 9% and the number of enrollments grew 8% in
spring 2009 as compared to spring 2008.
The analysis of these data at the Tier II (quantitative) level displayed
above gives rise to plans for further growth and refinement in offerings
could trigger an in-depth (Tier III) study to assess the retention,
completion, and quality of learning in distance learning, evening, and
weekend programs.
In Basic Skills and ESL courses, similar growth in the number of sections
and enrollments was realized.
17
TABLE III
Comparison of number of sections, average class size,
and enrollments in ESL and Basic Skills Courses
Discipline
Basic English
ESL
Basic Math
Total
Basic Skills SP08, FA08, SP09
Sections / Average Class Sizes
SP08x̄
FA08
x̄
SP09
x̄
32
28.6
47
30.4
39
29.6
34
19.0
36
21.8
45
21.4
31
34.0
36
43.0
36
38.0
97
27.2
119
31.6
120
29.0
SP08
941
645
1053
2639
Enrollments
FA08
SP09
1429
1154
785
965
1549
1369
3763
3488
Basic English = English 253 and English 101
ESL = All ESL courses
Basic Math = Math 201, Math 121, Math 121L1, Math 121L2, Math 121L3, Math 121L4, Math 200L
As indicated in Table III, basic skills and ESL enrollments grew 32%
from spring 2008 to spring 2009, with ESL making the most gain (50%).
The number of sections offered increased 23% and the average class size
increased by two seats. Thus, both access and efficiency in basic skills
and ESL have increased since the reorganization.
In addition to enrollment data, English and ESL faculty and staff
reviewed completion and retention data as part of their annual program
planning and conducted more in-depth (Tier III) reviews of their
continuous improvement efforts. As a result of this level of analysis and
planning, the faculty: 1) developed and implemented directed learning
activities in English; 2) revised course outlines, adding a lab component
and SLOs for all ESL courses, 3) developed and obtained Chancellor’s
Office approval of 11 noncredit ESL courses and three certificates; and 4)
offered the first noncredit pilot course this spring. A community
advisory committee is being formed to improve articulation with the K12 districts and the adult schools.
Other efforts to increase student success include: 1) adding a retention
specialist for the nursing program; 2) expanding the Faculty Experiential
Learning Institute (FELI) from nine to almost 40 faculty and staff; and 3)
implementing the first two cohorts of the Digital Bridge Program (DBA),
a highly successful program founded at Cabrillo College for ultra-high
risk students. Along with the expansion of direct services to students and
development for full-time faculty and staff, the college increased support
for adjunct faculty and faculty teaching online or during the evenings and
weekends. The online orientation provides convenient access and
review, as well as consistent information for adjunct faculty. Consistent
staffing and administrative support in the evenings and weekends signal
the importance of these programs. The faculty, as part of their program
review and planning processes, will be assessing and refining these
efforts to improve student success. As a result of these assessments,
programs may be modified.
18
Tier II A – College-wide Review External,
Accountability: Focus on Results
Each year, all community colleges participate in a system-wide collection
of data related to student progress and achievement and system
performance on specific indicators, along with demographic information.
Hartnell’s most recent data are below.
TABLE IV
Comparisons of years one and two, Accountability: Focus on Results
PERCENTAGE RATE
2005-2006
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
1.Student Progress
and Achievement
2.Completed 30 or
more units
3.Fall to Fall
Persistence
4.Vocational Course
Completions
5.Basic Skills Course
Completion
6.Basic Skills Course
Improvement
7.ESL Course
Improvement
2006-2007
STATE
PEER
HARTNELL
STATE
PEER
HARTNELL
50.0
45.9
47.1
51.2
48.9
42.7
70.3
65.4
67.3
70.4
67.0
67.2
69.3
59.6
67.4
68.3
56.8
68.4
77.3
84.4
78.3
78.2
79.8
78.6
60.4
61.4
57.7
60.5
58.3
49.0
50.4
51.4
54.0
50.0
46.6
55.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
44.7
46.1
80.8
It should be noted that in this state-wide study, student progress and
achievement is defined as the percentage of students meeting stated goals
of transferring to a four-year college, earning an AA/AS degree or
certificate, or achieving transfer-prepared status. Persistence is defined
as earning six credits or more and enrolling in a subsequent fall term
anywhere in the community college system. A review of these data
indicates that Hartnell’s scores are slightly more similar to the state
average than to the scores of its peer groups. While there was a slight
improvement in persistence from 2006 to 2007, the larger decrease
(4.4%) in student progress and achievement is troubling, especially given
that the state and the peer groups improved in this area.
Also, it should be noted that the data used in Table IV are from the two
years prior to the implementation of the program planning and
assessment, shared governance, and continuous improvement processes
adopted by the college last year. As such, these data can become
important benchmarks for comparing our progress in the years ahead.
19
Tier II B - College-wide Review, Internal Program Review –
Electronic Screening Model
Each year, the college reviews all of its academic programs by looking
at five
factors:
enrollments, successful course completions,
revenue/cost ratios, efficiency/WSCH, and degrees and/or certificates
awarded.
Table V provides comparisons by college, division, and program on
five baseline factors for 2006-07 and 2007-08. (Only three examples of
program level data are included here. The full sets of data are in the
evidence file in the Resource Room). These data indicate that the
overall college increased by 600 enrollments. The overall two percent
decrease in course completion rates is disturbing, given the increase in
completion rates in occupational education and student services. The
average Weekly Student Contact Hours (WSCH) of 473 not only
reflects a decrease of 4 from the prior year, it is 52 below the state’s
expected average of 525 WSCH. We hope that, by improving the
guaranteed course schedule, we will reverse this trend. The net decline
of 30 in the number of certificate and degrees completed reflects a
decrease of 73 in student services (general studies) and an increase in
all of the other areas except for arts and social science.
By collecting and analyzing these kinds of data, the college can
examine all of its programs annually to determine priorities and goals
for improvement from year to year. And, while these data provide only
a “macro” view, they are sufficient to stimulate faculty and staff
dialogue, provoke more questions, encourage further study, and
prioritize improvement plans. Hartnell faculty and staff, as they are
developing a sense of ownership in the college, will review factors like
these on an annual basis and gain a greater sense of the college’s
overall “health” and performance.
20
TABLE V
Comparison of Two Years of Outcome Data
College-wide review, internal ( Program Review Electronic Screening Model)
ENROLLMENTS
COURSE
COMPLETION
REVENUE/
COST
RATIOS
2006-07
2007-08
2006-07
2007-08
2006-07
2007-08
60,959
61,554
70%
68%
2.3 : 1
22,666
22,914
66%
63%
7,558
7,997
76%
11,681
11,544
15,078
EFFICIENCY
WSCH
DEGREES &
CERTIFICATES
2006-07
2007-08
2006-07
2007-08
2.3 : 1
477
473
567
537
2.5 : 1
2.5 : 1
455
457
58
41
72%
2.2 : 1
2.7 : 1
816
909
0
0
61%
60%
2.0 : 1
2.0 : 1
450
431
47
78
14,596
76%
88%
2.3 : 1
2.2: 1
466
440
134
165
4,230
4,471
82%
84%
1.7 : 1
1.9 : 1
417
526
326
253
BY PROGRAM
5,915
English
1,558
ESL
5,822
Math
6,276
1,342
5,627
64%
71%
52%
61%
68%
50%
2.2 : 1
2.0 : 1
2.2 : 1
2.4 : 1
2.1 : 1
2.2 : 1
431
376
514
417
376
484
1
0
5
0
0
3
BY AREA
By College
Fine
Arts/LA
/SS
PE, Health
Math,
Science,
Nursing
Occ. Ed.
Student
Services
21
Tier III – In-depth Program Review and Assessment
This section is divided into academic and non-academic areas. Core
non-academic areas include Student Services, Support Operations, and
technology and facilities planning and resources. The sections below
describe the in-depth program planning and assessment processes
under way.
Student Services
Data in the Salinas Valley 2020 Vision indicate that students and other
respondents perceived the quality of student services offered at the
main campus as much lower than those provided by other community
colleges in the region. Thus, faculty and staff identified “creating a
more accessible, student-centered experience by refocusing student
services” as an overarching priority in the Educational Master Plan.
As a result of this analysis, the college hired the Monterey Institute for
Social Architecture (MISA) to guide the staff in redesigning student
services, especially student flow. MISA conducted an in-depth review
of outreach and enrollment processes to identify strengths and
weaknesses that result in barriers to student engagement, retention, and
success. Forty-seven faculty and staff in the Student Services area
were interviewed regarding their perceptions and experiences with
outreach, marketing, in-reach, admissions, financial aid, cashiering,
assessment, counseling, registration, and orientation. The results were
compiled and presented to members of the shared governance
Enrollment Management Committee and then to all Student Services
staff in a two-day retreat. Staff were asked to review and discuss the
findings and then rank the recommendations in order of importance.
The Student Senate received the same information and helped with the
administration of a student survey to gain additional insight regarding
the recommendations.
This information will be utilized by the Student Services division to
create an integrated “one stop” model to be implemented in 2009-10.
Participant involvement is a critical component of institutional
assessment and planning. Consequently, a series of workshops and
team meetings will be held in spring 2009 to facilitate student and staff
participation in the design of the new Student Services model. This
includes two two-day professional development workshops, a process
simulation session, and multiple design sessions engaging all faculty
and staff in the division. The purpose is to improve student flow, staff
relationships, and integration of services. Further, it is expected that
these experiences will underscore the role of collaboration, review,
and refinement in the assessment and planning process.
22
Participants will integrate into the design the institutional core
competencies: communication skills, information skills, critical
thinking, and personal growth and responsibility. By so doing,
Student Services will reinforce and extend these lifelong learning
skills.
It is highly likely that this process will continue into 2010-11, and
require a greater use of technology, and trigger similar assessments of
other areas of Student Services.
Support Operations
This division is involved in an in-depth assessment and review of its
business processes. The accounting area has been reorganized and
now includes a career ladder for employees to encourage movement
from entry level to senior accountant, grants manager, or controller.
The classified union (CSEA) worked cooperatively with the
administration to effect these changes in a cost-effective manner.
In other efforts to improve processes, an interdisciplinary group of
staff are reviewing forms to eliminate redundancy of work, streamline
the approval processes, and make forms easier from the user’s
perspective. A similar group is reviewing electronic procurement to
remove bottlenecks and speed up the process.
The budgeting process is being changed to focus initially on the
FTES/Revenue goals. Secondly, all non-discretionary items, including
contractual staff, goods, and services, as well as utilities will be
included. Thirdly, discretionary funds and budget priorities will be
shaped by the Resources and Allocation Committee to align with the
results of the program planning and assessment and continuous
improvement model.
The Human Resources department staff has been actively engaged in
reviewing their processes. A cross-departmental team of faculty, staff,
and administrators are taking an online project management course
and have committed their cohort to redesign the adjunct hiring process
as their class project. This department is emerging as a leader in
empowering staff to build the capacity of the college by expanding
individual and collective skill sets and improving internal processes.
Maintenance, technology, and facilities planning will begin Tier III
assessment and planning next year.
23
Academic Programs
The March 2008 Report outlined the timeline and actions for the
program planning and assessment process and included a section
describing how the results were integrated into the fabric of the
institution through the processes involved in continuous improvement
and shared governance. The Educational Master Plans and Facilities
Master Plans for King City and the main campus were completed,
approved by the Board of Trustees, and submitted to the Chancellor’s
Office in May 2008. We completed a pilot process and assessed one
of the core competencies (communication skills) in spring and again in
fall 2008. A second core competency (information skills) was
assessed in fall 2008. The outcomes of these assessments, as well as
the interventions planned and implemented regarding the
communication competency, were reviewed by faculty during the two
flex days in January 2009. The course level assessment process will
continue each semester as required by the continuous improvement
model.
As we created the Educational Master Plan, specific planning data
were added for all areas of the college. The Program Planning and
Assessment group recommended that the college purchase the program
review module for CurricUNET. This module allows Hartnell to
electronically create and maintain a customized program planning and
review process that is easily shared college-wide. This process is
designed to house instructional and non-instructional data from
courses, disciplines, and programs as well as from the student services,
support operations, technology, and facilities areas of the college. The
intent is to have the curriculum and program review modules fully
integrated. Student Learning Outcomes at the course, program, and
institutional (core) levels will be linked to the learning assessment of
the program review module.
We developed an implementation process for the program review
module, and have accomplished these steps:
• Provided all faculty an overview of the program planning and
review process, and validated that process at Hartnell.
ƒ Identified data elements and how we would integrate those
findings into the program planning and continuous
improvement process.
ƒ Created a work flow document to demonstrate the sequence of
activities and the role of faculty and departments in the
process.
ƒ Sought and received shared governance approvals and
recommendations as we proceeded.
ƒ Conducted a pilot study and modified the instruments and
processes as a result.
24
We are excited to continue to implement this ongoing process by
broadening its scope college-wide, and evaluating the process and
making modifications as needed. At each step, we will benefit from
discussions of the benefits, opportunities, and challenges we encounter
in this review.
There are five basic components of the program planning and
assessment process: 1) self-study (assessment and analysis), 2)
identification of new activities (planning), 3) resource allocation,
where necessary to implement new activities, 4) review of inputs by
appropriate staff, and 5) recommendations to the appropriate shared
governance committees. (see Appendix F). The software is dynamic
in that it allows annotations throughout the review process. Thus, each
discipline can indicate whether the activities were completed in full or
in part and why.
The primary benefit of the CurricUNET modules is that all data are
stored electronically, continuously updated, and accessible campuswide. This enables the Program Planning and Assessment Committee
of shared governance to track the workflow and increase both the
participation and accountability of various campus groups. This level
of transparency, including access to current and dynamic data, was not
part of the previous, more stagnant, program review processes. The
electronic availability of the process will provide staff in each program
the opportunity to learn from other staff in programs, which will build
capacity and overall institutional effectiveness.
Conclusion
As we strive to engage in assessment and planning processes that are
meaningful to faculty and staff; we are increasingly creating a culture
of evidence. Faculty and staff dialogue indicate a higher level of
engagement in continuous improvement and ownership of the
question, “Are we a better college this year than we were last year,
and, if so, what is our evidence?” At each level, curiosity is deepened,
new questions emerge, and new energies are unleashed. We believe
that we have demonstrated that the college has agreed upon and
implemented a continuous improvement and shared governance model
that is an ongoing, systematic, and integrated process for program
review, planning, budgeting, and hiring, and that those decisions are
communicated to the campus at large in a way that is consistent and
effective. We believe that Hartnell College has fully resolved
Recommendation 2 at a sustainable level.
25
Recommendation 3
The team recommends that a planning process be completed that will
address the needs for staffing and maintenance in new buildings and
for technology support in both new and existing buildings. (Standards
I.B.3; I.B.4; I.B.6; III.A.2; III.A.6; III.B.1.a; III.B.1.b; III.B.2; III.2.a;
III.B.2.b; III.C.1.c; III.C.2)
Resolution of
Recommendation 3
As described earlier in the introductory section of this response, the
college has adopted a continuous improvement model and shared
governance process to guide its assessment, planning, and resource
allocation functions. The program planning and assessment (PPA)
process applies to non-academic functions, including maintenance and
technology, as well as to academic programs. The three-tiered PPA
process, including the method for obtaining input and disseminating
information to the campus at large, was described in detail in the
response to Recommendation 2. The Technology, Human Resources,
and Facilities Planning Committee within shared governance play a
primary role in guiding and supporting this process.
The 2016 Financial Plan anticipates an increase in maintenance costs
of $100,000 annually beginning in 2009-10, and identifies a set aside
of almost $800,000 annually to support technology infrastructure
needs on an on-going basis. As illustrated throughout this report, the
college’s planning and decision-making processes are open, pragmatic,
on-going and sustainable.
In addition to supporting the program planning and assessment process
and our commitment to continuous improvement and shared
governance, much work has gone into helping the college community
understand the underlying assumptions about the District’s resources,
its finances, enrollments, space utilization, and costs. Just as the
planning processes have changed, so have the budgeting processes. As
understanding and comfort with these processes grow, so will trust and
predictability. While the PPA process was described in depth earlier,
it seems appropriate to review planning, finance, and facilities
specifically as they impact maintenance and technology.
Planning
Faculty and staff analysis of the district-wide needs assessment
(Salinas Valley 2020 Vision and the financial analysis) resulted in two
important planning documents: The Educational and Facilities Master
Plans for the main campus and King City and the 2016 Financial Plan.
They provide the overarching priorities for program development and
allocation of resources–including capital and bond and operational
funds–as well as facility utilization and staffing. The staffing plan for
26
maintenance and technology must be consistent with these overarching
priorities and responsive to the changes in the college, the community,
and the facilities. For example, the expansion of online and evening
and weekend courses has implications for both maintenance and
technology. Therefore, the cross-departmental planning process that is
imbedded in the PPA is most appropriate for these areas.
Finance
The 2016 Financial Plan has a basic assumption of 3% growth in
revenue (enrollment) and a 3% growth in costs annually. The
college’s finances are monitored quarterly, if not monthly, in
relationship to this plan. The 2016 Financial Plan has been updated to
include 2007-2008 Actuals (see Appendix G). At the end of
December, costs were at 3.7% and enrollment growth was between 8
and 9%. The college is in the third and last year in which it can fully
earn the restoration dollars that were lost due to previous enrollment
decline. It now appears that the college is on target to fully restore
those funds and maximize its growth opportunity at 3%. In December,
the president provided a workshop for the college in a town hall
meeting, demonstrating the relationship of FTES to budget. The
faculty responded to that challenge by offering the first-ever
intersession in January (see Appendix H).
Subsequently, the college has set forth the budget planning process as
follows:
ƒ Determine the FTES needed to generate the anticipated revenue.
(For example, 7474 FTES for 2009-10 would enable 3% growth).
ƒ Determine the amount of faculty effort (full- and part-time)
required to generate the FTES goal and budget accordingly.
ƒ Add the contractual release time and required special project
obligations.
ƒ Add the contractual goods, services, and personnel that are nondiscretionary.
ƒ Identify discretionary funds. The Resources and Allocation
Committee will set priorities for these funds based on the
outcomes of their PPA and shared governance processes.
ƒ Two additional and rather pragmatic recommendations have been
made: budget the growth funds in the year after they were earned
and budget $3000 for each new employee hire (especially faculty)
to refresh and equip their office.
The state of the economy in California and the nation place stress on
Hartnell’s budget just as it does any public agency. In preparation for
a severe budget year in 2009-10, the Board directed the president to
pursue cost cutting measures, including early retirement incentives.
27
Both the faculty and the classified unions are expected to “sunshine”
that opportunity in March.
Despite these challenges, the college is engaged. It is growing in
enrollment and is becoming more efficient in its efforts. The
guaranteed course schedule is becoming more refined.
The
registration rally attracted a significant amount of free press, including
radio and television, as well as newspapers. The decisions to expand
online, evening, weekend, and basic skills courses appear to be
resulting in increased enrollments. And, we believe the improved
image as well as the redesign of student services will continue to grow
enrollments and grant funding opportunities. Most importantly, the
college planning processes are realistic and pragmatic. The level of
participation and accountability is growing almost daily. Morale is
good.
Facilities
Facility planning includes modernization of existing buildings as well
as the construction of new buildings. During the past eight months, 19
classrooms have been completely refurbished. New ceiling tiles,
carpet, window coverings, walls, furniture (tables and chairs), and
equipment were installed. The large theater for The Western Stage
and the theater arts department and the smaller performing arts theater
(PA 125) have been totally refurbished, too. The sound system in the
large theater needs to be replaced and the newly formed theater arts
council within the Hartnell College Foundation is considering taking
on this project.
Because of the finding in the Salinas Valley 2020 Vision that more
evening and weekend classes were needed, significant exterior lighting
is being added. Energy efficiencies are planned for replacements on
the main campus and at King City and for new buildings. For
example, the pool pump is being replaced with a highly efficient motor
and efforts are under way to ensure that the new building on the Alisal
Campus will attain “green certification” at the highest possible level
that is practical, given that construction is already under way. The
state grant funds for scheduled maintenance were allocated to replace
the pool pump and to repair or replace the gym roof. The priorities
and processes were reviewed by the shared governance committee.
The facilities utilization (FUSION) report, as provided for by the
Chancellor’s Office, has been corrected to reflect increases in
enrollment last year and again this year. And, while enrollment growth
does not yet justify a new science building, the fact that it costs more
to bring the current building up to code than to build a new building
had led the college, in consultation with the Chancellor’s Office, to
28
begin this process. Thus, faculty are involved in planning a new
science building: the architect has been chosen and the final project
planning process is under way. As new buildings come on line, trailers
and modular buildings are scheduled to come down. The annual cost of
trailers is about $50,000. The bond is being defeased to pay off the
Certificate of Participation (COP) and complete the King City Master
Plan. This will free up about another $250,000 in the general fund.
The Bond Oversight Committee has a section on the college website
(http://www.hartnell.edu/h/) that includes all of the projects and the
monthly progress reports. A webcam connection enables college and
community members to observe the construction at the Alisal Campus.
The bond fund includes “group two” monies for furniture and
equipment for the new buildings. In addition, industry partners,
particularly those in agriculture, construction, and health, have
consistently supported these programs with donations of equipment,
supplies, content experts, and cash to the College Foundation.
Maintenance
Recommendations for staffing in maintenance will come as a result of
the program planning and assessment process as described earlier. This
work will be done in conjunction with the shared governance
committees. One of the guidelines that we will use in making these
recommendations is the industry standard for square footage assigned
per custodian, maintenance staff, or landscape maintenance staff.
In developing the Educational and Facilities Master Plan, the custodial
staff acknowledged the growth in the evening and weekend programs
and the fact that the college would likely need to go to a third shift for
the largest portion of the cleaning. This would give staff greater access
to facilities when students and other staff are not present. We also are
exploring options for conducting periodic “deep cleaning” in other
ways, and getting experience with the new buildings and newly
remodeled and refreshed facilities, which may be easier to maintain
than some of the old and worn areas of the college.
The college is committed to providing the appropriate equipment,
supplies, and training to enable the staff to be effective and efficient.
The Facilities and Human Resources subcommittee will work with the
employees to ensure that the square footage guidelines used to assess
staffing needs are applied in ways that are understood, fair, and
equitable. As mentioned earlier, the 2016 Financial Plan includes an
additional $100,000 per year for maintenance. Also, some
reorganization of this area is anticipated due to recent retirements.
29
Technology
Technology support falls into three basic areas: 1) infrastructure, 2)
instructional support, and 3) web services. Costs are incurred for
personnel, hardware, software, and infrastructure or backbone. The
college uses Datatel for its student data system and for its business and
human resource processes. The college has identified a consistent
funding stream of approximately $800,000 annually for technology
infrastructure. This dedicated revenue source should be more than
adequate to provide for the upgrades to Datatel and the system’s
backbone. “Group two” funds are included in the new buildings to
support the purchase and installation of infrastructure, equipment, and
software in the new buildings. Grant funds continue to support the
acquisition of equipment, software, and staff in certain programs.
The college has added two new positions: senior programmer analyst
and network supervisor. This brings the number of technology
positions to 15.5. The Technology, Human Resources and Facilities
Planning Committee shall continue to have primary responsibility for
gathering and analyzing data to determine the technology needs of the
college. The PPA and continuous improvement processes will be used
to support the shared governance committee in its work. This
interdisciplinary planning process will assist the technology staff in
planning and prioritizing the needs of the college. A body of work has
been outlined and appears in Appendix I.
Conclusion
The college believes that it has demonstrated that it has appropriate
planning processes in place and that those processes are consistent,
sound, and sustainable. The program planning and assessment process
is broadly owned by the college and is imbedded in continuous
improvement and shared governance. The college is committed not
only to the maintenance and technology support needed but to
supporting the efforts of all of its divisions to improve student learning
and refine its key processes. We believe that the college’s commitment
to institutional effectiveness is evident throughout this report. Further,
we believe that Hartnell College has fully resolved Recommendation 3
(Planning) at the sustainable level.
30
Recommendation 4
The team recommends that the College engages in a broad-based
dialogue that leads to:
• The identification of Student Learning Outcomes at the course and
program levels; and
• Regular assessment of student progress toward achievement of
these outcomes. (Standards II.A.1.c; II.A.2.a; II.A.2.b; II.A.2.e,
II.A.2.f; II.A.2g; II.A.2.h; II.A.2.i; II.A.3)
Resolution of
Recommendation 4
The college has defined student learning outcomes (SLOs) at the
course, program, and institutional (core) levels. The core competencies
have been mapped against course requirements and SLOs have been
imbedded in each course. An SLO Assessment Plan has been
developed. Scoring rubrics have been developed and refined. A total
of 150 sample artifacts have been collected and scored. Two core
competencies (communication and information) have been assessed. In
fact, the communication core competency has been assessed twice
(spring and fall 2008). The entire faculty has been trained in the rubrics
and has participated in scoring the core competencies. The analyses of
the results of the pilot assessments in spring 2008 and resulting
discussions led to significant refinements.
In addition to the two core competencies, course level competencies
were assessed in fall 2008 and discussed as part of the flex day
activities in January 2009. Program SLOs will be assessed as part of
the program planning and assessment process. The SLO definitions,
rubrics, and assessment results are stored in the curriculum and program
review modules within CurricUNET. These software programs were
purchased by the college at the request of members of the Student
Learning Outcomes Assessment (SLOA), Curriculum, and Program
Planning and Assessment committees. These software packages
support the desire of these committees to integrate this work at every
level and share the information campus-wide. These efforts are
described in the following paragraphs.
Course Level Outcomes and Assessment
Course level outcomes and assessment have been integrated into the
curriculum process. Any new or revised course that comes to the
curriculum committee must have course level outcomes identified.
Additionally, faculty must indicate, as part of the course requirements,
which institutional (core) competencies are addressed. This “mapping”
process will allow the college to easily identify what courses should be
included in the institutional assessment of those competencies.
31
Including this information in CurricUNET has made it easier for both
the SLOA leaders and the curriculum leaders to track the approval flow
for a course. SLOA leaders are notified electronically as a course
moves through the curriculum process so that they can review and
approve the learning outcomes as part of the overall approval process.
As soon as faculty achieved proficiency in writing statements of student
learning outcomes and identifying assessment tools, the pilot
assessment of student learning outcomes was launched. To kick off this
process and to engage faculty more fully, a well-known consultant in
the field of assessment, Jeffrey Seybert, conducted a training program
for faculty and staff at the college. Approximately 50 people
participated in this voluntary training session. Faculty were asked to
identify two courses per discipline to be assessed in fall 2008.
Additional workshops were provided by members of the SLOA
Committee to help faculty prepare to assess those courses. These
workshops were well attended with strong representation from a variety
of disciplines. This completed phase one–the training and initial
assessment phase–of the pilot project.
In January 2009, faculty used their two flex days to launch phase two–
the analysis, refinement, and intervention phase–of the pilot project.
They met in discipline groups to analyze and discuss the results from
the first round of course assessments that were conducted in fall 2008.
They agreed upon interventions and refinements that would improve
SLOs in the course and the course assessment process. After choosing
two more courses per discipline to be assessed in round two (spring
2009), faculty were assisted by colleagues on the curriculum and SLOA
committees to enter the results of their fall 2008 assessments into
CurricUNET.
TABLE VI
Course Level Assessments – FALL 2008
NUMBER OF COURSES
Discipline
Assessed Analyzed Intervention CurricUNET
Career Development
12
10
9
10
Counseling
2
2
2
2
Fine Arts
2
7
7
7
Language Arts
6
6
4
6
Learning Skills
3
Library
3
3
3
3
Math
2
2
1
PE
2
2
2
7
Sciences
9
9
7
1
Social Sciences
2
2
2
43
43
34
39
TOTAL # COURSES
32
Program Level Outcomes and Assessment
The flex day in October 2008 was devoted to integrating the assessment
of SLOs with the program planning and assessment process. Program
level outcomes were identified and defined for each certificate and
degree program. These definitions will be published in the course
catalog and on the college website.
These program level student learning outcomes and achievements will
be an integral factor in the PPA and the continuous improvement
processes. The program review module in CurricUNET will be used as
part of the PPA process and will allow program level outcomes and
assessment results to be stored and tracked. The PPA cycle is designed
to ensure that each program is reviewed annually with a culminating
report at least every five years. This review process is described in depth
in Recommendation 2.
Institutional Level Outcomes and Assessment
Institutional outcomes, referred to on campus as the Core Competencies,
were defined by faculty in the fall of 2007. Assessment of the
communication competency took place early in the spring 2008
semester. Artifacts (samples of student work) were collected at the end
of the fall 2007 semester. These samples were taken from a broad base
of disciplines that included both general education and vocational
courses, offered in both face-to-face and online modalities. A total of 50
samples of written student work were scored by the SLOA Committee
using the model that was earlier approved by them and by the Academic
Senate. This first round of institutional assessment was a very positive
activity for those involved. Committee members felt that they gained
important insights into the entire review process, and, as part of that
review, engaged in discussion about how to improve the next round of
assessment, on information competency skills.
Some of those
improvements include 1) providing faculty with a more specific
description of the requirements of the assignment, 2) increasing the
number of sample artifacts to be collected, 3) collecting work from
students who have finished more than 30 units, and 4) re-designing the
rubric to bring consistency to the assessments of core competencies.
The next round of institutional assessment began in the fall 2008
semester. An invitation to participate was sent out to all faculty.
Instructors who had assignments that addressed the requirements for the
information competency skills assessment responded and sample work
was gathered. Once again, student work was collected across the
disciplines with both general education and vocational courses
33
represented. The courses from which sample work was collected
included daytime, evening, and online sections.
To increase faculty awareness and familiarity with the process, a new
approach to scoring was used for the second round. The entire faculty
participated in this round of scoring, which took place during the
January flex days. Faculty were divided into 25 groups, with a “content
expert” assigned to each group. One hundred samples of student work
were reviewed, with each group reviewing four samples. The artifacts
were scored using the agreed upon rubric. In addition to scoring for the
information competency skills, faculty decided to do a second round of
assessment for the communication competency. The new rubric, which
was a result of changes made from the initial assessment of this
competency, was used.
The tables below show the results of the scoring of the two core
competencies:
TABLE VII
Information Competency Assessment – Fall 2008
COMPETENCY
# PAPERS
% PAPERS
LEVELS
SCORED
SCORED
Beginner
54
59%
Proficient
31
34%
Advanced
7
7%
Total
92
100%
TABLE VIII
Communication Competency Assessment – Fall 2008
COMPETENCY
# PAPERS
% PAPERS
LEVELS
SCORED
SCORED
Beginner
46
50%
Proficient
37
40%
Advanced
9
10%
Total
92
100%
The Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Plan
Course level SLOs will be measured within the course. Faculty will
enter the results into CurricUNET. Institutional (core) competencies,
once we are beyond the pilot stage with each, will be measured on a
rotating schedule such that all six competencies will be measured every
two years. Program level SLOs will be measured as part of the program
review process – program planning and assessment. Each program is
expected to be assessed at least every five years.
34
The results of the SLO assessments will be used as part of the
continuous improvement process. The assessment plan is designed to
enable us to compare course and institutional (core) SLO assessment
results across time, location, and modality. The intent of these
comparisons is to determine whether students achieve similar outcomes
whether enrolled in day, evening, or weekend sections; on or off
campus; in classroom-based or online courses. Also, we will compare
the results of the assessment of institutional (core) competencies by
looking at how many units of instruction students have completed,
testing for whether students who have completed 60 units score higher
on these core competencies than students who had finished 30 or fewer
units, as we would predict.
The assessment plan is ongoing and systematic. The fact that SLOs,
their definitions, and assessments are integrated into the curriculum and
the program planning and assessment processes makes the work more
meaningful. The decision to store all of this information in CurricUNET
provides consistent information that is easily accessible campus-wide.
These interactive databases will enable comparison across time as well
as the comparisons discussed earlier. These outcome data are essential
to our continuous improvement process.
Conclusion
The entire faculty have been involved in multiple broad-based
discussions of SLOs at the course, program, and institutional (core)
levels. The SLOs have been defined at each level. Faculty have been
trained in the use of rubrics. Course SLOs have been assessed, as have
two of the core competencies. Program SLOs are measured as a part of
the program planning and assessment process. The assessment plan is
designed to answer some critical questions: 1) are we a better college
than we were the year before, and if so, what is our evidence; 2) are SLO
assessment results similar across modalities (e.g., online or classroombased); 3) are they similar across locations; 4) are they similar across
time of day or week, and 5) do students who have completed more credit
hours (60 or 30) achieve higher scores than students who have
completed fewer hours? Answers to these questions are critical to the
college’s commitment to continuous improvement as well as the
integrity of its promise to its students and its public.
We believe that a culture of evidence is developing at the college.
Faculty and staff are engaged and there is a growing sense of inquiry and
curiosity that is pervasive in both formal and informal gatherings. While
we accept that continuous improvement is a “forever evolving” process;
we do believe the SLO Assessment Plan is sustainable. And, thus, we
are confident that Hartnell College has fully resolved Recommendation
4 at, or above, the developmental level.
35
Commission
Concern 2
The Commission asks Hartnell College to demonstrate that is meets
Eligibility Requirement 10 which requires that 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.
Resolution of
Commission
Concern 2
The college had defined, for each program, the program’s expected
student learning and achievement outcomes. In October 2008, faculty
finalized the definitions of their certificate and program level outcomes.
These outcomes will be published in the 2009-10 catalog and on the
college’s website. An example is included in Appendix J.
Course, program, and institutional (core) competencies have been
defined. These definitions, as well as the results of the assessments, will
be housed in the CurricUNET software programs (described earlier) so
that they can be tracked and shared. The program planning and
assessment cycle (program review cycle) will focus on course, program,
and student learning and achievement outcomes. In analyzing the
results of the Program Planning and Assessment (PPA), the faculty will
ascertain the extent to which the program’s student learning and
achievement outcomes are being met. Through the continuous
improvement and shared governance processes, steps will be taken to
improve these outcomes year after year.
The college does not offer certificates or degrees other than at the main
campus. Nevertheless, assessment results at the course and institutional
(core) level will be analyzed by time of day, modality, and location to
ensure the same outcomes across those variables. Additionally, core
competencies will be analyzed by hours completed, with the assumption
being that students who have completed 30 or 60 hours will have
achieved a higher level of competence than students who have
completed fewer hours.
Course level SLOs have been assessed and discussed, as have two of the
core competencies (communications and information competency). The
communication core competency was assessed in spring 2008 and
refined and assessed again in fall 2008. Faculty discussion resulted in a
refinement of the rubric for assessing the competencies and the
guidance provided to faculty participating in the process. The number
of sample artifacts collected increased also. It was clear, from
observing the flex day activities in January, where 100% of the faculty
participated in scoring, that faculty are engaged. There is a growing
sense of inquiry and curiosity and a greater comfort with the program
planning and assessment process and its role in continuous
improvement.
36
Conclusion
The college has fully resolved Commission Concern 2. Each program’s
expected student learning and achievement outcomes has been defined
and will be published in the 2009-10 college catalog and on the college
website. Moreover, the college has in place a program planning and
assessment process that is systematic and provides for comparisons of
learning and achievement outcomes across time of day, week, location,
and modality to ensure similar outcomes across those variables.
37
Shared Governance Committee Membership Technology Human Resources Facilities Planning
Committee AVP, Educational Technology & Library Services
Director Human Resources
Director Facilities Academic Dean Student Senate Enrollment Management Matriculation Student Policy Review
Committee Resource Allocation Committee Chief Business Officer
Superintendent/President
Chief Business Officer
Chief Student Services Officer Academic Senate President or designee Administrative Representative Director, Enrollment Management Classified Senate President or designee Faculty Senate CSEA
Faculty
Fine Arts/Social Sciences
Math/Science
Career and Educational Development
Physical Education
Counseling
Library Committee Handbook—Spring 08
IP/rg – Updated 02/09
Program Planning and Assessment
Committee Chief Academic Officer or designee Chief Student Services Officer or designee Classified Senate Faculty Union Director Counseling/Matriculation Hartnell Faculty Association President or designee Academic Senate Classified Senate CSEA CSEA Academic Senate Classified Senate Financial Information Subcommittee Student Senate CSEA President or designee SLO Committee Chair Academic Senate Classified Senate CSEA Faculty:
Fine Arts/Social Sciences
Math/Science
Career and Educational Development
Physical Education
Counseling
Library Student Senate Student Senate President or designee L‐39 Chief Steward or designee Faculty:
Fine Arts/Social Sciences
Math/Science
Career and Educational Development
Physical Education
Counseling
Library 7
Hartnell College Organizational Chart Academic Chairs TBD Academic Chairs TBD Academic Chairs TBD Dean of Instruction Physical Education & Athletics Dyan Miller Director Counseling, Matriculation, & Transfer Services Cicely McCreight Interim Director Community Collaboratives and Articulation Molly Lewis Director Extended Opportunity Programs & Services (EOPS) Paul Casey Interim Grant Project Director East Salinas GEAR Up Augustine Nevarez Director Child Development Center Linda Taylor Interim Grant Project Director High School Equivalency Program (HEP) Carla Juarez Grant Project Director Student Support Services Grant Manuel Bersamin Assistant Dean/Director Nursing & Health Sciences Catherine Ryan Director Enrollment Services Mary Dominguez Interim Director Business Assistance Center (BAC) Vacant Grants Manager Sharon Alheit Controller Alfred Munoz Academic Chairs TBD Education and Artistic Program Administrator Melissa Chin Parker Food Services Manager Mike Cunnane Director The Western Stage Jon Selover Interim Director Human Resources & Equal Employment Opportunity Terri Pyer Director Financial Aid MaryHelen Dorado Academic Chairs TBD Associate Vice President Student Affairs & Athletics Dr. Greg Peterson Associate Vice President Educational Technology & Library Services Gary Hughes Interim Associate Vice President Career & Economic Development Dr. Esteban Soriano Associate Vice President Academic Affairs & Accreditation Dr. Kathleen Rose Associate Vice President Support Operations Barbara Yesnosky Dean Developmental Education Elizabeth Estrella Director Education Services, South County Paulette Bumbalough
Facilities Planning Manager Vacant Executive Vice President Vacant Superintendent/President Dr. Phoebe Helm 3/11/09 Governing Board
Dean, Distance Learning, Evening and Weekend Programs and Adjunct Faculty Support Dr. Jennifer Fellguth
Vice President Advancement, Public Information & Marketing Beverly Grova Development Officer for Hartnell College Foundation Jaqueline Cruz‐Ortega Integration of Assessment/Program Review and Planning, Shared Governance and Continuous Improvement Process
Tier I
District-wide
Needs Assessment
Every 5 Years
(Quantitative and
Qualitative)
Salinas Valley 2020 Vision + 2016 Financial Plan
Educational Master Plan
Tier II A and B
College-wide
Annual Internal and
External Reviews
(Quantitative)
Tier III
In-depth Review
by Program
At least every 5 years
(Quantitative and
Qualitative with focus on
outcomes and processes)
Accountability:
Focus on Results
Program Review
Electronics Screening
Model
Reorganization
Student Access and Success + Student Services
Distance
Learning,
Evening,
Weekend
Support Operations
Program Review Module of
CurricUNET
Fifth Year Report
Student Learning Outcomes
• Course
• Program
• (Institutional) Core
Business Processes
• Accounting
• Grants
Management
• Budgeting
• Electronic
Procurement
• Forms
Human Resources
• Adjunct Faculty
Hiring
Maintenance
Technology and
Facilities Planning
Basic Skills, ESL
FELI and DBA
Student Flow and
Integration of Services
FTES: A Beginning Process to Understand the FTES/Budget Relationship FTES increase = Dollars increased in the same year FTES Decrease = Decrease in Dollars the next year (the District is given three years to restore those FTES) FY 04‐05 = Lost FTES FY 05‐06 = Lost FTES and Lost $1.8 million FY 06‐07 = Restored 515 FTES (Total 6488 FTES) FY 07‐08 = Restored 77 FTES (Total 6567 FTES) FY 08‐09 = Opportunity to gain $1.7 million if we restore 389 FTES FY 08‐09 = Opportunity to gain $0.6 million if we grow 137 FTES FY 08‐09 Opportunity Summary = increase 526 FTES (8%) = $2.3 million revenue FTES Goals FY 08‐09: Summer = 644 Fall = 3313 Spring = 3229 Total = 7186 (It is good to go a bit above the goal to cover estimates in ADA (positive attendance) and to have hours available in case some parts of the State fail to meet its growth. This surplus could be distributed to HC) Note: The enrollment goal has been updated to 7250 FTES since November 2008 to reflect the new State‐wide growth allocation of 3%. An FTES goal for 2009‐10 has been set at 7474 with the expectation that the State will support a similar level of growth. Accreditation
Progress Report with Visit
Appendix I
Bodies of Work (Technology)
that require Improvement
Bodies of work that require improvements
Technology
1. Infrastructure
a. Capacity
b. Repair and installation
2. Administrative Systems
a. Student data
b. Employee data
c. Financial data
d. Course and program data
e. Other
3. Student learning and teaching
a. Distance learning
b. Hybrid courses
c. Sharing systems
d. Expansive and robust option
e. Other
4. Web
a. Information
b. Marketing
c. Data driven
d. Support teaching and learning
e. Other
Human Resources
1. Supportive processes, systems
2. Shorter timeframes
3. Better use of technology
a. Time sheets self-entered
b. Applications self-entered
c. Other
Student Services
1. Student flow
2. Self advising – better use of technology to support
3. Education/Program plan – planning and tracking
4. Financial aid
5. Online orientation and counseling classes
6. Expansive use of technology
7. Other