Analysis
Standards 2.A through 2.C
Strengths
1. The college has strong instructional programs, and is engaged in upgrading
some long-standing programs. Curriculum and program development is
ongoing with financial support from both federal and state grants.
2. The vice president for instruction and the deans, individually and as a group
(Instructional Council), provide effective and strong instructional leadership.
3. With leadership from the vice president for instruction, the instructional
deans, and the Diversity Advisory Committee, diversity is supported and
fostered through multicultural classrooms, the hiring of diverse employees,
and professional development activities.
4. The college has modernized many classrooms with upgraded media and
technology capabilities, and has plans for making similar upgrades to all
remaining classrooms.
5. The college’s most recent financial challenges have helped it “right-size”
itself. In doing so, it has the potential of greater financial flexibility to respond
to the learning needs of its communities.
6. North Seattle has a history of involvement by faculty and administrators in
outcomes assessment work. A core of committed faculty has provided
leadership for outcomes assessment and continue to sustain their
involvement in this work even as they invite newer faculty to these efforts.
7. The college has developed comprehensive Program Review and Program
Viability models, and continues to review and improved them.
8. The Curriculum and Academic Standards Committee provides strong
leadership and structures for curriculum development. Assessment and
Program Review Committees provide strong leadership and support for
assessment activities;
9. College faculty have engaged in a number of notable examples of
collaborative assessment projects. An annual budget is available to support
assessment projects through the Office of Institutional Effectiveness.
10. The district-wide AA degree ( North Seattle ’s general education degree) was
created in 1997 as an outcomes-based degree, a focus that was reaffirmed
when the degree was revised in 2004.
1
11. Master Course Outlines reflect the college’s general education learning
outcomes. Recently strengthened CAS guidelines emphasize the importance
of direct assessment of identified outcomes.
12. The college has recently revised the learning outcomes for all instructional
programs. Revised planning sheets for professional-technical programs
clearly show the related instruction requirements of each program. The
“mapping process” for curricular design/assessment has shown promise for
strengthening the outcomes focus of some instructional programs, especially
among professional-technical programs.
Weaknesses
1. The organizational structure within the instructional unit is ready for a
comprehensive review and potential revision in order for the college to best
position itself to meet the challenges and opportunities of its future. For
nearly a decade the college has implemented a number of fiscally-responsible
strategies to meet a series of budget challenges: downsized the number of
instructional deans and combined instructional divisions, left some critical
positions unfilled for extended periods of time, assigned additional
responsibilities to existing positions, done without positions that would be
warranted under more favorable conditions. The resulting configuration of
positions and responsibilities may not necessarily serve the future best
interests of the college’s instructional programs.
2. Accompanying such a review is the need to rebuild the team that is the
Instructional Council—the principal structure through which instructional
decisions are made and implemented. Since July 2006 this group has had
interim leadership from the executive dean for workforce education has also
been serving as vice president for instruction. Also since July 2006, IC’s
membership has changed in several important ways*. As its leadership and
membership becomes clearer, a newly-constituted IC will need to coalesce as
a group, focus its vision, and step forward with college leadership to shape
the instructional programs that will take the college into the future it envisions
through its strategic plan.
* The dean of the Health and Humans Services Division is serving under an
interim appointment. The position of dean of the Math, Science, and Social
Sciences Division is being shared between two individuals, one of whom is
simultaneously serving as the interim director of information technology services.
The directors of Library and Media Services and Interdisciplinary Studies are new
to their positions and to IC. The executive dean for continuing/contract education
and international programs, and the director of distance learning are also new
members the council.
3. There is a need to review general education outcomes for currency and
relevance to a new group of faculty and a changing world. The college needs
2
to develop a new consensus about what is meant by general education for
the twenty-first century and how it is expressed through the college
curriculum.
4. Further work is needed to shift from the traditional “teaching-centered”
paradigm to a more “learning-centered” paradigm. Authentic assessment of
student learning outcomes remains a challenge. Program review is an
important organization structure to help faculty make the important shift to
learning outcomes as the basis for curriculum design and assessment, but it
needs additional resources to increase its effectiveness.
5. Even though the Program Viability and Program Review processes are
intended for different purposes, faculty report redundancy and lack of clear
distinction between the two processes.
6. Except for those areas that have been recently remodeled, most classroom
furniture is in critical need of replacement.
Action Plans
1. To address Weaknesses #1 and #2 above, engage in a thorough analysis of
the membership, roles and focus of the Instructional Council. The need to
select a permanent vice president for instruction presents an optimum
opportunity for such analysis. Assess the budget and staffing situation once
faculty buyouts are complete and the $1.2 million reduction is in place for
2007-08. Based on the information from this self-study, and with data from
reports prepared for the strategic and master planning efforts, identify
instructional programs with the most potential. Reorganize IC as needed to
accomplish crucial program development and implementation. Realign
responsibilities as necessary, ensuring that members have the knowledge,
skills, attitudes and vision to accomplish their respective roles. Aggressively
pursue outside funding to ensure that concrete and significant change occurs.
2. Continue action already underway to conduct a comprehensive review of the
general education outcomes and to clearly delineate the relationship between
general education outcomes and program-level outcomes.
3. In revising the program review process, place greater emphasis on and
provide additional support for outcomes assessment. Use resources from the
Office of Institutional Effectiveness to provide the additional support.
4. As the program review process is being revised, examine it alongside the
program viability process for the purposes of reducing any redundancies and
of ensuring clear distinctions between the two processes in terms of intent
and process. Focus program review more intentionally on the assessment
3
and improvement of teaching and learning, and program viability more on
programs’ operational components.
5. With respect to classroom furniture in many classrooms, Action Item #3 from
Standard Eight applies: “Develop a furniture condition inventory for the
campus and establish a regular line item in the operating budget for funding a
furniture replacement program.”
Standard 2.G.—Distance Learning (e-Learning)
Strengths
1. Coordination within the college’s various support units has facilitated the use
of e-learning tools across a spectrum of instructional settings (including
online, hybrid, and web-enhanced on-campus classes). Growth in e-learning
has been strong and stable without unrealistic expectations.
2. E-learning has been developed with strong faculty involvement and support
resulting in e-learning methodologies being solidly integrated into the
college’s curricula. Full-time faculty are pioneering new e-learning uses and
mentoring their colleagues. Faculty training and support are effectively
organized and delivered.
3. Faculty have choices in online courseware and other e-learning technologies
that fit best with their teaching needs. “In-house” support services provide
quick and customized responses to e-learning needs of students and faculty.
4. The quality and success of e-learning curricula reflect an adherence to
national standards and careful peer support and monitoring.
5. The “ Virtual College ” website contains well-designed resources for the elearner including a “Registered Students Community Page” designed to help
bring the campus experience to distance learners.
6. The district’s fiscal support and directional guidance add strength to and
influence the college’s own action plans.
7. An annual district-wide Summer Institute focused on e-learning brings
together faculty of varied skills levels and interests in a collective way
throughout the district.
Weaknesses
1. Greater college-wide awareness is needed to increase understanding of the
new paradigm of “e-learning” as providing a host of instructional opportunities
available for integration into many learning environments.
4
2. The college’s “e-Learning Support Center” must expand its guidance and
supportive roles in step with the growing use of e-learning tools.
3. Full-scale campus access to courseware technology will require a
comprehensive fiscal, technical, and operational model across many units of
the college.
4. As the college transitions to a campus-wide use by faculty with a wider range
of technology and skills, a more extensive approach toward faculty training
must be developed.
5. Pedagogical “guidelines” recommended for teaching with e-learning
technologies need to evolve into “e-learning standards” sanctioned and
required by all instructional divisions.
6. Systematic collaborations of all student support units of the college must
occur to maintain appropriate resources online and in-person for an
expanding community of e-learners.
7. A broader public awareness of the college’s e-learning options for students
locally and globally requires enhanced “strategic marketing.”
Action Plans
1. NeLSC will work in collaboration with Teaching and Learning Center and
instructional deans to systematically introduce all full-time faculty, division-bydivision, to online teaching options and to establish a “web presence” of basic
information for each full-time member.
2. NeLSC will continue to maintain a fiscally-sound and pedagogically-careful
growth in support of e-learning technologies in the area of “hybrid” learning.
The faculty advisory group will establish recommended models and methods
for providing hybrid learning environments for students.
3. A transition to a full-scale system for providing e-learning technology options
for all curricula will be aligned with state and district efforts to accomplish the
same goal on a broader scale. Currently NeLSC is involved in these efforts
through representation on the statewide Distance Learning Council and the
district’s Distance Learning Committee. NeLSC will collaborate with
Computing Services to develop online resources for students and faculty
using open-source systems such as Moodle.
4. NeLSC will develop more structured procedures for e-teaching using an “eTeaching Primer” to step faculty through technological and pedagogical
training as a pre-requisite for e-teaching.
5
5. NeLSC will collaborate with other key campus groups on the development of
a faculty mentoring process during e-learning development, approval, and
periodic review which will adhere to a set of college-wide e-learning standards
and guidelines, in particular the nationally-recognized “Quality Matters” rubric.
6.
NeLSC will complete specific collaborations with other student support units
of the college including: a project with the college’s librarians to assist faculty
in building information literacy into their online curricula; a project with a
faculty member to enhance orientation resources for students through an
“Online Student Primer;” an anticipated project with student services to pilot
use of the state-chosen e-Portfolio; among others.
7.
NeLSC will work with the college’s Marketing and Public Relations Office,
Information Technology Services, the district Distance Learning Committee,
and SCCtv to produce clear and accessible information on e-learning
opportunities. A student online resource with information on faculty, “The
North Star Community Profile,” is beginning to take shape.
Note: Longer-range action plans for the growth of e-Learning at North Seattle are
contained in the program’s unit self study which accompanies this document.
Standard 2.G—Other Special Learning Programs
Running Start
Strengths
1. The Advising Center staff works well as a team, and as a result cross-trained
advisors provide quality backup and support to the Running Start students.
2. Ongoing and vital partnerships between participating high schools and the
Running Start program help ensure support to the Running Start students.
Challenges
1. The Running Start program has only one full-time employee who is dedicated
to the program which serves over 250 students per quarter. Responsibilities
for formal advising, program-specific projects and drop-in advising (both
Running Start and college transfer students) allow little time for program
planning and development.
2.
6
Student feedback has shown that some Running Start students do not feel
supported or accepted by staff, faculty, and classmates because of their age
and/or their participation in the Running Start program.
3. Confidentiality and noise are challenges during advising sessions due to lack
of private offices in the Advising Center .
Actions
1. Hire additional staff for the Running Start program. This request has been
met with favorable response by the Executive Team, and is only dependent
on funding.
2. Increase professional development resources and opportunities to help
faculty and staff work effectively with younger students. As this self-study is
being written, a step has already been taken in that a workshop on ageism is
part of the Winter 2007 faculty retreat.
3. Improve advising office space to increase confidentiality and decrease noise
issues. It is anticipated that the remodeling of student services areas in the
College Center Building will address this challenge.
Upward Bound
Strengths
1. The breadth of program offerings can be attributed to the Upward Bound
(UB) staff’s strong ability to develop, organize, and implement activities along
with their commitment to working on common goals.
2. UB staff have strengthened their relationships with target schools and
community-based organizations which has resulted in students having “wrapa-round” support to meet their needs.
3. The program’s decision in 2000 to move from an instructional model (holding
Upward Bound classes during the school day) to a tutorial model (offering
tutorial sessions after school) has improved student support and the
frequency and consistency of services.
4. Student feedback has been invaluable to effective program planning,
feedback through regular student surveys/evaluations, and through the
Student Advisory Committee (SAC). This group of UB students from each of
the four target schools meets monthly to guide staff on the program’s
direction, activities, and future for recommendations.
Weaknesses
1. Students often require academic support in the areas of math and science.
Although the UB staff is able to provide some tutorial assistance, the level of
expertise in those areas is limited.
7
2. The program has been unable to attain the desired 60% of participants who
demonstrate an increase in their grade point average (GPA). Since the
program attempts to influence many aspects of a participant’s life, issues
such as poverty, lack of parental support, or limited English proficiency, have
impacted students’ overall performance and GPA.
3. Due to the number of students and the frequency of contacts, the process of
documenting contacts with a student is not performed in an efficient manner.
Although not difficult, the process is time-consuming.
Action Plans
1. The UB staff will strengthen relationships with other North Seattle
departments/student organizations to identify opportunities for collaboration;
for example, recruit North Seattle students to serve as math and science
tutors.
2. Continued effort will be made by UB staff to explore and identify additional
ways to support students and therefore increase grade point averages.
3. A standardized system to electronically record student case notes will be
developed that will minimize the need for filing and reduce time requirements.
Career Link Academy
Strengths
1. The Career Link Academy program focuses on students' needs by identifying
barriers, special needs, and resources.
2. The teamwork and collaboration within team of instructors and staff create a
positive learning environment which contributes to student success.
Weaknesses
1. Secure, stable funding continues to be an annual challenge for this program.
2. Because of the nature of the student populations, attendance and retention
are challenges. Lack of parent involvement and other support systems,
ongoing open enrollment, students’ lack of self confidence as successful
learners, and differing skill levels contribute to the complexity of this program
and its challenge of supporting student success.
Action Plans
8
1. Career Link Academy is working to identify stable funding sources, including
partnering with community-based organizations, as well as securing direct
funding from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) with
support from the state legislation for these special type of programs.
2. Career Link staff will continue ongoing program and curriculum revision to
increase effectiveness of the program and support greater student attendance
and retention.
College in the High School and Tech Prep
Because these programs are of limited scope and size, and because the college
has minimal contact with and influence over student participants, there are no
identified strengths, weaknesses, and action plans for these programs other than
to maintain existing partnership relationships.
Analysis of Standard 2.H:--Continuing Education program
Strengths
1. The Continuing Education (CE) program at North Seattle is largely a selfsupporting program which contributes indirect payments to the operating
budget of the campus.
2. The CE program serves the community by providing a variety of diverse
offerings primarily through the college and at two off-campus sites.
3. By recruiting highly qualified instructors, the CE program has continued to
grow and is currently the third largest CE program within the state’s
community college system.
4. The college’s CE program helps heighten community awareness and creates
greater visibility for college programs through its extensive marketing efforts.
Weaknesses
1. The Continuing Education program needs to develop more of a collaborative
and intentional link between credit and non-credit courses within the college.
2. The lease for the Sand Point Education Center , which houses two-thirds of
the CE programs, expires in July, 2008.
Action Plans
9
1. As the Instructional Council (IC) engages in the work described in the earlier
action plan, the Continuing Education program must be an integral part of that
strategic conversation and planning processes. The recent addition to IC of
the CE executive dean is a step in that direction.
2. The college will continue to seek opportunities to offer classes at both oncampus and off-campus, and will investigate the financial feasibility of leasing
or purchasing the Sand Point site as the lease nears its expiration.
Standard Three Analysis
Strengths
1. The vice president for student development services has held his current
position and has provided consistent leadership for the past 22 years.
2. SDS’ leadership team, a 14-member Student Development Council, has a
rich blend of administrative level experience and educational backgrounds.
About 75% of the SDS staff has been hired in the last ten years, raising the
level expertise in most jobs. Several staff members have been promoted
internally.
3. Diversity of staff is an important component within SDS. Twenty two of the
52 member SDS staff (42%) are from historically under-represented ethnic
groups. Of the 14-member SDS Council, five (36%) are people of color, and
12 (86%) are women.
4. The staff is cross-trained and works effectively in cross-functional teams.
5. Assessment efforts are pervasive throughout SDS, and are embedding a
“culture of assessment” within the organization. Each SDS unit supervisor
submits an annual objective aligned with the college’s Strategic Plan and the
SDS mission, and writes an annual year-end report indicating to what extent
the objective was achieved.
6. A full range of online services is available to students to supplement inperson services. Faculty can record final grades and track the enrollment
status of their students through a software application (Instructor Briefcase).
7. Remodeled or new facilities more effectively support student services.
Remodels have occurred in the Childcare Center , the
Admissions/Registration/Records area, and the Wellness Center . Several
other offices are being remodeled in 2007, and much-needed student
gathering space is being created.
10
Weaknesses
1. Decentralization causes some overlap, duplication, inefficiencies and/or lack
of coordination of services. Services impacted include recruitment,
admissions, advising, student orientation, registration, career planning and
student programming. Affected are the SDS offices providing these services
and programs outside of the SDS organizational structure: Workforce
Education, International Student Programs, Continuing Education, and healthmedical programs.
2. Budget cutbacks have severely reduced professional development
opportunities within SDS for both mangers and staff. Departmental resources
scarcely cover the essentials and funding through the college’s Education
Fund is extremely limited.
3. The reorganization of SDS due to budget cutbacks forced SDS to be clear
about its essential services. However, some areas are still under-staffed,
particularly in Disability Services, Advising and Student Success Services,
and the Running Start program.
4. Many concerns identified in student surveys are larger than SDS and can be
addressed only through collaboration with other areas of the college. Some
collaborative efforts have begun now that SDS and the Instructional Council
have a joint quarterly meeting, but much more is needed to work effectively
as a system.
Action Plans
1. Convene a task force to include all stakeholders in identifying areas of
duplication and discuss ways to minimize duplication, maximize collaboration,
and create efficiencies.
2. Explore ways that professional development training topics can be offered
with an “economy of scale” that will benefit large groups of employees.
3. Explore ways that multiple fund sources can be combined to restore
functions or service levels that were lost due to past staffing reductions.
4. Continue quarterly meetings between the Instructional Council and the
Student Development Services Council to identify and solve problems of
common interest. (SDS and IC had their first combined meeting in Fall 2006.
Attendees focused on retention as a shared topic of concern and
collaborative strategies were identified.)
11
Standard Four Analyses
Strengths
1. The faculty is highly qualified for its teaching mission and highly productive in
scholarship, research, artistic creation, and professional practice.
2. Faculty selection procedures are clearly set out and include significant faculty
involvement in the selection of peers.
3. The hiring of diverse faculty is a priority at the college and supported by the
Instructional Council. Faculty diversity has increased in recent years.
4. The faculty is at the center of curriculum development and curricular
decision-making, with high faculty participation in both.
5. The Teaching and Learning Center is a rich resource for faculty growth and
development.
6. Faculty can pursue professional development activities using campus-based
and district-level resources from state, federal and private funding sources.
7. The college strives to integrate part-time faculty into the life of the
departments; part-time faculty are able to participate in curriculum
development and professional growth activities. Part-time faculty are invited
to orientations, retreats, workshops, etc., and are paid stipends when they do
so.
8. Most departments are actively engaged in keeping their part-time faculty well
informed about college policies as well as department curricula.
9. A system for evaluation of all faculty—including administrative evaluation of
tenured faculty—is clearly set forth in the district-SCCFT Agreement
10. Outside of the contractually-mandated faculty evaluation system, many
faculty members engage in peer observation and support in team-taught
situations such as coordinated studies programs and lab-based professionaltechnical programs.
11. The Agreement includes strong provisions for academic freedom.
Weaknesses
1. In some programs, faculty workloads are higher than the norm of 15
classroom hours per week. Notable examples include adult basic education,
parent education and science.
12
2. While faculty participation in committee work has increased, it is still the case
that committee work is not shared equitably among full-time faculty. An overreliance on part-time faculty leaves full-time faculty with additional curricular
and extra-curricular responsibilities
3. Compensation for full-time faculty is only slightly above average for the State
of Washington and significantly lower than that of faculty at nearby colleges in
the Seattle region. The present system by which faculty can advance on the
salary scale is in need of review.
4. Fewer than 50% of the faculty report having enough time for professional
development.
5. Currently, funding for professional leaves is taken from the instructional
budgets of the individual colleges. When North Seattle faculty are granted
professional leave, the college’s instructional budget is always heavily
impacted.
6. The Teaching and Learning Center has not had a permanent director since
2002.
7. The evaluation system for tenured faculty lacks the elements of systematic
peer observation and of improvement plans for full-time faculty except in
cases of highly serious performance deficiencies. The evaluation system for
part-time faculty once on the priority-hire list does not provide for
administrative evaluation.
8. Summary course evaluation data has not been available on a consistent and
timely basis through the district’s long-standing course evaluation system.
9. Implementation of contractual evaluation procedures may not be consistent
and universal.
Future Actions
1. Faculty workload is an issue identified in the 2006 negotiations process,
occurring as this self-study is being written.
2. The inequities of full-time faculty regarding the equal distribution of
committee work are an issue that deans and faculty will continue to work on
collaboratively through a recently developed “committee audit” process.
3. Administration and faculty must continue their joint efforts to obtain state
funding to raise all faculty salaries in the district, to secure funding for more
full-time faculty positions, to address the salary credit system (an issue
identified in the 2006 round of negotiations), and to seek legislative remedies
13
for state statutes that restrict the amount the district can spend on
professional leaves.
4. The college and the Office of Instruction will continue to support and
encourage faculty participation in professional development through quarterly
mini-grants, funds from Carl Perkins, state assessment funds, and with
workshops through the TLC.
5. The college will work with the district to consider changes in budgetary
policies that require individual colleges to fund professional leaves from their
budgets.
6. A half-time coordinator position has been developed for the TLC for the
2006-07 academic year. As the college’s fiscal situation improves, it is
intended that this position be increased to full-time in the coming years.
7. The evaluation system for tenured faculty and part-time faculty on the
priority-hire list is being discussed in the 2006 round of negotiations. It is
hoped that discussions will include an element of peer observation in the
evaluation system for tenured faculty and administrative review for priorityhire part-time faculty. Outside of the contractually mandated faculty
evaluation system, the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and the Teaching
and Learning Center will work together to promote a wider use of the Small
Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) procedures that were common ten
years ago.
8. For faculty choosing to use the standard evaluation form, the college will
continue to implement its own campus-based course-evaluation process
rather than relying on that provided by the district office.
9. Steps will be taken by the vice president for instruction, the Instructional
Council, and the Faculty Senate to ensure that implementation of all
contractual faculty evaluation procedures are universal across the college.
14