Cypress College
2011 Institutional Self Study
In Support of Reaffirmation of
Accreditation
March 2011
Submitted in Support of Reaffirmation of Accreditation
to the Western Association of Schools and Colleges
Accrediting Commission of Community and Junior Colleges
Submitted by
Cypress College
9200 Valley View Street
Cypress, CA 90630
www.cypresscollege.edu
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
i
ii
Cypress College
North Orange County Community College District
Dr. Ned Doffoney, Chancellor
Board of Trustees
Jeffrey P. Brown
Barbara Dunsheath
Leonard Lahtinen
Michael B. Matsuda
Molly McClanahan
Donna Miller
M. Tony Ontiveros
Ryan Billings, Student Trustee, Cypress College
Natalie Baek, Student Trustee, Fullerton College
Dr. Michael J. Kasler, President
Cypress College
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introductory Documents
1.
Certification of Institutional Self Study........................................................................................1
2.
History of the College...................................................................................................................3
3.
Demographics and Data...............................................................................................................5
4.
SLOs............................................................................................................................................15
5.
Program Review..........................................................................................................................20
6.
Abstract of the Report................................................................................................................23
7.
Organization for the Self Study 2011.........................................................................................25
8.
Accreditation Self Study Timeline..............................................................................................29
9.
Organizational Structure.............................................................................................................31
10.
Certification of Continued Compliance with Eligibility Requirements......................................34
11.
Response to the Previous Team Recommendations, 2005..........................................................38
12.
Functional Map...........................................................................................................................51
Standard I
INSTITUTIONAL MISSION AND EFFECTIVENESS
IA:
Mission........................................................................................................................................59
IB:
Improving Institutional Effectiveness..........................................................................................68
Standard II S T U D E N T L E A R N I N G P R O G R A M S A N D S E R V I C E S
IIA:
Instructional Programs................................................................................................................99
IIB:
Student Support Services..........................................................................................................134
IIC:
Library and Learning Support Services....................................................................................157
iv
Cypress College
Standard III R E S O U R C E S
IIIA:
Human Resources.....................................................................................................................169
IIIB:
Physical Resources.....................................................................................................................188
IIIC:
Technology Resources...............................................................................................................197
IIID:
Financial Resources...................................................................................................................215
Standard IV L E A D E R S H I P A N D G O V E R N A N C E
IVA:
Decision-Making Roles and Processes.......................................................................................235
IVB:
Board and Administrative Organization...................................................................................247
Summary of Planning Agendas
. .................................................................................................................................................267
Campus Maps
. .................................................................................................................................................269
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
v
Introductory
Documents
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
vii
CERTIFICATION OF INSTITUTIONAL SELF STUDY
DATE:
TO:
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges,
Western Association of Schools and Colleges
FROM: Cypress College
9200 Valley View Street, Cypress, CA 90630
This Comprehensive Institutional Self Study Report is submitted for the purpose of assisting in the determination of the institution’s accreditation status.
We certify that there was broad participation by the campus community, and we believe the Self Study Report
accurately reflects the nature and substance of the institution.
Signed
Barbara Dunsheath,
President Board of Trustees
Dr. Ned Doffoney, Chancellor
North Orange County Community College District
Dr. Michael Kasler, President
Cypress College
Dr. Santanu Bandyopadhyay
Director, Institutional Research and Planning
Accreditation Liaison Officer
Cherie Dickey
Accreditation Self Study Chair
Dr. Pat Ganer
Academic Senate President
Rod Lusch
CSEA Representative
Danial Shakeri
President, Associated Students
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
1
History of the College
Student success has remained as the keystone commitment of the College since its inception. The College
was founded in 1966 as the second major educational
institution of the District. It has grown from its initial
configuration of temporary structures to the current
110-acre campus with 25 significant buildings. The
College serves over 16,000 students per semester, providing excellence in academic, career/technical, and
personal development offerings. The College has developed dynamic academic, physical, and technological infrastructures to help students keep abreast of an
ever-changing economic environment.
Physical Infrastructure
The current infrastructure of the College includes a
110-acre campus in the City of Cypress. Out of the
25 buildings, two are dedicated to administration and
student services, and one for library and learning resources. The rest include both classroom and administrative facilities. Over the last five years, the campus
has completed construction and renovation of several
buildings. The Library and Learning Resource Center and the renovation of the Humanities building are
among the most recent that were added to the campus.
The remodeled building was rededicated in Spring
2010 and houses the Language Arts and Social Science
Divisions of the College. The last phase of construction ended in Fall 2008, with the exception of the Humanities building. The present infrastructure provides
adequate physical space to accommodate the current
enrollment of nearly 16,000 students. With the current
economic scenario, no major construction is under
way at the present time. However, with more students
enrolling in colleges, Cypress College has also experienced sharp growth in its enrollment over the last few
years. To keep up with the increased demand, the planning for new facilities remains a continued priority for
the institution.
Facilities planning is complex and long-term as it involves projecting the potential growth in enrollment,
anticipating student mix (part time vs. full time) and
estimating class-taking patterns (online/hybrid vs.
classroom). Cypress College is aware of the challenges
involved in predicting the growth in these areas. Under the leadership of the North Orange County Community College District, an Educational and Facilities
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Master Plan is being developed to anticipate and fulfill
the future needs of students.
The Educational and Facilities Master Plan for the
North Orange County Community College District
brings the emerging enrollment patterns and facilities
requirements together. The plan was started in Fall
2009 and includes participation by all campus constituencies. The plan is being developed by an external
consulting firm under the active leadership from the
District and involvement from the campuses. Several
meetings took place at the District as well as at the
Campus. The plan is expected to be completed and
presented for approval in Spring 2011. Once completed, this will serve as the blueprint for future developments of the College.
Academic Infrastructure
Cypress College currently employs over 850 staff, including over 500 faculty (both full-time and part-time).
The College continues to engage its faculty and staff
to improve teaching, learning, and assessment opportunities. In the last five years, notable advancements
have been made in program review, student learning
outcomes, and assessment. Although program review
has been in place since the early 1990s, the process has
been strengthened over the last few years to connect
the reviews to budget and resource allocations. This
process is discussed in detail in the section under Program Review. In its current form, the process not only
links assessment results with funding decisions, but also
evaluates the process to identify areas for improvement.
Another major development in recent years is defining
and assessing student learning outcomes at the course
level, and defining both program and General Education and Basic Skills Program Learning Outcomes
(GE & Basic Skills PLOs). Major advancements have
been made in the area of assessment as the assessment
methods are defined for 82% of all courses and the
assessment reports (closing the loop) are completed for
48% of all courses.
The other major development in the area includes purchase, implementation, and use of a centralized assessment management software, TracDat. The software
was purchased to house all SLOs and their results, to
consolidate reporting, and to use the information to
strengthen program review. The software will also be
used to assess alignment of SLOs with the institutional
3
mission and strategic plan. This is discussed further in
the SLO section.
Technological Infrastructure
With the advancement of technology and distance
education, the need for a superior technological infrastructure was tantamount. The College, despite
the continued budget crisis, allocated resources in this
area to provide the support that students need to learn
and faculty need to teach. Technological infrastructure
includes developing portals, enabling web access, expanding available smart classrooms, and developing
systems to accelerate response times. This is an area
where the College works closely with the District office
to acquire and implement new technology. A technology plan was developed to provide a roadmap for developments in this area.
Although there have been many developments in the
course of the last forty years, only the major changes
that took place since the last accreditation visit in 2005
are highlighted here. The changes are discussed in
depth throughout this self study.
Administrative Changes
Cypress College has witnessed changes in leadership
since the last accreditation visit. The leadership transition was smooth, and College planning was uninterrupted with the incoming president in July 2007. The
new Executive Vice President has been with the District for over twenty years, serving the last three years at
Cypress College. The new Vice President of Administrative Services is a long-term employee of the College,
beginning in her current capacity in 2007. Apart from
the President’s Staff, there have been changes in the
divisions as well. A new dean has been appointed in
Fine Arts. For the short term, the Language Arts and
Library dean positions have been consolidated. Student Services also witnessed its share of change. The
process of orienting new management employees was
effective while the focus of the College remained on
student success. There has not been any change in the
present management team for the past two years.
4
Cypress College
Demographics of Cypress College and the Areas it Serves
The Big Picture: Demographic and Employment Trends
The primary service area of Cypress College, a part of the North Orange County Community College District,
includes the cities of Cypress, Anaheim, Buena Park, Garden Grove, Stanton, La Palma, Los Alamitos (Rossmoor), and Seal Beach. Although nearly half of its students come from cities outside the primary service area,
and many come from the adjoining other areas of Orange County, or Los Angeles county, for the purpose of this
demographic analysis, only the data for Orange County is taken into consideration. The American Community
Survey 3-year estimates project the population of Orange County as 2,985,995. Figure 1 shows the proportion of
different ethnicities in Orange County.
Figure 1: Orange County Demographic Estimates: percentages do not add up to 100 because of rounding
Data Set: 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates
Survey: Census.gov, American Community Survey
One significant change between the 2000 census and 2008 projections is the increase in the Hispanic population.
The proportion of Hispanics in Orange County increased from 30.8% in 2000 to 33% in 2008 – a gain of over
2% in eight years. The initial results of the 2010 census show that the Hispanic population is continuing to grow.
The demand for a college education has also increased between 2000 and 2008. According to the American Community Survey Estimates (Census.gov) in 2008, 83% of people 25 years and over had at least graduated from high
school, and 35% had a bachelor’s degree or higher. This is a significant improvement from 2000 when 79.5%
completed high school or higher, and 30.8% received a Bachelor’s degree or higher. The total school enrollment
in Orange County was 859,000 in 2008. Nursery school and kindergarten enrollment was 92,000, and elementary
or high school enrollment was 519,000. College or graduate school enrollment was 248,000.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
5
Figure 2: Educational Attainment of People in Orange County: percentage of population 25 years and over
Source: Census.gov, American Community Survey, 2006-2008
According to the American Community Survey, 2006-2008 (Figure 2), the two leading industry segments in terms
of employment were Educational services (health care and social assistance) and Manufacturing. Educational services, health care, and social assistance employed 17% of the population 16 years and older while Manufacturing
employed 14%.
Among the most common occupations were: (1) Management, professional, and related occupations; (2) Sales and
office occupations; (3) Service occupations; (4) Production, transportation, and material moving occupations; and
(5) Construction, extraction, maintenance and repair occupations. Figure 3 shows the proportion of employees in
the top five occupations.
Eighty-one percent of the people employed were private wage and salary workers; 11 percent were federal, state,
or local government workers; and 8 percent were self-employed. The employment data indicates that the largest occupations in Orange County require a postsecondary education. This is similar to the overall trend across
California and the United States where a shortage of an educated and skilled workforce is predicted over the next
decade.
Figure 3: Top five occupations in Orange County, 2008
Source: Census.gov, American Community Survey, 2006-2008
6
Cypress College
The need to attain a postsecondary education has increased steadily in the past decade because of changing
socio-economic conditions. Projections indicate that by 2012, the majority of jobs, including fastest growing occupations, will require some postsecondary credential. An increased need in occupational “upskilling” will add
further to the demand for skilled professionals (Carnevale, 2008). The need for a workforce with a postsecondary
education is expected to rise by 2018 as nearly 76 million baby boomers retire.
The Accountability Report for Community Colleges (ARCC) shows the relationship between income and academic qualifications. The data show that median income of students receiving a degree/certificate from community colleges grows at a faster pace than the median per capita or household income in California. Over a ten-year
period, the median income of students with a community college degree out performs the state household or per
capita median income (ARCC, 2010; page 21).
The recent economic downturn has added to the increasing demand for postsecondary education. Many adults
are unable to find employment in the economic recession and are enrolling in colleges to re-tool their skills. The
economic downturn has thus resulted in a higher proportion of non-traditional students turning to postsecondary
education. The increasing competition for seats at California State Universities (CSU) and University of California (UC) systems have compelled many of the potential CSU and UC students to come to the community colleges.
The recent enrollment trends at Cypress College reflect this sharp increase in demand for courses.
Students at Cypress College
Figure 4: Enrollment Trend – 2003 to 2010
The highest enrollment recorded in the history of Cypress College was during Fall 2009. At the census date,
16,670 students were enrolled, up from 14,990 in Fall 2008. This represents an increase of 11% from Fall 2008
and a 21% change from Fall 2007. This is the highest enrollment ever at Cypress College, improving upon the
past record of 16,266 in Spring 2002. The 11% increase is particularly significant because of the reduction of 112
sections — or nearly 6.5% — in class offerings from Fall 2008 levels. Figure 4 shows the enrollment during the last
seven years. From 2006, every semester registered a significant increase in enrollment compared to its previous period. Typically, Spring enrollment is significantly less than the Fall figures. However, this trend has changed in the
last two years when Spring enrollment has been comparable to Fall figures. This is probably due to a combination
of reasons such as economic downturn and reduction in course offerings. In Spring 2010, the enrollment was less
by nearly 1,000 (headcount) than the previous Fall because 128 fewer sections were offered. The distribution of
students by gender has remained steady over the past decade (Figure 5). Nearly 60% of students are female – this
mirrors the national as well as California trend.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
7
Figure 5: Proportion of students by Gender
Figure 6: Distribution of students by ethnicity
Participation rate by ethnicity during the Fall semester has changed over the past five years. This change reflects
the overall change in the population served by Cypress College. As shown in the demographic information in
Figure 6, the proportion of Hispanics has increased in Orange County. Following the overall population trend,
the Hispanic enrollment at Cypress College has increased steadily over the past five years. For the first time in Fall
2009, Hispanic students were the single largest ethnicity on campus.
8
Cypress College
Figure 7: Distribution of students by age
Distribution of students by age remained relatively unchanged over time (Figure 7). The largest group on the campus has always been between 20 and 24 years of age; in Spring 2010, the proportion of 20-24 year olds increased
to 38%. The proportion of students below 20 years of age has increased steadily since Fall 2006. It is likely that
such increases are caused by a number of reasons such as increase in high school graduates, increase in overall
population, and limited seat availability at UC and CSU campuses.
The enrollment in public schools grades 9-12 in California is projected to grow at 1.4% between 2011 and 2017,
coming up from a decline of -1.5% between 2005 and 2011 (Projections of Education Statistics, U.S. Dept. of
Education, page 52). In Orange County, the high school dropout rate has increased in 2007-2008, according to
Orange County Community Indicators. However, the dropout rate is not uniform across ethnicities — Hispanic
students drop out at a higher proportion than others. The growth in high school enrollment is likely to increase the
number of younger students seeking enrollment in colleges. The demographic information, demand for higher
education, and high school enrollment growth all point towards a higher level of enrollment. Furthermore, various motivations for college enrollment exist among different age groups: high school graduates are expected to increase the number of students below 20 years of age seeking college admission; and the need to re-skill is expected
to increase the number of older adults seeking a college education.
Nearly 60% of the students enrolled at Cypress College are part-time. The enrollment pattern has steadily changed
between 2001 and 2007. During this period, full-time enrollment almost doubled from 21% to 40%. Since 2007,
the enrollment pattern has remained very stable. There has been a significant increase in self-declared objectives
of students when the enrollment pattern changed (Figure 8). As more students enrolled full time, the intent to
transfer to a four-year institution also increased simultaneously. It is appropriate to infer that the enrollment pattern and self-declared intent are a reflection of overall improvement of academic qualifications of the general
population of Orange County. However, after 2007, although the proportion of full-time students became steady,
the aspiration to transfer to a four-year institution has still been increasing, albeit at a slower pace.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
9
Figure 8: Self-declared intent at the time of enrollment
Student needs have also changed over the past years keeping in pace with the change in enrollment patterns, student demographics, and student aspirations. In Spring 2010, 39% of students were first generation in college, and
63% came from under-represented ethnic groups. Although no separate study was conducted to determine the
academic preparation of these students, existing research indicates that both first-generation students and students
from under-represented ethnic groups tend to be academically less prepared (AchievingtheDream.org, American
Association of Community Colleges). In order to increase their chance of success, Cypress College strengthened
its Matriculation services: Assessment, Orientation, and Counseling. The student progress data from the Chancellor’s Office (Accountability Report for Community Colleges, 2010) also demonstrates that Cypress College has
made reasonable progress in helping students learn.
The needs of students vary with the changing demographics and aspirations of the entering student body. An
increase in first-generation students and students from minority groups, who tend to be under-prepared, increases
demand for basic skills. A larger number of Hispanic students results in increasing demand in ESL courses. The
older adults need orientation services and time management tips to integrate into college. The younger students
need to transition from high school to college life. The changing student body requires academic as well as student
services to ensure that students have the tools they need to succeed in college. The college-wide performance indicators show that Cypress College has been catering to the needs of its students.
Student Performance
The Accountability Report for Community Colleges (ARCC) provides a comparative analysis of college performance in several areas. Specifically, progress in English as a Second Language (ESL) data from ARCC 2010 indicates there has been significant progress; Cypress College has been ahead of its peers for three consecutive years
in this measure. Also, the College performance has improved in each of the three years. One of the critical needs
of the increasing number of Hispanic students is met via a strong ESL program.
Cypress
Cypress Peer Group
Average
2004-05 to 2006-07
59.0%
2005-06 to 2007-08
64.2%
2006-07 to 2008-09
64.9%
43.2%
53.6%
54.8%
Figure 9: ESL Improvement Rate
10
Cypress College
Another set of ARCC data indicates that basic skills improvement at Cypress College was significantly better than
its peer groups. In this measure, the College performance has improved from one year to the other since 20062007.
2004-05 to 2006-07
2005-06 to 2007-08
2006-07 to 2008-09
Cypress
56.5%
58.6%
59.4%
Cypress Peer Group
Average
46.6%
52.6%
54.2%
Figure 10: Basic Skills Improvement Rate
Student progress and persistence rate (SPAR) data from ARCC also shows improvement in the past two years. The
SPAR data combines measures of degree/certificate completion, transfer to University of California/California
State University systems, and vocational/occupational workforce development. An important observation in this
area is that Cypress College performance has improved in the last two years as the performance of its peer institutions has gone down.
2001-02 to 2006-07
2002-03 to 2007-08
2003-04 to 2008-09
Cypress
51.6%
50.7%
52.5%
Cypress Peer Group
Average
53.4%
47.7%
47.9%
Figure 11: Student Progress and Achievement Rate
Figure 12: Student success under-prepared students.
Student success and retention rates have remained very consistent over the last five years. It should be noted that
with increasing enrollment, many first-generation students and students from minorities have come to Cypress
College. Existing research shows that these student populations (first generation, ESL, and minorities) tend to be
academically under-prepared. From that perspective, maintaining a steady success and retention rate required
substantial effort from the faculty and staff at the College.
Several college initiatives such as Supplemental Instruction, Peer Assisted Learning, Legacy, University Transfer
Achievement Program (UTAP), Puente, Honors, and Tutoring are aimed at helping students.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
11
Employee Demographics
Figure 13: Distribution of staff by gender and assignment
Cypress College employs over 850 instructors, managers, and staff. Women comprise about half of the employees
across most job assignment categories. In some categories, such as managers, the proportion of males is higher
than females. Among the full-time faculty, there are more females than males, although the situation is exactly
reversed among the part-time faculty. Overall, the gender distribution has remained fairly stable over the last five
years.
Table 1 shows the distribution of staff by age. Out of 880 employees, 459 are below and 421 are above 50 years
of age. Overall, there is a growing concern across the nation about the ageing workforce in higher education, and
Cypress College is no exception since a large proportion of employees at Cypress College are over fifty years of
age. Keeping with the area served by the College, the staff is ethnically diverse although Caucasians are the largest ethnicity among all categories of staff. As of the beginning of Fall 2009, the College has higher proportions of
managers and full-time faculty approaching retirement than adjunct faculty and classified staff. This is a national
trend in higher education. It is expected that as the baby boomers start retiring, there will be a void among the
faculty and staff, particularly in the experienced ranks. Although the situation is known to everyone, no specific
strategy has been adopted to reduce the impact of such attrition of senior staff. A substantial number of retirements as well as a shortage of a talented workforce pool may adversely impact the College operations.
Age Group
Manager
Less than 30
Classified
FT Faculty
10
PT Faculty
Total
29
39
30 - 39
5
53
31
99
188
40 - 49
8
61
57
106
232
50 - 54
3
38
32
57
130
55 - 59
6
33
37
68
144
60 and over
7
20
51
69
147
29
215
208
428
880
Total
Table 1: Employee Age by Assignment, Fall 2009
12
Cypress College
Figure 14: Employees by Ethnicity, Fall 2009
Figure 14 shows the distribution of all employees by ethnicity. Although the majority of employees are White
(64%), many other ethnicities are represented among faculty, staff, and administrators at Cypress College; 15%
are Hispanic and Asian (including Filipino and Pacific Islander). Compared to 2007, the proportion of White
employees decreased (by 3 percentage points) but held steady between 2008 and 2009.
Figure 15 shows the ethnicity of employees by assignment. Of the various employee groups, the classified staff
remains the most diverse, with nearly fifty percent non-white employees, followed by managers. The least diverse
group is the part-time faculty.
Figure 15: Employee Ethnicity by Assignment, Fall 2009
Cypress College regularly evaluates the demographic information of the population of its service areas and its
students. The enrollment management strategies take into consideration changes in student needs to provide access to students and help them succeed in college. In the discussion of the four accreditation standards, references
are made regularly to the demographic information. Several initiatives that are targeted at specific student populations are also referenced in the discussion of the standards. The Office of Institutional Research and Planning
publishes a news bulletin every semester that summarizes student demographics. Also, a detailed demographic
analysis is prepared as a part of the annual Institutional Effectiveness Report. In Fall 2009, a Dashboard of InInstitutional Self Study — Spring 2011
13
stitutional Effectiveness was prepared. The Dashboard identifies the strategic initiatives of the College and tracks
fourteen parameters that represent the College’s accomplishments in the strategic areas.
14
Cypress College
Student Learning Outcomes
Assessment
Student learning outcomes (SLOs) are statements that
specify what students will know, be able to do, or be
able to demonstrate when they have completed or participated in a program/activity/course/project. Outcomes are usually expressed as knowledge, skills, attitudes, or values. SLOs specify an action by the student
that is observable, measurable, and capable of being
demonstrated. Apart from being a key component of
accreditation, developing and measuring SLOs help to
improve teaching and learning at an institution.
Several accreditation standards developed by the Accreditation Commission for Community and Junior
Colleges (ACCJC) bears reference to SLOs. In ACCJC’s language:
Standard I: “The institutional mission provides
the impetus for achieving student learning and other goals that the institution
endeavors to accomplish. The institution
provides the means for students to learn,
assesses how well learning is occurring,
and strives to improve that learning
through ongoing, systematic, and integrated planning.”
Standard II: “Instructional programs, student support services, and library and learning
support services facilitate the achievement of the institution’s stated student
learning outcomes.”
Standard III: “Human, physical, technology,
and financial resources enable these
programs and services to function and
improve.”
Cypress College started developing SLOs in 2002 and
is committed to completing SLO development and
measurement for all courses and programs by 2012.
SLOs are an integral part of all program review – the
program review forms for instruction, student services,
and campus support services were modified in 2009 to
help establish a connection between SLOs and allocation of resources. The programs are required to document the relationship between funding requests and
SLO assessment and analysis. A chronology of SLO
development and assessment at Cypress College is provided in the following section.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Student Learning Outcomes: 20022009
2002-2003: Faculty initiated the SLO discussion in the
Fall. Throughout the year, faculty and deans attended
regional SLO conferences and workshops to familiarize themselves with SLOs and assessment techniques.
Peggy Maki spoke at Fall Opening Day 2003.
2003-2004: The Staff Development Coordinator facilitated a number of meetings to encourage collegewide dialogue on SLOs. The dialogue group drafted
a set of institutional learning outcomes (ILOs), which
were approved by the Cypress College Academic Senate, adopted by President’s Advisory Cabinet in late
Spring 2004, and published in the College Catalog.
2004-2005: To better prepare for the Accreditation
Team visit in March 2005, an SLO Team was created.
The SLO Team initially consisted of three members:
Nancy Deutsch, Staff Development Coordinator; Randy Martinez, Psychology faculty member; and Heather
Brown, Director of Institutional Research. With guidance from the SLO Team, faculty worked as departments to complete an ambitious course mapping project. The resulting ILO-Course Matrix was completed
by December 2004 and reflects the extent and level to
which each course provides opportunities for students
to achieve each ILO.
2005-2006: The SLO Trainer was added to the SLO
Team to design and implement staff development
workshops for faculty and staff to help them learn
about SLOs, including how to write measurable student learning outcomes at the course and/or program
level and how to develop a plan for assessing SLOs.
Betty Disney, Fine Arts faculty member, assumed this
new role as SLO Trainer and created a Blackboard
training site to conduct faculty workshops. Throughout the spring semester, departments wrote SLOs for at
least one individual course.
2006-2007: By Fall 2006, the SLO Faculty Assessment
Facilitator was added to design and implement workshops to help faculty in the following areas: (1) selecting
or developing appropriate measures to assess the extent
to which students achieve stated SLOs and (2) compiling, analyzing, summarizing, and/or interpreting assessment data. Randy Martinez assumed this role and
presented workshops throughout the year to assist departments to develop and implement assessment plans
for the SLOs they had written the previous spring. In
15
Spring 2007, some departments gathered data for at
least one course.
A significant milestone for the College was the establishment of an SLO Coordinator position in Spring
2007. Responsibilities of the coordinator include:
chairing the SLO Team meetings to develop a cohesive, integrated process for assessing, documenting, and
reporting SLOs; tracking and following up on the various SLO stages; ensuring campus-wide communication and discussion of SLOs and their assessment; and
writing an annual executive summary of progress. Ben
Izadi, faculty member in Computer Information Systems, was selected for this role in Spring 2007.
In April and May, the SLO Team prepared comprehensive reports for the Board of Trustees and the Accrediting Commission. The reports showed that all but
five departments had developed SLOs for at least one
course. The college had identified SLOs for 55 of its
1,060 active courses (5%), and developed assessment
plans for 32 active courses (3%).
2007-2008: The year was marked by a significant increase in the breadth and depth of work in this area.
The SLO Coordinator and other SLO Team members identified several remaining challenges deterring
progress and discussed ways to move forward. During
the Fall Opening Day session, the SLO Coordinator
briefed the faculty of the current state of the SLO process and invited them to participate in a new set of
campus-wide dialogue sessions. In September, six SLO
dialogues were attended by 70 faculty members, deans,
and other campus leaders. As a result of these sessions,
a set of recommendations were established.1 In brief,
the recommendations called for an Expanded SLO
Committee with representation by every division and
established a more ambitious timeline to write SLOs
and close the assessment loop.
The Expanded SLO Committee with a faculty representative from each division convened and met monthly to hear division status reports, discuss problems and
related solutions, plan workshops and activities to meet
the goals, and approve important documents and actions. The committee also developed a Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQ) document to guide the faculty
members in the SLO process.
During Fall 2007 and Spring 2008, more than 200 fac1
Recommendations to the Academic Senate from
the SLO Dialogues, approved September 27, 2007.
16
ulty members participated in workshops (SLO Writing,
Assessment, Analysis and Report Writing) offered by
Randy Martinez. The Spring Opening Day program
included a breakout session to allow time for faculty
members to work together and post course SLOs and
assessment plans. Subsequently, the percentages of
courses with SLOs increased from 5% to 39%, and
those with assessment plans increased from 3% to 18%
by the end of the 2007-2008 academic year.
The SLO Committee used a Blackboard site to store
SLOs and assessment plans, and an Excel file to track
the status of SLOs at the course level. The reports were
stored on the campus repository (J: drive). However,
with accelerating levels of activity in this area, neither
of these tools was adequate. To sustain progress and
success in this area, the SLO Committee identified the
need for a comprehensive tool that would assist faculty and staff with the development, assessment, and
reporting of SLOs at all levels. In Spring, a small taskforce reviewed existing commercial products and considered many important factors. The taskforce invited
four vendors to campus for on-site demonstrations,
which were well attended by faculty and staff from Cypress College, Fullerton College, the School of Continuing Education, and the District offices. After additional investigation and deliberation by the taskforce,
the Expanded SLO Committee approved the selection
of a specific assessment management software (TracDat) at its May meeting.
2008-2009: The process of SLO development continued under the leadership of the SLO Team in 20082009. The primary focus was to develop the course
SLOs during the year. The development of program
learning outcomes (PLOs) for individual programs
and the General Education and Basic Skills Program
Learning Outcomes (GE & Basic Skills PLOs) that
involve multiple divisions was planned for the 20092010 academic year. The goal for 2008-2009 included
developing 50% of the course SLOs and closing 25%
of the loops. As of Summer 2009, 60% of the course
SLOs were posted and 26% of the loops were closed.
Although the progress has been satisfactory, there had
been some concerns among the faculty regarding the
SLO process.
One of the concerns was general understanding and
workload associated with the SLO process. In order
to overcome this problem, the Expanded SLO ComCypress College
mittee members were charged with the task of helping with the development of SLOs in their respective
areas. Also, an open forum to discuss issues related to
the SLO process was held on April 22, 2009. The forum was attended by over 60 faculty and staff members. The dialogue during the forum and the follow-up
sessions helped clarify some of the questions. Specific
concerns were raised regarding migrating the SLOs
from Blackboard to the newly acquired assessment
management software, TracDat, and the workload involved with that process. The College created a TracDat Implementation Team to address the migration
and training- related issues.
The TracDat Implementation Team worked during
Summer 2009 to move the existing SLOs from BlackBoard to TracDat. The team also worked on developing a training program for the faculty. Keeping the
commitment to the SLO process, the College funded
the summer activity out of one-time funding sources.
The TracDat Implementation Team identified General Education SLO development, TracDat faculty training, and closing the course loop as areas to focus on in
2009-2010.
One of the important accomplishments in the area of
SLO assessment was receiving an award from the RP
Group for Best Documentation for SLOs in California.
This award was presented to the SLO Core Team by
the RP Group during the Student Success Conference
in Fall 2009.
2009-2010: The process of developing SLOs continued in 2009-2010. As planned, the pilot TracDat training was conducted with the PE Division; the training
materials were fine-tuned based on their feedback, and
subsequently, trainings were conducted for all full-time
faculty members. The TracDat user training included
creation of log-ins and instructions on how to input
their course SLOs, assessment plans, assessment results,
and action plans, as well as generate TracDat reports.
Special emphasis was given to closing the loop. The
process of closing the loop involved collecting data,
using data to validate if SLOs were achieved according to specific standards, and deciding on future plans
based on the observed outcomes. This process generated an engaging and sometimes heated conversation
among the faculty on the campus.
Faculty from different divisions expressed their reservations to change the SLO assessment process based
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
on the feedback of the SLO Core Team and the SLO
Coordinator. Also, it was overwhelming for the SLO
Coordinator to single-handedly review all reports and
provide feedback. The issue was discussed at length at
the Expanded SLO Committee meetings, and, finally,
it was brought to the attention of the Academic Senate. After hearing the concerns from all constituents,
the Academic Senate decided to appoint an SLO Assessment Committee to review the reports. The SLO
Assessment Committee was formed near the end of
Spring 2010. Members consisted of the SLO Coordinator, SLO Facilitator, and three faculty members. The
committee was charged with providing feedback to respective faculty regarding the SLO assessment results.
Faculty members are required to respond to each of
the recommendations based on the following 3 options:
1. Accept the recommendation and indicate if the
recommendation will be implemented
during the current assessment cycle.
2. Accept the recommendation and indicate that
it will be implemented in the next assessment cycle.
3. Provide an explanation of why the recommendation does not apply.
The recommendations by the SLO Assessment Committee and responses by the faculty members are documented in TracDat to provide future reference. The
SLO Core Team worked during Summer 2010 to
migrate the remaining SLOs, assessment plans – also
called Campus Assessment Techniques (CATs), and
assessment results to TracDat. As of October 2010,
faculty members have defined SLOs for 85% of the
courses, defined assessment methods for 82%, and
closed the loop on 48% of all the courses.
During Fall 2009, an open forum was conducted to
create a GE SLO Committee. Fourteen faculty members representing different divisions volunteered to
participate in the committee. The committee met ten
times during Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 and developed
GE program learning outcomes (PLOs). A draft of GE
PLOs was shared with the Leadership Team in Fall
2009. After several rounds of dialogue among faculty
in Spring 2010 to justify the inclusion of Basic Skills
with General Education and with input from administrators and classified staff, the GE SLO Committee developed a final draft of the General Education & Basic
Skills Program Learning Outcomes (GE & BS PLOs).
17
All divisions reviewed the document before it was approved by the Academic Senate in Spring 2010. The
GE & Basic Skills PLOs are included in the 2010-2011
College Catalog. As of the Spring semester of 2010, it
is required that student learning outcomes be included
on all course syllabi.
The SLO Coordinator worked with the program chairs
and department coordinators across all disciplines to
develop their individual program learning outcomes
(PLOs). Several divisions determined that their courses
contribute mainly to the basic skills and general education curricula and so adopted the GE & BS PLOs as
their program learning outcomes. Other departments
(mostly vocational) developed their own PLOs for their
specific programs. As of October 10, 2010, 27 out of
the 32 programs, including the General Education and
Basic Skills Program, have defined their PLOs. The
remaining programs are working on developing their
PLOs and expect to complete them by Spring 2011.
Some programs have defined the assessment methods,
and the other programs are working with the SLO
team to develop the assessment methods. The 20102011 College Catalog includes the program learning
outcomes, where available. Plans to assess the GE & BS
PLOs and individual program learning outcomes are
being addressed in Fall 2010 and Spring 2011.
One of the areas that has not been addressed so far
is converting from an integrated paper planning, program review, and SLO process to an electronic one by
integrating the program review process in the centralized assessment management software, TracDat. This
was one of the goals during 2009-2010 that has not
been met. The SLO Core Team intends to initiate
this process in Fall 2010 and complete it by the end of
Spring 2011.
Overall, the College has made considerable progress
towards developing SLOs for its courses. Department
faculty members continue to develop and revise course
SLOs, collect data, close the assessment loops, and use
the assessment results and action plans in the program
review process to request and justify the need for resources, such as instructional aids, technology, personnel, and facilities. The Planning and Budget Committee reviews each department’s Planning and Program
Review information provided with its budget request
before allocating resources. The investment in the assessment management software, TracDat, is expected
18
to help the College accomplish its goals of implementing and integrating SLO assessment with planning and
program review by 2012.
The College is exploring ways to centralize all assessments in TracDat. This should include program
reviews for instruction, student services, and campus
support services. Ultimately, the goal of the College is
to establish a firm relationship between SLO and AUO
(Administrative Unit Outcomes) assessment, resource
allocation, and self improvement.
Assessment Management Software:
TracDat
For the selection of assessment management software
that best fit the “culture” of the SLO process at Cypress College, a subcommittee consisting of six members conducted a comprehensive selection process
during Spring 2008. After preliminary research and
communication with other colleges, the subcommittee identified seven potential candidates and had web
conferences with each of the seven vendors. The top
four candidates were invited for on-campus demonstrations, and faculty members were asked to e-mail
their feedback. The subcommittee further evaluated
the four candidates and identified TracDat as the top
candidate. The subcommittee facilitated a conference
call between District IT, Cypress College IT, and TracDat IT specialists to resolve any possible implementation/maintenance/upgrade issues. The Expanded
SLO Committee approved the selection of TracDat as
the SLO assessment software for Cypress College in
their meeting on May 7, 2008. The College invested in
TracDat in September 2008.
In October 2008, selected members of the Expanded
SLO Committee made a one-day visit to Mt. San Antonio College, which had several years’ experience with
TracDat configuration and implementation. After the
visit, that group realized that TracDat had the potential
for storing and reporting different campus processes in
addition to SLO assessment. However, once TracDat
is configured, it would not be possible to reconfigure it.
Planning for configuration of TracDat was, therefore,
the major challenge in TracDat implementation. After
discussion of this issue, the Expanded SLO Committee recommended to the College that prior to TracDat
configuration, an Institutional Effectiveness Plan that
mapped the SLO assessment process with the instituCypress College
tion’s mission, vision, and goals must be developed.
The main purpose of this software is to house all the
SLOs, work as a centralized source for all assessment
functions, and generate reports that inform the institution about the status of SLO assessment and improvement of teaching and learning at Cypress College.
One of the functional requirements of the software is
the existence of an Institutional Effectiveness Plan that
maps the SLOs and assessments with the institution’s
mission and vision.
A taskforce created in December 2008 developed an
Institutional Effectiveness Plan that helped prepare a
roadmap for configuration of TracDat according to the
needs of the College. The plan was developed during
Spring 2009, and after a review by various shared governance committees and feedback from the faculty and
staff, the plan was approved by the Academic Senate
and President’s Advisory Cabinet in May 2009. The
initial training for configuration of TracDat was also
conducted in late May 2009. During Summer 2009,
the SLO Core Team worked on migrating some of the
SLOs from different locations onto TracDat.
The work during Summer 2009 of the SLO Core Team
also included developing TracDat training programs
for faculty. The plan was to conduct a few pilot training programs for the faculty in Fall 2009, adjust the
training program based on the feedback, and roll out
comprehensive training for all divisions in Spring 2010.
Also, the new program review format developed as a
part of the Institutional Effectiveness Plan was used for
the first time in Fall 2009 for instructional Department
Planning and Program Review and for Student Support Services Quality Review. During Spring 2010, the
campus conducted Campus Support Services Quality
Review using the new format. The process of inputting the information and data from the program and
departmental reviews into TracDat will be initiated in
Fall 2010 and completed by the end of Spring 2011
so that the reports generated can be used for planning
and resource allocation purposes.
◊
Continue the process of closing the loop
on courses and providing feedback
◊
Develop a plan for assessing GE & BS
PLOs and individual program learning
outcomes
◊
Migrate all existing SLOs from Blackboard and J: drive to TracDat
◊
Complete configuration of the Program
Review Process in TracDat and provide
training to department coordinators and
instructors
◊
Continue holding campus-wide forums
to identify concerns and address them
quickly
◊
Provide TracDat support for user management and configuration, and assist
faculty in data analysis, uploading information, and generating reports
◊
Provide training for Deans on generating
reports using TracDat
◊
Develop and integrate Campus Support
Service AUOs in TracDat
◊
Develop and establish a 3-year plan for
the SLO assessment cycle
Cypress College recognizes the critical role of SLOs
in student learning, assessment, institutional planning,
and resource allocation. The College is committed to
reaching the level of proficiency in using SLOs for institutional planning and program review by 2012.
Major Goals for 2010-2011
The College has made significant progress towards
developing SLOs during 2009-2010. However, much
work lies ahead in order to reach the level of proficiency in using SLOs for assessment, planning, and fiscal
allocation. Specific goals for 2010-2011 include:
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
19
Program Review
Cypress College has been conducting program reviews
since 1993. Over the last seventeen years, the scope
of the review has been expanded to include new programs and services. The review process itself is evaluated periodically to ensure the process contributes to
the ultimate goal of continuous quality improvement.
The program review process at Cypress College uses
planning documents, student learning outcomes, and
other assessment results to evaluate how well the program goals are being met and links the budget allocations with findings of the review. Four major purposes
served by the program review process are:
◊
Determine if the program is achieving
its intended goals and identify means of
improvement
◊
Evaluate if student learning outcomes
are being met by the program
◊
Identify the resources necessary for the
program to successfully accomplish its
goals
◊
Outline a plan to fulfill the program
goals if the necessary resources are not
immediately available
The programs offered at Cypress College are categorized into four areas for the purpose of review: (a) Instructional programs; (b) Student Services programs;
(c) Campus Support Services programs and (d) Special
programs. The instructional and Campus Support Services programs are reviewed on a three-year cycle: onethird of the programs are reviewed every year (instructional programs in the Fall and campus support in the
Spring). The Student Services programs are reviewed
on a four-year cycle, with one-fourth of the programs
coming up for review every Fall semester. Academic
Year 2010 – 2011 will be for Special Programs review,
at which time the review cycle will be determined. Although the purpose of program review is to improve
the quality of the programs based on existing data,
each of the four areas listed above follow somewhat
different review processes. The review process establishes the link among program review, student learning
outcomes, administrative unit outcomes, and resource
allocation.
20
Instructional Program Review
At Cypress College, the instructional program review
process was established as a peer-review process by the
Academic Senate in 1993 as Instructional Quality Assessment (IQA) and has occurred annually, except for
a short period in the academic year 2003-2004 when
the process was under review. Establishment of instructional program review components, processes, and
forms resides with the Academic Senate as one of the
10+1 academic and professional matters for which the
Academic Senate has primary responsibility, according
to the Education Code (Title 5 Section 53200). The
re-named Department Planning and Program Review
Committee (composed of a faculty chair appointed
by the Academic Senate, a faculty representative from
each of the ten instructional divisions approved by the
Academic Senate, and one dean) periodically evaluates
the instructional review process and recommends to
the Academic Senate changes to the approval process.
The existing review of instructional programs includes
the following steps:
1.
Reviewing of internal and external trend
data
2.
Evaluating past three years’ action plans
and goals
3.
Identifying next three years’ goals and
objectives
4.
Identifying new courses that will go
through curriculum review
5.
Exploring delivery methods, alternative
scheduling, and new courses to be offered in the next three years
6.
Planning for phasing out courses that are
no longer offered
7.
Examining accomplishment of student
learning outcomes
8.
Identifying courses that are due for curriculum review
9.
Establishing support for developmental
education
10. Articulating strategies to meet developmental needs of students
11. Connecting the findings with the Educational Master Plan
Cypress College
12. Proposing changes, if any, to the Educational Master Plan based on up-to-date
data
13. Establishing budgetary requirements
based on the review
The review process is periodically examined and updated. The link between existing plans such as the
Educational Master Plan and program goals were already incorporated in the template. In the last round
of review conducted in Spring 2009, the role of student learning outcomes was made explicit in the process. Also, identifying resource requirements as a part
of the program review process was introduced during
revision of the process in Spring 2009.
Student Services Program Review
The objective of Student Services is to provide noninstructional support to students. Program evaluation
has been conducted at Cypress College within the Student Services areas for a number of years in various
methods. Some offices created their own student satisfaction surveys based on the State Chancellor’s Office
Guidelines. Since Fall 2003, the campus has utilized a
commercial instrument (the Noel-Levitz Student Services Inventory) to conduct a formal student satisfaction survey.
Spring 2005 was the first occasion to pilot test the Student Services Quality Review (SSQR): the first cycle
of services evaluated the Admissions, Assessment, and
DSPS offices. The process involved surveying students
and using the survey data to prepare the review. The
Student Services Quality Review Report includes the
same elements for all service areas: department, participating names, tally of student responses and comments, goal, narrative of standards being met or not,
long-range plan and objectives, goals related to the
Strategic Plan - now Student Services Master Plan and the Educational Master Plan, and budget requests/
timelines. By integrating the SLO and quality review
processes, the student services programs are likely to
gain a more comprehensive assessment of each program, including how well they are aligning student
learning outcomes with the institutional mission and
how well they are helping students achieve their educational goals.
The template used to review Student Services is reviewed periodically. In Fall 2009, the template was reInstitutional Self Study — Spring 2011
vised and approved by the Student Services Council.
The previous template included information on student satisfaction (survey data), changes since the last
quality review, narrative, and long-range plans and objectives. Two of the areas not addressed specifically in
the previous template were student learning outcomes
and a link with budgets. During the review in Fall 2009,
these sections were added to the template. The current
template has a specific section on achievement of student learning outcomes and identification of resources
based on the review. The Student Services Council
recommended that all Student Services areas include
their SLOs in their SSQR information using the Nichols & Nichols model template (i.e., Mission (column I),
Goals/Objectives (column II), Data and Use of Assessment Results (column III, IV, V). Also, the template
asks for a plan of action in case the identified resources
are not immediately available.
Special Programs Quality Review (SPQR)
Periodically, changes are made to existing review processes, and new processes are developed when the need
arises. Such a need was identified, and in Fall 2007,
the College developed a new review process for “special programs” that are not purely instructional or student services programs and which do not fit well within existing program review models. The new process
was piloted with nine programs (e.g. Legacy, Honors,
Peer Assisted Learning, and Tutoring). Each of these
programs, with the exceptions of Study Abroad and
Honors, has been funded from one-time resources on
a year-to-year basis. When it became evident that the
funding could not be continued at the same level as in
the past due to State budget deficits, the Quality Review
became important information for the Planning and
Budget Committee to make funding decisions for the
year 2008-2009. Similar to the existing program review
processes, the new model includes various types of information, including an assessment of overall program
effectiveness by program leaders, numbers of students
served, and future goals. The template for review of
special services was developed in Spring 2010. Reviews
of special programs such as Supplemental Instruction
and Tutoring were conducted to determine the role of
these programs in student success. The findings were
positive. Based on the initial review results, the College
wanted to incorporate review processes for all Special
Programs in Spring 2010 and use the information to
make budget decisions. The reviews could not be con21
ducted prior to budget decisions in Spring 2010. The
College is committed to conduct the special program
review prior to budget allocations for 2011-2012.
Campus Support Services Quality Review
(CSSQR)
Campus Support Services are evaluated every three
years. All programs listed below completed their last
quality review in Spring 2010
◊
Academic Computing and Media Services
◊
Bookstore
◊
Bursar’s Office
◊
Campus Safety
◊
Institutional Research and Planning
◊
Maintenance and Operations
◊
Staff Development
◊
Production Center
◊
Public Information
In the CSSQR process, each program was evaluated
on a set of core measures (e.g., hours of operation,
response time, staff helpfulness, staff knowledge, and
overall quality of service). Each program also had the
opportunity to develop additional survey items and to
assess products or services that are unique to the program. Most of these programs used a web-based survey
to collect feedback from campus staff; the Bookstore
used a point-of-service survey to capture input from all
its clients (predominantly students). After the surveys
were analyzed by the Office of Institutional Research
and Planning, reports were distributed to the department leaders. They were asked to review the results
with others in the service area and to consider how
the results compared to the findings of the previous
review. Each department completed a quality review
report that included a reflection on changes since the
last review cycle, major objectives, and plans for the
next three to five years.
Summary of the Three Program Review Processes
The program review processes are examined periodically to ensure that they contribute to continuous quality improvement. During the review of the process in
Spring 2009, it was found that no strong linkage exists between student learning outcomes, administrative
unit outcomes, budget allocation, and program review.
Thereafter, all the program review templates were revised to bring focus onto SLOs, AUOs, and budget allocation. In its revised form, the program review process not only helps improve student learning but also
identifies the areas that need fiscal resources. The review includes an analysis and plan of action if required
resources are not immediately available.
Cypress College has progressively advanced to the
phase of sustainable continuous quality improvement
for its program review processes. Apart from reviewing
its programs, the College periodically reviews its process and improves upon the existing ones. The overall
changes made in Spring 2009 demonstrates the commitment Cypress College has towards program review
and linking it with planning, SLOs, and budget allocation.
The form used for CSSQR in Spring 2010 was revised
to include a focus on administrative unit outcomes and
a link with budget allocation. Although most of the administrative units have not defined their administrative
unit outcomes (AUO), all the AUOs will be defined by
2012.
22
Cypress College
Abstract
Cypress College has remained committed to its vision
of being a premier learning community recognized for
supporting student success and enriching society. The
postsecondary education scenario has changed rapidly
since Cypress College was last accredited in 2005. The
College has developed a culture of analyzing the education scenario, planning in advance, sharing its plan
among various constituents, and aligning resources to
fulfill its plans. This approach has helped accomplish
the mission of the College, engage faculty and staff in
College activities, and maintain a high level of student
satisfaction. As reflected in this self study, the College
believes it is in compliance with the requirements of
the Accrediting Commission of Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) of the Western Association of
Schools and Colleges (WASC).
The self study provided the College an opportunity to
engage its faculty, staff, administration, and students
in an open and pervasive dialogue regarding different
operational practices and procedures. Active participation of 82 employees in the four accreditation standards is indicative of the level of involvement with the
accreditation process. Besides those who researched
the processes, collected evidence, interviewed constituents, and wrote sections, there have been several others
who participated in the process indirectly. The collective work not only identified multiple areas where the
College is meeting its goals but also recognized areas
where scope of improvement exists. The teams came
up with eight planning agendas to help improve the operations of the College. The planning agendas are expected to serve as roadmaps for the forthcoming years.
The self study reflects how the College shaped the dialogue among faculty, staff, students, community, and
administration to improve student success. The core
values of Cypress College – Excellence, Integrity, Collegiality, and Inclusiveness – have remained the driving
force behind the self study. The discussions that took
place among the teams were all conducted keeping the
core values in mind. This self study truly reflects what
is done at the College, and how it is done.
The demographic analysis and environment scan establishes the context within which the College operates. It is evident that the College attracts nearly half
of its students from areas outside its immediate neighborhood. The ethnic mix of students represents the
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
proportion of the larger population of North Orange
County. The campus makes an additional effort to remain welcoming to all, and it is reflected in the opinions collected via the Campus Climate Survey (employees) and Student Satisfaction Survey.
There are two processes that are mentioned separately
in the introductory chapter. These are Program Review and student learning outcomes. Cypress College is
consciously building a culture of inquiry and evidence.
The program review process reflects how quantitative
and qualitative information are merged to evaluate
program effectiveness. The process itself is examined
periodically for opportunities for improvement. Currently, the program review process establishes the connection between program outcomes, resource requirements, and budget processes. With the establishment
of the link between the resource requirement and
budget allocation, the program review process meets
all the criteria to be in the phase of sustainable quality
improvement.
Work on Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) has been
in progress at Cypress College since 2002. The College
has discussed the need, relevance, and utility of SLOs
in several forums during this period. As of Summer
2009, SLOs have been defined for most of the active
courses. There have been several engaging dialogues
about SLOs for the General Education program. The
College has also invested in the assessment management software, TracDat, to keep track of assessments
of SLOs. The College is progressing towards completing SLO for all active courses and programs by the
year 2012.
The vision, mission, and core values of the College are
reviewed periodically to ensure that they are adequate
to serve the College’s students. In Standard I, the self
analysis revealed that while the College is fulfilling the
requirement of this standard, there is a scope of improvement. The College will evaluate the effectiveness
of its programs and services to determine their impact
on success of different student groups. The findings
will be used to develop, modify, and/or continue services that best serve the students and improve student
equity among diverse student groups. In order to be
an effective institution, the College will explore ways
to improve information dissemination among various
employee groups on campus with the ultimate goal of
improving participation, understanding the rationale
23
behind decisions, and expanding opportunities to engage in the decision-making process.
Instruction, student services, and learning support services constitute the main activities that directly impact
student success. In order to improve these areas, Cypress College is perpetually evaluating the outcomes
as well as the processes. As mentioned above, the program review process has been improved continuously
at the College, and it encompasses instructional, student services, and campus support services. The self
study revealed that the standards are being met in the
areas of instruction, student services, and learning support services. There are a few areas that will be addressed in the future planning cycles. Three specific areas identified for further improvement are: (i) integrate
the Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) and Administrative Unit Outcomes (AUO) assessment results from
Instructional, Student Services, and Campus Support
Services to improve student success; (ii) Develop and
evaluate a method based on mapping the course SLOs
to GE & Basic Skills PLOs to assess the GE outcomes;
and (iii) collaborate at Chancellor’s Cabinet to complete the development and adoption of an appropriate
and effective educational program development and
educational program discontinuance policy as directed
in AP 2510.
ership drives an organization forward. Cypress College,
the District office, and the Board of Trustees all work
in a cohesive manner to align the goals of the College
with the District. The collegial relationship helps focus
the attention on student success. The recent surveys
conducted at the College indicate that employees and
students agree that the College maintains a culture that
encourages diversity and promotes participation.
The candid dialogues that shaped this self study reflect
a vibrant college that is proud of its accomplishments
and critical of its shortcomings. Guided by its core values of excellence, integrity, collegiality, and inclusiveness, Cypress College continues to engage its constituencies in an inclusive and open dialogue. The self study
reflects that although there is a scope of improvement,
Cypress College adds value to its students by providing
a safe and welcoming learning environment.
Resources are a critical component of any organization. At Cypress College, special care is taken to ensure
that human resources are provided adequate technology and infrastructure to function effectively and efficiently. North Orange County Community College
District has always been very prudent in allocating its
resources. This is reflected in the fact that even in the
recent condition of fiscal deficit, the District has been
maintaining its operations without any layoffs and has
maintained a contingency fund. The Campus Climate
Survey and Student Satisfaction Survey conducted in
Fall 2009 reflect the level of satisfaction enjoyed by
both employees and students. Recent advances in technology require any postsecondary education to continuously evaluate its needs and invest in technological
infrastructure. Cypress College, in collaboration with
the District, has been doing it continuously. This is an
ongoing process and will continue to remain a priority
in the future.
Finally, leadership and governance are a critical component of any organization. The vision set by the lead24
Cypress College
ORGANIZATION FOR THE SELF STUDY — 2011
Accreditation Self Study Committees
Cherie Dickey (Faculty) — Accreditation Self Study Chair
Santanu Bandyopadhyay (Director, Institutional Research and Planning) — Accreditation Liaison Officer
Steering Committee
Accreditation Self-Study Chair .........................................................................................Cherie Dickey — Faculty
Standard I Chair ..................................................................................................................... Lisa Clark — Faculty
Standard II Chair ................................................................................................................ Susan Klein — Faculty
Standard III Chair..........................................................................................................Rebecca Gomez — Faculty
Standard IV Chair .........................................................................................................Carlos Sandoval — Faculty
Cypress College President . ...............................................................................................................Michael Kasler
Academic Senate President . ................................................................................................... Pat Ganer — Faculty
Academic Senate Past-President......................................................................................Robert Johnson — Faculty
Accreditation Liaison Officer............................................................................................. Santanu Bandyopadhyay
Executive Vice President . .................................................................................................................... Bob Simpson
Vice President . ................................................................................................................................... Karen Cant
Student Representative ..................................................................................................................... Danial Shakeri
Classified Representative ......................................................................................................................... Rod Lusch
Standard I: Institutional Mission and Effectiveness
Lisa Clark
Chair
Faculty
Career Technical Education
Dean
Classified
Faculty Dean Adjunct Faculty Business & CIS
EOPS
Language Arts
Health Science
Language Arts
Dean
Faculty
Faculty
Faculty
Faculty
Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Classified
Classified
Career Technical Education
Career Technical Education
Science, Engineering & Math
Business & CIS
Language Arts
Counseling
Social Science
Institutional Research and Planning
Instruction Office
Mission
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Dave Wassenaar
Chair
Avery Olson
Olga Moran John Sciacca
Jackie Barretto
Effectiveness
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Steve Donley
Chair John Alexander
Joel Gober
Ben Izadi
Sarah Jones Stacey Howard Annik Ramsey Phil Dykstra
Donna Landis
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
25
Standard II: Student Learning Programs and Services
Susan Klein
Chair
Faculty
Language Arts
Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Faculty
Faculty
Faculty
Faculty
Faculty
Faculty
Faculty
Classified
Manager
Language Arts
Language Arts
Science, Engineering & Math
Social Science
Health Science
LLRC
Business & CIS
Language Arts
Business & CIS
Institutional Research and Planning
EOPS
Dean
Dean
Director
Faculty
Faculty
Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Classified
Classified
Student
Student Services
Counseling
DSPS
Language Arts
Counseling
Health Science
Physical Education
Career Center
Financial Aid
Instructional Programs
1. Debra McPherson Chair
2. Jason Witt
3. Sujata Chiplunkar
4. Larry Curiel
5. Beth Piburn
6. Billy Pashaie
7. Jeanne Miller
8. Christie Diep
9. Donna Woo
10.Michelle Oja
11.Gil Contreras
Student Support Services
1. Richard Rams
Chair
2. Paul de Dios
3. Kim Bartlett
4. Mary Forman
5. Deidre Porter
6. Marcus Marquardt
7. Long Nguyen
8. Deann Burch
9. Alan Reza
10.Karina Hernandez
Library and Learning Support Services
26
1. Peggy Austin
Chair
2. Regina Rhymes
3. Cindy Shrout
4. Keith Vescial
5. Monica Doman
6. Eldon Young
7. Temperance Dowdle
8. Cindy Ristow
9. Santanu Bandyopadhyay
10.Tony Ignacio
Faculty
Faculty
Faculty
Faculty
Faculty
Dean
Classified
Classified
Director
Student
LLRC
Social Science
Science, Engineering & Math
Language Arts
LLRC
LLRC/Language Arts
Matriculation
LLRC
Institutional Research and Planning
Cypress College
Standard III: Resources
Rebecca Gomez
Chair
Faculty
Health Science
Dean
Faculty
Faculty
Faculty
Classified
Classified
Classified
Social Science
Social Science
Language Arts
Health Science
LLRC
Business Office
Instruction Office
Director
Faculty
Faculty
Classified
Classified
Classified
Facilities
Career Technical Education
Language Arts
Maintenance & Operations
Facilities
Fine Arts
Interim Manager
Faculty
Faculty
Classified
Manager
Manager
Faculty
Academic Computing
Science, Engineering & Math
Language Arts
Academic Computing
Health Science
Public Information Office
Fine Arts
Vice President
Exec Director
Faculty
Classified
Manager
Dean
Foundation
Social Science
Business Office
Business Office
Fine Arts
Human Resources
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Nina DeMarkey
Chair
Becky Floyd
Stuart Rosenberg
Rosalie Majid
Virginia Derakshanian
Michelle Bandak
Manya Preston
Physical Resources
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Albert Miranda
Chair
Carlos Urquidi
Barbara Kashi
Marcia Jeffredo
Betty Germanero
Grace Suphamark
Technology Resources
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Mike Kavanaugh
Chair
Michael Frey
Jessica Puma
Michael Land
Darlene Fishman
Marc Posner
Paul Paiement
Financial Resources
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Karen Cant
Chair
Raul Alvarez
Parwinder Sidhu
Jann Nelson
Renie Harter
Joyce Carrigan
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
27
Standard IV: Leadership and Governance
Carlos Sandoval
Chair
Faculty
Social Science
Decision-Making Roles and Processes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Diane Henry
Chair
Jane Jepson
Jeremy Peters
Donna Freiss
Bev Harrington
Richard Fee
Ryan Billings
Dean
Faculty Faculty
Faculty
Classified
Dean
Student
Physical Education
Counseling
Career Technical Education
Language Arts
Academic Computing
Science, Engineering & Math
Board and Administrative Organization
28
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Rod Lusch
Chair
Michael Brydges
Pat Humpres
Jose Gonzalez
Bob Simpson
Classified
Facilities
Faculty
Language Arts
Confidential
President’s Office
Student
Executive Vice President
Cypress College
Timeline
for
Accreditation Self Study
Leading Up to Comprehensive
Evaluation in Spring 2011
March 2009
The key personnel attend the Self Study Workshop on
March 13 at Cypress College.
April 2009 to May 2009
The Self Study Chair is appointed by the President’s
Advisory Cabinet (April 16).
The Steering Committee members, Standards Chairs,
and Committee Chairs are selected by the Self Study
Chair and approved by the President’s Advisory Cabinet. The Steering Committee meets to agree upon the
general approach of the Self Study. The Steering Committee reviews the institutional effectiveness rubric circulated by the Accrediting Commission for Junior and
Community Colleges. Each section of the Accreditation Standard is assigned to a separate committee and
a separate committee chair. The Standards Chairs are
responsible for the work of several Committees.
Campus personnel are invited on Accreditation Committees through a college-wide call for volunteers and
through individual solicitations.
Fall 2009
Accreditation Committees finalized.
Faculty members on the committees are approved by
the Academic Senate.
The Accreditation Committees establish schedules,
define internal procedures, assign responsibilities, and
begin deliberations regarding the Accreditation Standards.
The Self Study Chairs and the Accreditation Liaison
Officers from Cypress College and Fullerton College
develop the District Functional Map.
November 2009
The Self Study Chair and the Accreditation Liaison
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Officers from Cypress College and Fullerton College
present the Accreditation Self Study Standards and
the process followed by each college to document compliance to the accreditation standards to the Board of
Trustees.
January 2010
The Self Study Chair shares the status of and future
plans for the Accreditation process at the College’s
Spring Opening Day Meeting.
Spring 2010
The Accreditation Committees gather information
from the campus and meet with relevant groups for
dialogue regarding the Accreditation Standards.
The committees review the Student Learning Outcome (SLO) reports to ensure adherence to the Accreditation Standards.
The committees begin documenting their findings; the
Standards Chairs and the Self Study Chair reviews the
documentation to ensure that the documentation covers all requirements of accreditation standards.
March 2010
The Accreditation Committee on Board and Administrative Organization holds a dialogue regarding Accreditation Standards with the Board of Trustees.
May 2010
The Accreditation Committees present their initial
draft reports to the Self Study Chair and the Standards
Chairs.
The chairs meet with the committees, if required, to
seek clarification.
June 2010 to August 2010 (Summer
2010)
The Institutional Self Study Chair prepares the first
draft of the Institutional Self Study.
August 2010
The first draft of the Institutional Self Study distributed to the Standards Chairs, the Steering Committee,
the Committee Chairs, and the President of the Col29
lege.
January 2011 to March 2011
The Self Study Chair and the Accreditation Liaison
Officer present the draft report to the Board of Trustees on August 10, 2010. The Board to provide feedback by September 3, 2010, to the Self Study Chair.
Finalize preparation for site visit.
The Self Study Chair presents the Self Study at the
Opening Day of College for Fall 2010.
March 2011
The site visit by Accreditation Team takes place.
August 2010 to September 2010
The steering committee, the standards and committee chairs and committee members review first draft
report, suggest revisions, respond to required clarification. The chair prepares second draft of the Institutional Self Study based on the feedback received.
October 2010
Copies of the second draft of the Institutional Self
Study are distributed to the division and other major offices on campus. The draft is also placed on the
campus server. Campus community provides feedback
using web log forms. The Board receives substantial
changes on October 12, 2010, based on feedback provided. College holds a series of open forums where all
are invited to meet the representatives from each accreditation committee and share views/comments on
the Institutional Self Study.
November 2010
The Self Study Chair finalizes third draft of the Institutional Self Study. The Institutional Self Study is
endorsed by the Academic Senate (Nov 11), the California School Employees Association (CSEA), the Associated Students, and approved by the President of
the College (Nov 18). The Institutional Self Study is
presented to the Board of Trustees for approval on November 23, 2010.
December 2010
Final copy of the Institutional Self Study sent for printing.
January 2011
The Institutional Self-Study sent to Accreditation
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges of
the Western Association of Schools and Colleges.
30
Cypress College
Cypress College
Organizational Structure
Effective 2010-2011
President – Mike Kasler
Educational Programs & Student Support Services – Bob Simpson, Executive
Vice President
Administrative Services – Karen Cant, Vice President
Institutional Research and Planning – Santanu Bandyopadhyay, Director
Foundation & Community Relations – Raul Alvarez, Executive Director
Public Information – Marc Posner, Public Information Officer
Staff Development – Nancy Deutsch, Coordinator
Campus Diversity
______________________________________________________________________
Executive Vice President, Educational Programs & Student Support Services – Bob Simpson
Business/CIS and Admissions & Records – Dave Wassenaar, Dean
Admissions & Records
Registration – Regina Ford, Registrar
Advisory Committees
Counseling & Student Development – Paul de Dios, Dean
Counseling Center
Career Center
Disabled Students Programs & Services – Kim Bartlett, Director
Articulation – Stacey Howard, Articulation Officer
International Students Program – Yongmi Han, Manager
Matriculation – Kris Nelson, Coordinator
Puente Program (Counseling Component)
Student Discipline
Transfer Center
Fine Arts – Joyce Carrigan, Dean
Patrons of the Arts
Study Abroad
Health Science – John Sciacca, Dean
Nursing – Darlene Fishman, Director
Health Services – Mary Lou Giska, Director
Program Accreditation
Advisory Committees
Language Arts – Eldon Young, Dean
Educational Interpreter Program – Dennis Davino, Special Projects Manager
Forensics
Legacy Program
Puente Program (Academic & Instructional Component)
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
31
Library & Learning Resources – Eldon Young, Interim Dean
Language Lab/Open Commons
Learning Resource Center – [Vacant], Special Project Director
Distance Education/Learning Lab
Peer Assisted Learning (PAL)
Supplemental Instruction (SI)
Tutoring Services
Science, Engineering & Math – Richard Fee, Dean
Learning Communities
STEM Grant
Weekend College Coordinator
Physical Education & Athletics Director – Diane Henry, Dean
Petitions
Student Activities
Graduation
Senior Day
Social Science – Nina DeMarkey, Dean
Honors/Service Learning
Teacher Preparation & Paraprofessional Programs – Dennis Davino,
Special Projects Manager
Student Support Services – Rick Rams, Dean
Student Ambassador Program
CalWORKS
CARE
Extended Opportunity Programs & Services – Gilbert Contreras, Manager
Financial Aid – Keith Cobb, Director
Guardian Scholars
Outreach
TRAC
Career Technical Education and Economic Development – Steve Donley, Dean
Distance Education
Economic Development
Grants
Tech Prep
Title V
VTEA
Advisory Committees
Enrollment Management
Personnel
______________________________________________________________________
32
Cypress College
Administrative Services – Karen Cant, Vice President
Academic Computing – Mike Kavanaugh, Interim Manager, Systems Technology Services
Media Services
Telecommunications
Bookstore – David Okawa, Manager
Business and Auxiliary Services
Budget & Finance Services – [Vacant], Manager, Campus Accounting
Bursar Office – Renie Harter, Manager, Campus Accounting
Campus Safety – Shirley Smith, Director
Switchboard
Facilities Use & Rentals
Food Services
Grant Support Services
Personnel
Production Center & Mailroom
Swap Meet
Physical Plant & Facilities – Albert Miranda, Director
Maintenance & Operations – José Recinos, Manager
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
33
Certification of Continued
Compliance with Eligibility
Requirements
As evidenced by this Self Study, Cypress College complies with all eligibility requirements established by the
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior
Colleges. There has been one Substantive Change, as
defined by the Commission, since the last Self Study
in 2005. Distance Education course offerings increased
progressively over the last five years. As a result of this
significant growth, 50% or more of 18 Associate Degree Programs and 54 certificate programs can now
be completed via distance education programs. Also,
a number of programs offer 40% of the courses via
distance education, and they are approaching a point
where 50% of the programs may soon be completed
via distance education. A Substantive Change proposal
was submitted to the Accrediting Commission on August 12, 2009, seeking approval of such change. The
approval was granted on September 17, 2009.
Authority
Cypress College is authorized by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges of the
Western Association of Schools and Colleges and by
the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office to operate as an educational institution and to
award degrees. Further authority to grant degrees is
provided under the auspices of a locally elected Board
of Trustees.
Mission
The Cypress College Mission Statement, after being
adopted by the campus through its shared governance
processes, was approved by the Board of Trustees, most
recently in November of 2004. The Mission Statement
clearly defines the College as a degree-granting institution that serves the surrounding community and as an
institution that offers its programs in a “student-centered learning environment.” The Mission Statement
is published in the College catalog, on the College
website, in Divisions, and in a variety of other official
publications.
34
Governing Board
The North Orange County Community College District Board of Trustees is an independent policy-making body capable of reflecting constituent and public
interest in Board activities and decisions. The Board
is composed of seven members elected by registered
voters in the District; the Trustees represent four specific geographic areas but are elected at-large. Trustees
serve four-year terms of office, and the positions are
staggered to ensure a degree of stability and continuity. Two Student Trustees, representing the interests of
students at Cypress College and Fullerton College, are
elected annually by the students at their respective colleges for one-year terms.
Chief Executive Officer
The Chief Executive Officer of Cypress College is the
College President. The President, appointed by the
Board of Trustees, holds a full-time position at the College and has the authority to administer Board policies,
manage resources, and ensure compliance with all statutes and regulations. The President does not serve on
the Board of Trustees. The Chief Executive Officer of
the North Orange County Community College District is the Chancellor, whose full-time position allows
him to oversee the management of the three major entities of the District. The Chancellor does not serve on
the Board of Trustees.
Administrative Capacity
The College President is directly supported by a senior staff that consists of the Executive Vice President,
Educational Programs and Student Services; a Vice
President, Administrative Services; and a Director, Institutional Research and Planning. The College has ten
Division Deans, 9 Directors, and 9 Managers. Support
staff is provided for all positions. All administrative
personnel meet or exceed the minimum qualifications
for their positions in terms of qualifications, training,
and experience.
Operational Status
In Fall of 2009, Cypress College enrolled 16,533 students. Students are pursuing Associate in Arts and Science degrees, occupational certificates, transfer certification, basic skills development, and lifelong learning
Cypress College
opportunities.
Degrees
Cypress College offers a variety of degree and certificate programs; all are clearly described in the College
catalog. The vast majority of the College’s courses are
applicable to degrees and/or certificates. The College
does offer non-degree applicable courses that are intended to assist students in basic skills development. In
the 2008-2009 academic year, 1,013 students completed degree requirements, and 760 students completed
certificate requirements. Also, 719 students transferred
to 4-year institutions during the same period. In Fall
2009, the total number of students (unduplicated) pursuing pre-collegiate credit courses was 3,342.
Educational Programs
The principal degree programs at Cypress College are
congruent with its Mission to provide Associate in Arts
and Science degrees, occupational certificates, and
transfer education preparation. All such programs are
based on recognized higher education fields of study,
are of sufficient content and length, and are conducted
at levels of quality and rigor appropriate to the degree
offered. All courses and programs must be approved by
the Curriculum Committee and the Board of Trustees,
and the College requires the completion of at least sixty units for a degree. All approved courses must specify
course objectives, means of evaluation, and course
content and scope. As of Spring 2010, 79% of the programs have defined program learning outcomes.
Academic Credit
Cypress College awards student credit for coursework using the standard established by Title 5, section
55002.5, of the California Code of Regulations. For
semester length courses, one unit of credit is awarded
for each hour of lecture per week or for three hours of
laboratory activities per week.
Student Learning and Achievement
All courses at the College must have an approved
course outline, which includes the instructional objectives for student learning, the methods of achieving
those objectives through assignments and activities,
and the means of evaluating the level of achievement.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
All approved programs at the College must specify the
objectives of the program; currently, completion of
courses indicates that those objectives have been met.
The College also has adopted a specific set of institutional learning outcomes (ILOs) that students receiving degrees, certificates, or transfer certification are expected to have achieved. The College is engaging in a
campus-wide dialogue to reach a better understanding
of student learning outcomes (SLOs), with the intention of ensuring their clearly identifiable inclusion in
all courses and programs. As of October 2010, faculty
members have defined SLOs for 85% of the courses,
defined assessment methods for 82%, and closed the
loop on 48% of all the courses. It should be noted that
100% of courses will not have SLOs. Although the catalog lists all courses, only those courses that are being
offered currently are defining course SLOs.
General Education
All degree programs at Cypress College must contain
a substantial component of general education courses that are designed to ensure breadth of knowledge
and promote intellectual inquiry. Of the sixty units required for an Associate’s degree, twenty-five of those
units must be from the approved general education list.
Students are required to complete courses in language
and rationality, the natural sciences and mathematics,
art and humanities, the social sciences, and physical
activities and health. Students must also complete a
course in cultural diversity and demonstrate proficiency in reading. All such courses, as a result of the curriculum review process, are consistent with the levels
of quality and rigor appropriate to higher education.
A committee worked during Fall 2009 to develop General Education & Basic Skills Program Learning Outcomes; the Academic Senate approved the GE & Basic
Skills PLOs, and these are published in the 2010-2011
College Catalog.
Academic Freedom
The North Orange County Community College District adopted a board policy and administrative procedure of Academic Freedom (BP/AP 4030) in February
2008. In addition, the College has a Statement of Professional Ethics that commits the College to the belief
that faculty and students are free to examine and test
all knowledge appropriate to their discipline or area of
35
major study as judged by the academic/educational
community in general. The College maintains an atmosphere in which intellectual freedom and independence exist.
Faculty
In the Fall semester of 2010, Cypress College employed 212 full-time faculty and approximately 390
adjunct faculty. Approximately sixty-six percent of the
College’s credit hours are taught by full-time faculty.
All faculty meet or exceed state-mandated minimum
qualifications. The roles and responsibilities of faculty
members are delineated in the collective bargaining
agreements the District has signed with United Faculty
and Adjunct Faculty United - the unions for the fulltime and adjunct faculty. Those responsibilities include
the development and review of curriculum and the
assessment of learning. A Faculty Handbook that was
last revised in 2004 is currently being updated.
Student Services
Cypress College offers a wide range and variety of services to assist students in meeting their learning and
developmental needs. The services are comprehensive
and accessible to all students. Services are listed in the
College Catalog, the Schedule of Classes, the Student
Handbook, and on the College website. In addition,
all faculty are asked to refer to those services on their
syllabi. Students are also made aware of the available
services during Orientation.
Admissions
Consistent with its own Mission, the mission of the
California Community Colleges, and Title 5 of the
California Education Code, Cypress College maintains
an open admissions policy. Eligibility to enroll at Cypress College is open to all high school graduates, all
those who possess a G.E.D. certificate, all those who
possess a California High School Proficiency Certificate, or those eighteen years of age or older who can
profit from instruction, all those under eighteen years
of age who can profit from instruction and who have
a recommendation from his or her parent and high
school principal, or any person under eighteen years of
age not enrolled in school who can profit from instruction and has a recommendation from his or her parent
and/or guardian.
36
Information and Learning Resources
The College provides sufficient information and learning resources to support its Mission and instructional
programs. The College Library is the primary repository of books, periodicals, and electronic databases. In
addition, a number of other learning centers can be
found throughout the campus, providing either specialized services or campus-wide services. Computer access is provided in a number of the different centers.
The College’s new Library/Learning Resource Center
provides for both the expansion and consolidation of
information and learning resources. The College periodically reviews student needs and aligns its resources
to serve students.
Financial Resources
The North Orange County Community College District and Cypress College have a funding base that is
adequate for the College’s student learning programs
and services, its efforts to improve institutional effectiveness, and its ability to maintain financial stability.
The District reserve exceeds state-mandated minimum
requirements. However, while the funding base is adequate, the severe cuts in state funding that have occurred in the last few years have resulted in the reductions of staffing, course offerings, and student services.
The District and the College have worked together to
maintain instruction and student services despite ongoing budget cuts.
Financial Accountability
The North Orange County Community College District is audited annually by an independent audit firm
to ensure that it is in compliance with all regulations of
the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office and the United States Department of Education.
The reports are reviewed annually by the Board of
Trustees, and the District responds to any exceptions
or findings. Similar processes are in place at the College level with college-wide budgets and special budgets being audited annually by independent firms. The
College responds to any exceptions or findings. Neither
the District nor the College has shown an annual or
cumulative deficit in its budgets.
Cypress College
Institutional Planning and Evaluation
Cypress College gives serious attention to institutional planning and evaluation (e.g., Educational Master
Plan, Technology Plan). The College’s Strategic Plan
is the primary document the campus relies upon for
its integrated planning processes, resource allocation,
implementation, and re-evaluation. In addition to the
college-wide process, specific areas undergo planning
and evaluation through their own review processes.
Chief among those are the Departmental Planning
and Program Review, the Student Services Quality Review, and the Campus Support Services Quality Review processes. All are designed to allow the specific
areas to evaluate the current state of their programs
and to plan for the future. Those results are then integrated with the campus-wide Strategic Plan. All such
reviews and plans are public and available to any who
wish to examine them. Also, the College publishes an
Institutional Effectiveness Report every Fall. This report is a compendium of the initiatives that the College
takes to plan and evaluate its services. Beginning Fall
2009, the College introduced a Dashboard of Institutional Effectiveness. Fourteen parameters reported in
the Dashboard provides a summary of the College’s
initiatives and results in the five areas identified in the
Strategic Plan.
also be found on the College website and in the Schedule of Classes.
Relations with the Accrediting
Commission
Cypress College has consistently adhered to the eligibility requirements, standards, and policies of the
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior
Colleges. It describes itself in identical terms to all accrediting agencies, communicates any changes in its
accredited status, and agrees to disclose information
required by the Commission. The College is in full
compliance with the Commission’s requests, directives,
decisions, and policies. All disclosures by the College
are complete, accurate, and honest.
Public Information
The Cypress College catalog is available both in print
and online. The catalog is reviewed annually for accuracy and currency. All information requested by the
Commission is found in the catalog. Specific information is found in the following areas: 1) General Information – official name, address, telephone and website
address of the College; the College Mission Statement;
course, program, and degree offerings; academic calendar and program length; available student financial
aid; available learning resources; names and degrees
of administrators and faculty; and names of the Board
of Trustees members; 2) Requirements – admissions,
student fees and other obligations, degrees, certificates,
graduation, and transfer; 3) Major policies affecting
students – academic regulations including academic
honesty, academic freedom, nondiscrimination, acceptance of transfer credits, grievance and complaint procedures, sexual harassment, refund of fees, locations
or publications where other policies may be found.
Abridged versions of the information requested can
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
37
Response to the Previous
Team Recommendations,
2005
#1 Budget Allocation Model
The team recommends that the District Chancellor develop and implement an evaluation of
the existing budget allocation model and make
adjustments if appropriate to meet the needs
of the entire district (Standard III.D, IV.B.3.c).
From 2004-2006, a District shared-governance committee met to revue and evaluate its budget allocation
model. The review resulted in significant changes in
two allocations and stronger strategic connections between budget priorities and program priorities. Specific results related to operational funding for growth
now include providing the campuses with increases in
supply and operation costs as the District is funded for
growth. A Budget Allocation Committee was formed
to continue looking at new budget allocation methods.
In addition, the District’s first District-wide Strategic
Plan will be used to guide budget decisions.
#2 Strategic Plan
The team recommends that the Board of
Trustees and Chancellor implement a process
to systematically develop and document strategic institutional goals for the district. The
goals should: provide a framework for the Colleges’ strategic planning processes; include a
review of the district mission statement to ensure that the district strategic goals align with
the mission; and be reflected in the allocation
of district resources (I.A.I, I.B.4, and III.D.1).
During 2005-2006, work began on the District Strategic Plan under direction of the Board of Trustees and
the Chancellor. Under the guidance of the College’s
planning consultants, the first phase included groups
conducting interviews and surveys of students, employees, community members, and others. Eight goals
and many potential strategies and indicators/measures
were identified around three focus areas: Innovation
and Relevancy for All Learners, Intra-District and
Community Collaboration, and Effective and Efficient
Use of Resources. The second phase, initiated in 2006,
38
worked toward integrating the results of the District
planning process with existing campus plans in order
to create a more cohesive District-wide Strategic Plan.
Additionally, the District is currently working on a
Comprehensive Education and Facilities Master Plan,
with completion expected 2010-2011.
#3 Strengthen Dialogue
♦ Student Learning and Institutional Effectiveness
The College must develop and implement a
collaborative, inclusive process that focuses
on the continuous improvement of student
learning and institutional effectiveness (Standard IB.1)
The College has developed an organizational framework with representatives from each instructional program to guide and support the inclusion of learning
outcomes for every course offered. Workshops on SLO
development and assessment are ongoing. Specific activities for 2007-2008 have included college-wide dialogues held by the SLO Team to determine how to
move the SLO-CATs process along faster. The College
established a timeline for completing the SLO assessment process for all courses, each division appointed
at least one SLO representative to an expanded SLO
Team, and each department created a plan for meeting
the 2011 College goals. In Fall 2007, the SLO Team
was expanded to include faculty representatives from
every division, who are charged with communicating
important information and new developments to their
divisions. In September 2009, a forum was scheduled to
discuss the development of General Education SLOs.
Faculty volunteered to serve on a General Education
Ad Hoc Committee by divisional representation. By
May 2010, the General Education & Basic Skills Program Learning Outcomes were developed, presented
to the College community for discussion, and approved
by the Academic Senate. In May 2010, the SLO Assessment Committee was approved by the Academic
Senate as one of its subcommittees to review course
SLOs and program learning outcomes assessment and
make recommendations for improvement.
The College has employed various strategies to
strengthen dialogue about institutional effectiveness.
The Office of Institutional Research and Planning established a website to provide faculty, staff, students,
Cypress College
and members of the public with access to reports and
information. Key research reports are distributed and
discussed at College meetings and events. A new Institutional Effectiveness Report was developed in 2005
and is published and distributed each Fall and is also
available online from the Institutional Research website. In Fall 2009, a Dashboard of Institutional Effectiveness was prepared. The Dashboard (also available
online) identifies the strategic initiatives of the College
and tracks fourteen parameters that represent the College’s accomplishments in the strategic areas.
Also, the College’s Educational Master Plan 2006-2016
and Student Services Master Plan 2007-2014 reflect
collaborative, inclusive processes that identify institutional strengths and challenges and culminate in plans
to further strengthen institutional effectiveness.
In Spring 2009, in preparation for the configuration
of TracDat, the assessment management software purchased by the College, the Institutional Effectiveness
Task Force was formed to review all college planning,
program review, and SLO assessment processes. The
Institutional Effectiveness Plan was approved by the
Academic Senate and the President’s Advisory Cabinet
in May 2009. This document guided the revision of instructional, student services, campus support services,
and special programs program review processes that
were put into place in 2009 - 2010.
The College also has well-established processes for
program review in instruction, student services, and
campus services, which contribute to ongoing discussions regarding institutional effectiveness. College
leaders have been responsive to feedback regarding
the relationship between program review procedures
and timelines, and closely related initiatives, such as
strategic and master planning. The Academic Senate
approved a streamlined educational program review
process for Fall 2007 that includes clear connections
to the Educational Master Plan. In Spring 2009, instructional Department Planning and Program Review
(formerly IQA) was revised and approved by the Academic Senate to emphasize the dynamic relationship
between course and program SLO assessment and
future planning, including the budgeting process. In
Spring 2007,the College also began piloting a new review process for “special programs” that are not purely
instructional or student service programs. In Spring
2010, the review process for these “special programs”
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
was revised to be consistent with other college program
review processes.
For Campus Support Services and Student Services,
the benchmark was changed to a comparison of their
prior review’s levels, and a section on SLO completion was added. The review is linked with budget allocations through the Planning and Budget Committee and in the actual report that requests information
about budget requests. The pilot program is still being
worked on.
♦ Qualitative and Quantitative Data in Decision-Making Processes
Incorporates both quantitative and qualitative
information in decision-making (Standard
IB.2)
Cypress College uses data to inform a wide range of
decision-making processes. Decisions about allocations
of one-time funds are shaped by qualitative and quantitative data provided to each member of the Planning and Budget Committee and to each member of
the Direction Committees. Beginning in Spring 2007,
new criteria were included to identify how strongly the
funding being requested supported the newly adopted
Educational Master Plan. Decisions for on-going needs
such as staff vacancies rely on a Classified Staff Needs
Assessment to help gauge the importance of refilling
a vacated classified position. Decisions regarding faculty positions include careful consideration of a broad
range of qualitative and quantitative information before prioritizing the positions to be filled. Starting in
October 2007, the Academic Senate president and two
additional members of the Senate Executive Committee joined the deans and Executive Vice President in
this decision-making process. Data from the Office of
Institutional Research and Planning and various other
sources inform decisions for allocating other resources
such as facilities, course offerings, room utilization, and
unmet student demand for courses. This is particularly
true while the College faces budget cuts and is forced
to cut sections. Data as to who the cuts affect are the
foundation for these decisions.
♦ College Mission, Practices, and DecisionMaking Processes
Mentors all faculty and staff in the College
mission, practices, and decision-making processes (Standard I11A.7; I11A.3)
39
The College has included its Mission and Vision statements in the College catalog, the Educational Master Plan, and the Student Services Master Plan. The
inclusion of these statements on the College website
has recently taken place. The President has also begun
review of the Vision, Mission, and Core Values with
new management and classified staff. Communication
has been strengthened by a more visible presence of
relevant information through the Public Information
Office and through the use of “allusers” email in order
to inform the entire campus community on important
topics.
The College has increased opportunities for faculty
to effectively participate in the development, shaping
and approval of College policy through an increase
in available reassigned time. In addition, a task force
developed in Fall 2006 recommended significant increases in reassigned time available to department coordinators. Changes in decision-making processes include implementation in Fall 2007 of the inclusion of
three Academic Senate representatives as members of
the Joint Committee on Full-Time Faculty Positions to
consider and prioritize requests from the instructional
programs for full-time faculty positions.
The College’s commitment to inclusiveness is evident
in the shared-governance committees which include
membership from administration, faculty, classified
staff, and students; specifically, Diversity Committee,
Matriculation Advisory, Planning and Budget, President’s Advisory Cabinet, Staff Development, Student
Equity Planning, Basic Skills, Enrollment Management, and Campus Technology.
♦ Clear and Effective Communication Path
Provides a clear and effective communication
path for faculty and staff so they know how to
advance needs that maintain and/or enhance
students’ learning environment (Standards
I11C;I11D; IVA)
In order to assure that the campus constituencies stay
informed regarding discussions and decision-making
taking place in shared-governance meetings, it was decided that each committee conduct an orientation at
the beginning of the year. Included in this orientation
would be a focus upon the responsibility of constituent
representatives to speak up during committee discussions and to share information in a timely manner with
the groups they represent. A weekly newsletter from
40
the President’s office is distributed electronically to all
campus users and is available through the College website. Also, all shared governance committee agendas
and minutes are posted to the campus J:\ drive (campus server) for all faculty and staff to be able to access.
#4 Educational Master Plan
The team recommends that the College immediately address the need to develop and implement a comprehensive planning process.
In doing so, the College must rely on the College mission and vision to develop a long-term
educational master plan to guide short-term
and long-term decision-making including resource allocations. This master plan must be
developed collaboratively by College personnel and used as the foundational document
for all other components of a comprehensive
planning process, such as annual operational
plans, technology plans, and facilities plans.
All components of this comprehensive planning process must incorporate standardized
data, contain measurable outcomes, and be
widely disseminated. Once the comprehensive
planning process is implemented, the process
must be periodically evaluated to facilitate a
cycle of continued improvement (Standards
IA.4, IB., IIA.2f, IIB.4, IIC.2, IIIA.6, IIIB.,
IIIC.2, IIID.1a, IIID.3, IVB.2b, Eligibility Requirement 19).
The Educational Master Plan (EMP) adopted by the
College in September 2006 is now the foundational
document for College planning. Utilizing cyclical
planning processes, the College evaluates curriculum
instructional quality and overall institutional effectiveness using the EMP as a guide. The College established
a multiyear calendar of major planning activities that
is anchored by the six-year accreditation cycle. To
capitalize on the work and vision set forth in the EMP,
the College engaged in various strategies to weave the
EMP into strategic planning, decision making, and resource allocation processes. Additional relevant developments include a new Student Services Master Plan
(2007-2014) and Technology Plan developed in 2008.
Cypress College
#5 Evaluate, plan, and improve:
Technology
The team recommends that the College rely on
the educational master plan described in Recommendation #4 to collaboratively develop a
comprehensive technology plan that addresses
all components of technology resources identified in Standards IIIC.1 and IIIC.2:
Academic computing needs,
Administrative computing needs,
Training for faculty and staff,
Equipment maintenance, and
Equipment replacement.
In October 2007, the Academic Computing staff presented a draft Technology Plan to the Campus Technology Committee (CTC) to begin a process of review,
comment, and feedback. The primary objective was to
synchronize the Technology Plan with the Educational
Master Plan by looking five years into the future at the
campus technology needs. Specific issues are Academic and Administrative Computing Needs, Training for
Faculty and Staff, and Equipment Maintenance and
Replacement. The Technology Plan was reviewed by
the College’s constituency groups, including the Academic Senate, in August 2008, revisions approved by
the Campus Technology Committee on November 11,
2008, and approved by the Planning and Budget Committee and President’s Advisory Cabinet on November
20, 2008.
#6 Identify and assess student learning
outcomes across the campus
The College needs to implement and expand
its strategic plan related to student learning
outcomes. These outcomes must be developed
and assessed for
The campus has used an inclusive, faculty-led dialogue
process to explore and consider various approaches
and select the most appropriate approach for the campus. The dialogue group decided to start by establishing learning outcomes at the institution level and draft
a set of institutional learning outcomes (ILOs). An
SLO Team was created that initially consisted of three
members: the Staff Development Coordinator, a Psychology Department faculty member, and the Director of Institutional Research. In 2005-2006, the SLO
Team expanded to include a new SLO Trainer position with responsibilities to design and implement staff
development workshops for faculty and staff to help
them learn about SLOs, including how to write measurable student learning outcomes at the course and/
or program level and how to develop a plan for assessing SLOs. By Fall 2006, the SLO Faculty Assessment
Facilitator position was added to design and implement workshops to help faculty, managers, and classified staff. A significant milestone for the College was
the establishment of a Faculty SLO Coordinator position in Spring 2007. Once faculty members in so many
departments had developed skills in determining and
assessing SLOs, there was the potential to apply them
readily to other courses. As of October 2010, faculty
members have defined SLOs for 85% of the courses,
defined assessment methods for 82%, and closed the
loop on 48% of all the courses.
Instructional Programs: Recent
Progress and Plans for the Future
The SLO Team held a series of college-wide dialogues in September 2007 to determine how to move
the SLO-CATs process along faster. Each division was
represented by at least one instructor with representatives of individual departments also attending. The
specific timeline established through the dialogues and
approved by the Academic Senate is as follows:
Year
Write SLOs
Complete the loop
Instructional programs at the course, program, degree and certificate levels (Standard
IIA.2a, IIA.2e, IIA.2f, IIA.2i, Eligibility Requirements 10, 11),
2007-2008 25% of courses 10%
Student services provided throughout students’ matriculation at the College, (Standard
IIB), and Campus support services (Standard
IIC.2, IIIB, and IIC.a).
2010-2011 100% of courses 50%
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
2008-2009 50% of courses 25%
2009-2010 75% of courses 37%
It is important to note that the 2007 timeline was developed before the College was informed by ACCJC of
41
the Spring 2012 deadline for achieving the proficiency
level for SLO process. Since then the SLO committee
has communicated to the faculty the need to expedite
the process.
Another important development to grow out of the
Fall 2007 dialogue was the establishment of an Expanded SLO Team with representatives from each
division meeting regularly each semester to monitor
division and College progress and address emerging
challenges. The Expanded SLO Team explored ways
to improve campus-wide communication about SLOs
and reviewed and evaluated various commercial software packages and other tools that are designed to alleviate the cumbersome task of tracking progress on
SLOs. In Fall 2008, after a careful review, the College
selected and purchased TracDat as the assessment
management software for housing course SLOs and
program learning outcomes, assessment plans and reports, instructional departmental plans and reviews,
and other College quality reviews. Configuration of
TracDat occurred in Spring and Fall of 2009. Training faculty to input course SLO data into TracDat occurred in Spring 2010. In Spring 2011, the College will
be providing training on how to assess and enter data
for individual program learning outcomes and GE &
Basic Skills PLOs developed in Spring 2010. As faculty
and program managers review program and course
SLO assessment results on a regular cycle, they will be
able to update the results of continuing SLO assessment and program review on TracDat and write new
plans for improvement.
Student Services
In November 2006, the Student Services Council adopted the Nichols and Nichols Model for the development of Student Services Student Learning Outcomes
through assessment of conditions that enhance education effectiveness (known on campus as the “five column model”). By May 2007, all 18 student services
programs had established SLOs and assessment plans
under the facilitation of the Dean of Student Support Services. Early in Fall 2007, each program had
completed all five columns for the 2006-2007 SLO
cycle. Like their colleagues in instruction, student services staff are still developing the knowledge and skills
needed to establish meaningful SLOs, assess them, and
close the loop. They have dedicated Student Services
Council meetings as workshops to help in these areas.
42
In Fall 2009, SLO assessment was integrated into the
College’s quality review process for Student Services,
and in Fall 2009, Student Services program SLO assessment results were entered into TracDat.
Campus Support Services
The College distinguishes campus services from instructional and student service programs based upon
function and the areas served. Specifically, there are
nine campus services: Academic Computing, Bookstore, Bursar’s Office, Institutional Research, Maintenance and Operations, Staff Development, Production Center, and Public Information. The College has
an established process and cycle of program review
for campus support services with clear links to planning and budgeting. One part of the process includes
surveying client satisfaction. The most recent Student
Services Quality Review (SSQR) used a College standard of 75% of survey respondents saying they were
satisfied or very satisfied with different areas of service.
As almost all programs had more than 75% of respondents satisfied with their service, a higher benchmark
was discussed. This may be implemented in the next
Student Services Quality Review cycle. This discussion
did lead to a change in the Campus Support Services
Quality Review (CSSQR) template in which these satisfaction ratings were compared to the satisfaction ratings from the prior CSS program review cycle rather
than a standard benchmark.
Managers and staff in each of the areas review the results and complete a quality review report. Summaries
of these reports are included in the annual Institutional
Effectiveness Report so that others on campus may see
and understand the current goals of campus service
programs. Campus services are on a three-year cycle
and were reviewed again in Spring 2010. The College
will be integrating administrative learning outcomes
(AUOs) into the existing program review process for
campus services in Fall 2010.
Cypress College
Response to CollegeIdentified Planning Agenda
Items
Mission
1. The Mission Statement will be communicated more clearly to the entire campus community.
2. The College’s Mission Statement will be included in the Curriculum Committee Handbook and Course Development section to provide guidance for those offering curricular
revisions.
The College has included its Mission and Vision statements in the College catalog, the Educational Master
Plan, and the Student Services Master Plan. The College Mission Statement is also included on the homepage of CurricUNET — the College’s curriculum development software — to provide guidelines for those
offering curricular revisions. The President has also
initiated review of the Vision, Mission, and Core Values with new management and classified staff during
their orientation process. Communication has been
strengthened through the use of “allusers” email in order to inform the entire campus community on important topics.
Institutional Effectiveness
1. The College will increase efforts to engage a
greater number and broader spectrum of participants in the dialogue process. Participants
will be encouraged to more effectively serve as
conduits of information to their constituency
groups.
The agendas and minutes from the campus shared
governance committees as well as District Planning
Council and Board of Trustees meetings are posted
to the College’s J:drive. At the beginning of each year,
committee chairs review the responsibilities each member has to communicate with the constituency group
he or she represents. The College works to promote
broad campus participation in campus initiatives via
“allusers” emails, campus presentations, and committee members serving as conduits of information to
their constituency groups.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
2. The College will strengthen the linkages of
planning activities to all relevant committees,
constituencies, Departments, Divisions and
services. The College will develop a means of
ensuring greater participant rotation on the
Direction Committees under the Strategic
Plan in order assure greater involvement of
the entire campus community.
Planning is a regular agenda item for the Planning and
Budget Committee (PBC) and for President’s Advisory
Cabinet. Each year, the chair of PBC offers to attend
division meetings to answer questions. Planning has
been re-organized into the Institutional Research and
Planning Office, which has resulted in more attention
on evidence-based decision making.
Increasing Direction Committee rotation has been difficult. Interest and response from potential new participants has not been significant. However, representation includes a cross section of all constituency groups,
and Direction 1 now allows for balanced representation from all instructional divisions.
3. The College will communicate to all constituencies’ student success data along with
an explanation of how it is collected and how
it might be used. During that process, faculty
will be assured that any negative data on student success and/or retention relating to their
courses does not pose a threat to them individually but will be used as an opportunity for
growth and improvement.
The Director of Institutional Research and Planning
worked with the faculty chair of the Program Review
Committee (formerly IQA) and the Staff Development
Coordinator to develop and deliver training workshops
for faculty regarding a revised instructional program
review process that included additional measures of
program efficacy such as trends in success and retention rates, enrollment, FTES, efficiency, and awards at
the course and department level. The Director of Institutional Research and Planning explained that the purpose of cyclical program review is to help gauge overall
program and institutional effectiveness, and that this
review must include quantitative and qualitative measures considered within an appropriate context.
4. The College will develop better mechanisms
for the distribution of statistical data and reports from the Office of Institutional Research
43
to reach a broader audience within the campus community. Such a process should include
the improved sharing of research data and reports among committees and various constituencies.
The Office of Institutional Research and Planning
established an office website to provide faculty, staff,
students, and members of the public easy access to relevant reports and information. The office prepares and
distributes an Institutional Research Bulletin each semester, which is distributed to the College via “allusers”
email, and a comprehensive Institutional Effectiveness
Report is now published and distributed widely each
Fall to the campus Leadership Team (approximately
60 members of faculty, classified staff, and managers)
and is also available online from the Institutional Research website. In the years that Institutional Research
conducts the Campus Climate Survey and the Student
Satisfaction Survey, they also bring the reports to several committees and post them on the website.
5. The College will improve the dissemination
of research to the surrounding community.
Such information will make greater usage of
the College’s “success” statistics and data.
Since 2005, the College’s Public Information Office has
made an effort at broader dissemination of research
featuring the College’s success statistics and data. The
@Cypress newsletter is published weekly during the
Fall and Spring semesters and features information on
various areas of success across campus. It is also a primary communication vehicle between the College and
the media and is utilized to share campus information
with members of various boards and committees, both
within the District and throughout the community. Annually, the President of Cypress College presents the
End of the Year Report and the Institutional Effectiveness Report to the Board of Trustees.
Instructional Programs
The College will continue its focus on the understanding and development of Institutional Learning Outcomes and Student Learning
Outcomes and delineate the relationship between the two. The College will develop and assess Student Learning Outcomes for all courses and programs. The College will convey the
importance of Student Learning Outcomes to
44
all staff.
By May 2004, the College had established institutional
learning outcomes (ILOs), and faculty had completed
an intensive ILO-course mapping project. As much of
the literature and regional discussions centered on the
concept of Student Learning Outcomes rather than
ILOs, many questions remained among faculty regarding the distinction between the two terms, how to assess them, and how to use them for improvement.
The original SLO Team first established following the
last accreditation site visit has since expanded to include
an SLO Trainer, now known as the SLO Faculty Assessment Facilitator, and the SLO Coordinator. These
efforts have provided broader participation among the
faculty, the establishment of SLOs, the resolve of the
Academic Senate to accelerate the pace by which new
SLOs are established and assessed, and new communication tools related to SLOs.
As a result of these efforts, the GE & Basic Skills PLOs
were established in accordance with the College ILOs
in the Spring of 2010 by a committee represented
by all instructional divisions. The SLO Team is currently developing plans to assess the GE & Basic Skills
PLOs based on course-level SLO assessments which
will involve pilot projects and further faculty collaborations. The campus continues to communicate the
importance of SLOs through meetings and dialogues.
An Expanded SLO Team, with faculty representatives
from every division, is also exploring ways to improve
campus-wide communication.
1. The College will increase its offerings of
Staff Development programs designed to enhance student learning.
Since Spring 2004, the Staff Development Office has
increased the number of workshops, seminars, and
semester-length programs designed to facilitate the use
of delivery modes and teaching methodologies that
reflect the diverse needs and learning styles of its students. The Staff Development Office has continued to
offer a Learning Centered Instruction Workshop Series
as part of the New Faculty Seminar including learning and teaching styles, learning strategies and brainbased research, and working with learning disabled
students. The Hybrid/Online Training Program was
offered one Spring and every Fall from Spring 2004
through Fall 2007 (the end of the 2003 - 2008 Title V
Grant). Since the last self-study, the College has had
Cypress College
two Opening Day speakers, one who presented multiple workshops on improving student learning using
recent brain research and another who gave a keynote
address on generational differences of both students
and staff. The Staff Development Office has offered
four additional semester-long faculty development programs to provide intensive training in creating learning communities and using technology to enhance
instruction: Learning Community Development Program, Instructional Web Training Program, TechCafe,
and Student Learning Outcomes/College Assessment
Techniques workshops. Workshops on using the myGateway Course Studio allowed faculty to put instructional materials online and to create online student dialogues. In Spring 2010, workshops on inputting course
SLOs, assessment plans and results, and creating plans
for improvement in TracDat were offered.
2. The College will continue its efforts to both
track and improve its measurements of student success. Specifically, the College will examine methods to track the employment rates
of graduated students and will work to improve its transfer rates, to increase the number of degrees and certificates awarded and to
raise its success rates in Basic Skills courses.
The Office of Institutional Research and Planning has
helped to expand and improve the set of core measurements of student success by identifying and monitoring
additional measures of student success and institutional
effectiveness. A key tool for reporting and monitoring
how well Cypress College is fulfilling its mission is the
Institutional Effectiveness Report (IER). Cypress College awards associate degrees in approximately 30 areas. Most degrees are earned in Liberal Arts and General Studies and certificates in 25 areas. Most students
who transfer from Cypress College to a CSU or UC
campus choose to remain within the greater metropolitan Los Angeles area with the vast majority transferring to a CSU campus; and approximately 80% of the
College’s students who transfer to CSU attend either
CSU Fullerton or Long Beach. The numbers of students who transferred to the University of California
have remained stable over time. Most of these students
transfer to UC Irvine or UCLA.
Tracking employment rates for all graduate students
has turned out to be an unrealistic and unfeasible goal.
The available data are fragmented and fraught with
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
missing cases and important omissions (e.g., students
who are self-employed and those who join military service). They also do not provide sufficient information
to allow researchers to discern whether the student
is employed in the same field studied at Cypress College. However, the College has developed the means to
track and survey students in the Mortuary Science and
Health Information Technology Programs about their
employment after college.
With respect to improvement in success rates of students enrolled in basic skills courses, the College has
engaged in a number of efforts. Statistics regarding
success rates in basic skills courses and student progress
through basic skills course sequences are published and
reviewed on a regular basis and included in the IER.
The College also recently established a Basic Skills
Committee, which is engaged in a detailed assessment
of existing college programs and resources that support basic skills or developmental education.
3. The College in concert with the other District entities will complete the development
of the Program Discontinuance and Academic
Freedom Policies.
A draft document of a District Program Discontinuance Policy was developed by a joint subcommittee of
the academic senates of the District but was not adopted. Discussions continue at the District Planning
Council and the Chancellor’s Cabinet. At the campus
level, in 2006-2007, the Academic Senate President
and Executive Vice President initiated discussions regarding Program Discontinuance.
The Chancellor and the Academic Senate Presidents
met in September 2007 to work on the policy for Academic Freedom. In February 2008, both the Board
Policy and Administrative Procedure 4030, Academic
Freedom, were adopted by the Board of Trustees.
Student Support Services
1. The College will provide ongoing staff development opportunities regarding the campus based student service programs.
Student Support Services coordinates workshops and
training throughout the year, which are open to all faculty, staff, and students. On an ongoing basis, Student
Support Services staff regularly visit classrooms, staff
information booths, and visit off-campus sites to gather
45
information and to collaborate with others.
2. The College’s commitment to serving its
students will be enhanced through providing
supplementary employee training programs
and, when economically feasible, increasing
the number of employees.
Student services staff members participate in activities
offered throughout the year, participate in quarterly division staff meetings, and are encouraged to attend all
staff development programs offered on campus. In addition, staff participate in the Student Support Services Outreach Advisory Team, the Student Ambassador
Program, and the Guardian Scholars Advisory Team.
Since Spring 2005, four additional positions have been
added to the student support services area; three in financial aid and one in EOPS.
3. The College will continue to monitor the
matriculation process to insure equal access,
opportunity, and success for all students.
The College has made significant progress during
the current accreditation cycle to continue to ensure
equal access, opportunity, and success for all students
by assisting them in the completion of their college
courses, persistence to the next academic term, and
achievement of their educational objectives through
all components of the matriculation process: admissions, orientation, assessment, counseling/advisement,
and student follow-up. To ensure continued progress in
monitoring the matriculation process for all students,
the College developed and implemented ten matriculation-related strategies and activities since the last accreditation site visit.
Library and Learning Support Services
1. Librarians will increase their periodic discussions with the faculty at-large, and the Curriculum Committee in particular, regarding
information competency, the measurement of
student learning outcomes, the status of Library holdings, and the method by which faculty can request the purchase of library materials.
Librarians have increased discussions with faculty by
attending department and division meetings, organizing activities, and communicating with faculty via flyers and email. The Library also posts information on
46
its website. The new curriculum software system, CurricUNET, requires faculty to consult with a librarian
during the curriculum development process to ensure
that adequate library materials exist. Also, a librarian
serves on the Curriculum Committee, the SLO committee as well as the Learning Communities Advisory
Team. At the end of each fiscal year, the Library publishes an annual report that details the Library’s holdings and other pertinent statistical data. In addition to
circulating and reference materials, the Library has
worked with faculty to increase the number of textbooks placed on reserve to increase student access to
course material. The Library currently has 1,954 textbooks associated with current courses as well as materials put on reserve by instructors for supplemental
reading or viewing.
2. The Library will continue to increase the
size of its print and data base collections as
the budget permits.
The Library added approximately 3,000 public domain
titles to its electronic book collection. The Library also
purchased 12 electronic reference titles and four additional databases, which are all available through the
online catalog.
3. The Library will increase its outreach/
marketing efforts regarding Library services,
materials and databases. Particular attention
should be paid to groups such as Disabled Students Programs and Services, Extended Opportunity Programs and Services and the Associated Students.
A new Instruction Outreach Librarian was hired in
early Fall 2007. The Library’s website is being redesigned to make it simpler for users. The Library offers
tours and orientations to students in DSPS and EOPS.
The Library anticipates hiring a new Access Services
Reference Librarian who will increase the outreach
and marketing efforts even more.
Human Resources
1. The College will recommend that the District negotiate changes with the two faculty
unions so that effectiveness in achieving Student Learning Outcomes becomes a component of faculty evaluation.
While the College has identified methods to evaluate
Cypress College
programs based on their effectiveness in achieving Student Learning Outcomes, it has relatively little influence over pursuing the effectiveness in achieving Student Learning Outcomes as a component of individual
faculty evaluation, as this is an item subject to negotiation. The campus did communicate with the District’s
Vice Chancellor of Human Resources regarding this
Planning Agenda item.
2. The College will develop a written code of
ethics for non-instructional personnel.
In Spring 2010, the Board adopted Institutional Code
of Ethics BP/AP 3050, which states that the North
Orange County Community College District upholds
a written code of professional ethics for all of its personnel. The comprehensive language of this Boardapproved policy establishes standards of ethical conduct that apply to and encompass all District employee
groups.
3. The College will continue to assess staffing
needs and increase its personnel when budgetary conditions permit.
Beginning in Fall 2007, the College initiated a full-time
faculty position allocation process agreed upon by College administration and the Academic Senate that includes the deans and Academic Senate representatives.
The Joint Committee on Faculty Positions reviews all
full-time faculty position needs and requests and works
by consensus to prioritize those requests. In March
2006, the campus finalized a Classified Staff Needs Assessment, which resulted in a prioritized list of position needs identified from across the campus. Funding
was identified to add a total of 12 new classified positions since Spring 2005. However, budget reductions
to state funded categorical programs resulted in a lack
of funds to cover several positions in 2009-2010. The
College absorbed those positions using vacancies in the
general fund budget, thereby creating a net growth of
4 positions since 2006 and averting any potential layoffs or furloughs.
4. The College will monitor the impact of the
reduced Full Time Faculty Obligation on its
staffing levels.
When the District entered into negotiations with the
state over the full-time faculty obligation, Cypress College was in the beginning stages of a period of declining enrollment. Though the District number relative
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
to this obligation was decreased, the impact upon the
College was minimized due to the realities of the enrollment situation. During this period and including
the 2007-2008 academic year, the College has monitored and reviewed staffing requests on a regular basis.
Full-time faculty position requests are solicited and reviewed in a regular process, with the integrity of College programs as the primary consideration in making
the allocation decisions. Unfortunately, it is difficult to
identify a way to measure the impact of a reduced Full
Time Faculty Obligation to the College.
5. The College will continue its efforts to hire
personnel of diverse backgrounds.
The District’s Office of Human Resources coordinates
recruiting efforts for the College by sending all position
flyers to a comprehensive distribution list. All vacancies
are also posted to the District’s website, and management and full-time faculty vacancies are advertised in
various diversity publications. In addition, managers
distribute information through their professional organizations, and the District uses other resources to advertise certain disciplines.
Physical Resources
1. The College will investigate the adoption of
a centralized scheduling plan for classroom
utilization.
Subsequent to both campuses’ and School of Continuing Education’s representatives reviewing live demonstrations of a software package that would allow for
centralized scheduling for both instructional and noninstructional use as well as creation of a master calendar, the District Information Services Department
agreed to purchase the software.
2. The College will develop a plan to proactively and systematically replace and repair major
equipment.
The College has developed a replacement plan for infrastructure equipment on campus that is not covered
in the State Capital Outlay, local bond fund, or State
Scheduled Maintenance programs. This includes items
such as air handlers, air compressors, and water heaters. In addition to this, a replacement plan for the campus fleet vehicles and maintenance/grounds/custodial
equipment has been developed. These plans were presented to the Planning and Budget Committee in Fall
47
2010 with anticipated completion Spring 2011.
The College is also evaluating how to develop an equipment replacement plan for significant instructional
equipment and the development of funding strategies
for all of these plans.
Technology Resources
1. The College and the Office of Academic
Computing and Media Services will work with
District Information Technology personnel
to ensure the integration of the Banner and
Blackboard systems.
The integration of the Banner and Blackboard systems
was completed in August 2007.
2. The Office of Academic Computing and Media Services will offer more training to faculty
and staff. In order to accomplish this, consideration will be given to the hiring of additional
personnel when the budget permits.
Training has been offered for a number of years in the
areas of email (basic and advanced) and Web Development (basic and advanced). The Strategic Plan outlines
twelve training sessions per year with some being accomplished each semester. However, since faculty and
staff have received the initial training for supported
software products, formal classes are no longer necessary. Since new employees receive personal training,
Academic Computing has elected to extend an offer for additional training to individuals and smaller
groups within their offices. These sessions are shorter in
length, hands on in a familiar place, personal to those
asking a question to include other faculty and staff in
and around the same office area, and set up around
the customer’s schedule. For the Academic Computing staff conducting these sessions, this process serves
to educate them in the unique business needs of that
department and/or division. Additionally, that one
question being answered initiates several other questions and the process ends with several people becoming more adept using the tools at hand and better able
to help one another should the need arise.
3. The College will ensure that the campus network and systems receive continued funding
to keep pace with technological changes.
One-time funding each year has been adequate to support the hardware needs of the campus as outlined by
48
the Educational Master Plan, the Strategic Plan, and
the Technology Plan. Ongoing funding for software
and systems maintenance has also been adequate.
Looking into the future, it is clear that increased technology needs also require increased hardware, software, and additional personnel resources. With the
increasing pressure to have technology services available 24 hours a day, the future demand for resources to
provide that service will only increase.
Financial Resources
1. The College will request an increased cash
allocation from the District when the budget
permits.
The Cypress College Vice President of Administrative Services works closely with the budget officers of
both Fullerton College and the School of Continuing
Education to formulate recommendations to the District Vice Chancellor of Finance and Facilities on how
to make allocations of new ongoing or one-time funds
for NOCCCD. For a period of nearly two years, presentations were made to the District Planning Council
(DPC) on four different funding modifications to the
District’s allocation model: 1) Growth Beyond Extended Day, 2) Operating Allocation, 3) New Facilities Budget Allocation, and 4) Partnership for Excellence Allocation. Consensus was reached to support
options 1 and 4. At the last meeting of the District
Planning Council in Spring 2006, the Vice Chancellor of Finance and Facilities distributed an analysis of
the current District funding model. Because this was
at the end of the school year, there was little time for
discussion about the model, and by the Fall of 2007,
the idea of further examination of the current allocation model was raised again. A work group was formed
comprised of campus Budget Officers, campus Research Directors, and the primary campus Instruction
Offices to conduct further analysis and comparison to
other multi-college district models. In Spring 2007, a
recommendation was approved by DPC to approve
allocations to cover late retroactive salary settlements
for positions that were funded through categorical programs. In addition, DPC approved a recommendation
to allocate one-time resources for Facilities, Equipment
Technology, and Infrastructure from funds available in
2006-2007.
2. The District will provide a more thorough
Cypress College
orientation and training for all personnel, especially with respect to financial matters.
The District Information Services department provides
Banner Navigation and Purchase Requisition training to all personnel who need to update their Banner
technology and skills. The campus Business Office also
provides group or individual supplemental training to
campus personnel who need more thorough review.
Decision-Making Roles and Processes
1. The College will promote orientations and
training about the various shared governance
processes.
Each of the constituencies is represented on the various shared-governance committees of the College.
Each constituent group representative is charged with
the responsibility of informing its representatives on
these bodies of the duties and obligations assumed by
virtue of their participation. In addition, each shared
governance committee begins the academic year by
reviewing purpose, mission, duties, and responsibilities of the members. Emphasis is placed on the need
for participants in the shared-governance processes
of the College to inform their constituent group and
to provide input and feedback from that group to the
committee. Each Fall, orientations are scheduled for
the Direction Committee Chairs, and they in turn conduct orientations for members of their committees. In
addition to these sessions, both the Vice President of
Administrative Services and the Director of Research
and Planning make themselves available to attend division meetings to discuss the annual One-Time Funding Budget Request processes. Several avenues are
used to share information about shared governance:
publication of the “Cypress College Shared Governance Process Committees and Task Forces,” a database maintained by the Staff Development Office that
tracks people serving on each committee, new faculty
and classified orientations, and campus forums.
2. The College will make greater efforts to involve students in shared governance processes. Students will be made aware of both the
existence of opportunities and the procedures
of getting involved.
The President’s Office provides the Associated Students Council with a list of campus shared-governance
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
committees that include opportunities for student representation. All Associated Students Council members
are required to serve on at least two campus committees. In March 2008, a three-day campus-wide colloquium on strategic planning was held, and six current
students participated in this event.
Board and Administrative Organization
1. The College will request that the Board of
Trustees and the District continue the process
of utilizing Strategic Conversations and consider variety in the format. The College will
also request that the Board of Trustees and the
District also continue to develop other strategies to receive and encourage input from constituent groups.
Since Spring 2005, the Board of Trustees has hosted
one “Strategic Conversation” each year. The Strategic
Conversations remain the primary vehicle for all District employees and students to speak informally oneon-one or at least in a group discussion with Trustees.
With the participation of Cypress College faculty and
administrators in Strategic Conversations, issues of importance to this campus have been brought to the attention of Trustees. In addition, starting 2009 - 2010,
the Chancellor and Trustees have conducted a “Coffee
with the Chancellor” at each campus in order to share
ideas and ask questions.
2. The College will regularly review and evaluate the administrative structure to determine
its effectiveness and efficiency.
In 2004 and 2005, a reorganization task force was
formed, chaired by the Executive Vice President,
which made recommendations to the President’s Advisory Cabinet. The recommendations were to hire a
Dean of Library and Learning Resources and to adjust
several of the responsibilities under the Dean of Counseling and Student Development and the Dean of Student Services. In light of four positions being filled by
interim managers as of July 1, 2007, a new task force
was convened in Fall 2007 to review the management
structure and provide recommendations to the President before the end of the Fall semester. The task force
recommended to change the Vice President position
to a Vice President of Administrative Services, change
the Director of Research position to a Director of Re-
49
search and Planning, and then reduce the ranking of
the Director of Budget and Finance allowing for the
new Vice President position to assume primary responsibility for budget and finance. The proposed reorganization was shared in several different ways including an
open meeting of the task force allowing the campus to
ask questions about the proposal, and discussions at the
Deans and Directors Meeting, Planning and Budget,
and President’s Advisory Cabinet. Time was allowed
for the constituency groups to gather input and report
back to the shared-governance committees.
it can be used to expand a College program into the
Anaheim facility.
3. The College will provide a more thorough
orientation and training for all personnel, including specific attention to financial and collective bargaining matters.
Finance-related training has been provided by the Vice
President of Administrative Services and/or staff from
the campus Business Office in small groups or oneon-one to new staff members or to areas identified as
needing a refresher course on budget processes. District Office of Human Resources staff members have
provided managers and deans with training on contract revisions due to the collective bargaining process.
The Staff Development Office provided leadership in
the development of a Classified Staff Resource Guide
to be a useful resource tool for managers and classified
staff.
4. The College will encourage the Board of
Trustees to give careful consideration to academic concerns when renting out space at the
Anaheim Campus and to be particularly alert
that such actions not impact negatively the instructional programs of the campuses.
Outside vendors have shown an interest in leasing
space at the Anaheim Campus. Information regarding
vendors and the programs they are interested in offering are discussed in Chancellor’s Staff meetings. All of
the information regarding the vendor is then shared
and discussed with the appropriate dean and faculty at
the campus level. If it is determined that leasing space
to a vendor will negatively impact a College program,
the College President will present this information to
the Chancellor with the rationale and justification of
why the College does not support such a lease agreement. Vendors have been turned away as a result of
this process. When vacancies occur, the College is also
given an opportunity to review the space and see if
50
Cypress College
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
51
Vice Chancellor - Human Resources is responsible for ensuring personnel
policies and practices are in compliance with federal and state
nondiscrimination and equal opportunity statutes and regulations;
processing and responding to complaints related to discrimination and
sexual harassment; negotiations; administrative hearings, grievance and
discipline procedures; provision of interpretation and guidance to
administrators, others in areas of negotiated agreements, board policies and
procedures. Additionally, Human Resources oversee benefits.
Human Resources
Version2.FC rev
Budget
Development
President/Provost
Chancellor
The board defines the vision of the district, serves as a liaison between
the district and the community, approves annual budgets and sets policies,
among other responsibilities. The Board takes input from several
constituent groups on campus, such as the Academic Senate, the Budget &
Planning Committees, and the Shared Governance Committees. The Board
also invites comments from general public.
The Chancellor is the Chief Executive Officer of the District and is
responsible for implementation of the vision and mission set by the Board
of Trustees.
The President/Provost is the Chief Executive Officer of the respective
campus and is responsible for leading the College to achieve its vision and
mission.
Budget is developed under the leadership of Vice Chancellor – Finance &
Facilities in consultation with campuses. The campus participation comes
via its Planning and Budget Committee. The District Planning Committee
also provides input to the process.
Administrative Services
Description
Policy &
Regulations Board of Trustees
Function
Functional Map
P- District
S - College
P – District
S - College
P - College
P - District
P - District
S - College
Responsibility
P – Primary
S - Secondary
1
Vice Chancellor
– Finance &
Facilities,
Vice President,
Budget Director
Vice Chancellor
– Human
Resources,
Executive Vice
President,
Vice Presidents
Board
Shared
Governance
Committees
Title of
Responsible
Person
52
Cypress College
The Office of Equity & Diversity strives to maintain relationships with
various community resources to promote equity and diversity, monitor
programs and activities to ensure compliance with state and federal laws,
conduct in-service training for administration, faculty and staff regarding
hiring procedures, equal employment opportunity, prevention of unlawful
discrimination and sexual harassment in the academic setting/work
environment.
Each campus is independently responsible to ensure a safe environment for
the students, faculty, and staff.
The purpose of the Grants Procurement is to identify grant opportunities,
develop the application, monitor use of grant dollars (if allocated) and
submit final reports.
Foundation fosters relationship among the communities and the college
with the objective of raising funds that can be used for College activities. In
addition to the college efforts, the district is also engaging in fund-raising
activities.
Equity & Diversity
Campus Safety
Grants
Foundation
Version2.FC rev
Business services are responsible for accounting, purchasing, budget
administration, risk management and fund disbursement. Although funds
are disbursed from the district office, the approval process starts from the
campuses.
Description
Business Services
Function
Functional Map
P - College
P - District
P – College
S - District
P – College
P - District
P – District
S - College
Responsibility
P – Primary
S - Secondary
P – District
S - College
Chancellor,
Presidents,
Executive
Directors
2
Executive Vice
President, Vice
Presidents,
Deans,
Budget Director
Vice Presidents,
Directors
Title of
Responsible
Person
Vice Chancellor
- Finance &
Facilities, Vice
President,
Budget
Director,
Managers
Chancellor,
Executive Vice
President, Vice
President,
District Director
– Equity &
Diversity
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
53
Although a part of Instructional Services, Distance Education (DE) merits a
special functional definition as it is one of the fast emerging areas. DE
develops, offers and evaluates online and hybrid courses. DE collaborates
closely with the Academic Computing and Media Services to ensure
availability of appropriate digital infrastructure that facilitates student
learning.
Distance
Education
Version2.FC rev
President of the Academic Senate is responsible for curriculum
development, delivery of instruction, and assessment of student learning
outcomes. Preparation of class schedule and maintenance of catalog are
primary responsibilities of Instructional Services. Under the leadership of
Executive Vice President/Vice President, the instructional deans ensure
planning, development, and delivery of instructional services.
Instructional Services
Responsibility
P – Primary
S - Secondary
P - College
P - College
P – College
S - District
The purpose of IR & P is to provide information to the campus on the
contextual issues based on data driven research; to conduct studies on
effectiveness of campus activities with respect to student success and
learning and to promote a culture of evidence. The research outcomes are
used to drive planning agenda and discussions.
The District Public Affairs Office is responsible for coordinating the
P- District
District’s legislative advocacy efforts and special District projects (such as
P - College
the Green Planning Team); District communications with employees, news
media, and the community; and the District’s public relations and marketing
initiatives. The Campus Public Information Offices are responsible for their
individual campus communications with employees, students, news media,
and the community, and their campus public relations and marketing
initiatives. The District Public Affairs Director and Campus Public
Information Officers meet on a regular basis to plan collaborative
communications, public relations, and marketing initiatives, and to keep
each other informed of their individual initiatives.
Description
Instructional
Services
Public Affairs/
Information
Institutional
Research &
Planning
Function
Functional Map
3
Chancellor,
Executive Vice
President/ Vice
President,
Deans,
Academic
Senate
President
Executive Vice
President, Vice
President,
Deans, DE
Coordinators
District Director
– Public
Affairs,
Campus Public
Information
Officers
Title of
Responsible
Person
Vice President,
Directors
54
Cypress College
The bursar’s office provides all students with financial services related to
their educational experience and other support services for campus
programs and clubs.
Description
The Admissions and Records Office is responsible for the admission and
registration processes, reporting enrollment and attendance data, ensuring
the accuracy and maintenance of student records.
EOPS assists students with economic, linguistic, and educational challenges
to enroll and succeed in post-secondary education and successfully prepare
for careers.
Financial Aid intends to provide assistance to students with demonstrated
financial need.
Extended
Opportunities
Program &
Services (EOPS)
Financial Aid
Version2.FC rev
The DSP & S provides accommodation to students with disabilities that
ensure their equal access to college programs and maximize their potential
for success.
Disabled Students
Program and
Services (DSP &
S)
Categorical
CARE program assists single parents receiving Temporary Aid to Needy
Programs – CARE/ Families (TANF) to increase their educational skills, become more
CalWORKS
confident, and move from welfare. CalWORKS assists students to become
self-sufficient and gain independence from public assistance.
Bursar
Function
Admissions,
Record, and
Registration
Student Services
closely with the Academic Computing and Media Services to ensure
availability of appropriate digital infrastructure that facilitates student
learning.
Functional Map
P - College
Responsibility
P – Primary
S - Secondary
P - College
P - Colleges
4
Executive Vice
President, Vice
Presidents,
Deans – A & R
Title of
Responsible
Person
Vice President,
Budget
Director,
Managers
Executive Vice
President, Vice
President,
Deans,
Managers,
Faculty
Coordinators
Deans, DE
Coordinators
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
55
P - College
The LLRC help students become better learners, provides students with a
comfortable, supportive, and attractive learning environment, and help
students with preparation at all levels
The Student Activities Center creates and provides students with a safe and
welcoming environment away from the academic demands that they face on
campus, support all active campus clubs, and provides a variety of activities
that enhance student life
Library &
Learning
Resources Center
(LLRC)
Student Activities
Center
Version2.FC rev
P - College
The International Student Services helps the international students integrate
with the campus atmosphere
International
Students
P - College
P - College
Counseling department enhances student learning and success by providing
academic, career, and personal counseling
Counseling
Responsibility
P – Primary
S - Secondary
P - College
P - College
Career center provides resources and support services designed to assist
students prepare for a career and life-long learning.
Description
The goal of Matriculation is to ensure that all students who are admitted to
college complete their courses, persist to the next academic term, and
achieve their academic objectives.
Health Services provides quality health care, education, and information to
students to help reduce the need for off-site health services
Career Center
Function
Health Services
Matriculation
financial need.
Functional Map
5
Vice Presidents,
Deans,
Directors
Title of
Responsible
Person
Executive Vice
President, Vice
President,
Deans, Manager
Executive Vice
President, Vice
President,
Deans
Executive Vice
President, Vice
President,
Deans,
Managers
Executive Vice
President, Vice
President,
Deans
Executive Vice
President, Vice
President,
Deans, Manager
56
Cypress College
Version2.FC rev
Food Services
Food Services is a subcontracted service.
Description
Function
Maintenance &
Operations
Bookstore
Information
Technology
Facilities Planning and Construction has the responsibility of procurement,
construction, maintenance, and operations of all district facilities and
construction projects. Responsibilities include coordinating all contracts,
leases, facilities, planning, construction, and maintenance.
Information Services (District) and Academic Computing Technologies
(Campuses) plans for procurement, replacement, maintenance, and support
of all digital infrastructure and systems used for administrative and student
learning purposes. Responsibilities include management of student
information, financial information, human resource information, email, web
services, networks, servers and training.
M & O is responsible for all the physical plants, building, and grounds at
the campuses.
The goal of the Bookstore is to offer books and supplies to the students for
purchase.
Facilities & Infrastructure
Description
The Transfer Center provides a range of services intended to facilitate the
preparation of transfer students, especially those who are historically and
culturally underrepresented in the campus
Facilities Planning
& Construction
Function
Transfer Center
Functional Map
Responsibility
P – Primary
S - Secondary
P - College
P - College
P - College
P - District
P - College
P – District
S - College
Responsibility
P – Primary
S - Secondary
P - College
6
Vice Presidents,
Directors
Vice President,
Budget
Director,
Managers
Title of
Responsible
Person
Vice President,
Budget Director
Vice
Chancellors
Vice Presidents
Directors
Vice Presidents,
Directors
(District &
College)
Executive Vice
President,
Vice President,
Faculty (CC),
Manager (FC)
Title of
Responsible
Person
Standard I
Institutional Mission and
Effectiveness
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
57
Standard IA: Mission
The institution demonstrates strong commitment to a mission that emphasizes achievement of student learning and to communicating the mission internally and externally.
The institution uses analyses in an ongoing
and systematic cycle of evaluation, integrated
planning, implementation, and re-evaluation
to verify and improve the effectiveness by
which the mission is accomplished.
Mission
The institution has a statement of mission
that defines the institution’s broad educational purposes, its intended student population,
and its commitment to achieve student learning.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College has clearly articulated statements of
mission, vision, and core values that are widely circulated on the campus. Apart from being displayed in
divisional and various other administrative offices, the
mission statement is published in the College Catalog:
Mission
Cypress College enriches students’ lives by providing high quality education for transfer to fouryear institutions, associate degrees, career technical education, and certificate course work, as
well as basic skills and opportunities for lifelong
learning. The college is committed to promoting
student learning and success, embracing diversity, and contributing to both the economic and
social development of the surrounding community (1.4).
The mission statement is reviewed periodically to evaluate if the institutional goals and objectives satisfy the
needs of the changing student population. The current
mission statement was developed during strategic planning sessions in Spring 2004. The dialogue began in
Spring 2003 at a two-day College retreat when the institutional values were developed. This was followed by
another retreat in Spring 2004 where the mission and
vision were developed.
As part of the creation of the 2008-2011 Strategic
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Plan, the College Vision was evaluated. The committee charged with this task reaffirmed the core elements
of the College Vision and concluded that the College
was successful in fulfilling the promise of its vision and
that it needed to do a better job in communication of
the College’s accomplishments to a broader audience.
With this goal in mind, the vision of the college now
reads as follows:
Vision
A premier learning community recognized for
supporting student success and enriching society.
The drafts of mission and vision were sent to the
campus community for their review, comments, and
feedback. A “blog” was created to seek campus-wide
comment. After the reviews, the mission and vision
were presented to the Planning and Budget Committee, which recommended it to the President’s Advisory
Cabinet (PAC). PAC approved the vision and mission
in October 2004. The Board of Trustees approved the
new mission statement in November 2004 (Strategic
Plan, 2004-2008).
The periodic review of vision and mission is typically
integrated with the strategic planning cycle. During the
last strategic planning (Strategic Plan 2008-2011) process, over 45 faculty, staff, and administrators attended a colloquium at the UCLA Conference Center in
March 2008. The colloquium participants represented
different departments and constituencies. The participants reviewed existing reports and plans, evaluated
information gathered during interviews with students
and colleagues, researched demographic information,
and identified challenges facing the campus. After
careful consideration of student needs, the participants
decided to maintain the mission as written and approved in November 2004. The vision was modified
and approved as part of the creation of the 2008-2011
Strategic Plan.
Along with the mission and vision, the core values driving Cypress College are:
Core Values
Cypress College is committed to:
Excellence — quality and high standards in instruction and student services, supported by professional
growth for faculty and staff
59
Integrity — an ethical standard that emphasizes honesty, fairness, accountability, and trust
Collegiality — an environment that emphasizes
teamwork, collaboration, communication, courtesy
and respect both on campus and with the surrounding
community
Inclusiveness — a community that embraces diverse
individuals; provides an accessible, supportive climate;
and encourages a variety of perspectives and opinions
The mission and vision, together with core values,
drive the strategic actions at the College. The strategic
planning process analyzes the demographic information and reviews if the mission, vision, and core values
are guiding the actions of the College and fulfilling the
needs of students. Based on the analysis of quantitative
and qualitative data during the strategic planning process, the institution identifies a select number of strategic directions that are most suited to satisfy student
needs. In the current Strategic Plan, there are five such
strategic directions and 13 clearly articulated goals under the five strategic directions. An annual evaluation
of plans and goals, as well as their alignment with the
North Orange County Community College District, is
conducted and presented to the Board.
In its over forty years of existence, Cypress College has
demonstrated its commitment to students and enriching their lives through higher education. As a California Community College, Cypress College is an openaccess institution. The College admits all who wish to
apply and are eligible to enroll. The open-access policy
helps fulfill the critical mission of providing access to
higher education to the adjoining community members. The open-admission policy allows students with
any of the following qualifications to apply for admission:
◊
Any high school student
◊
Any person possessing a G.E.D.
◊
Any person possessing a California High
school Proficiency Certificate
◊
Any person 18 years of age or older who
may benefit from instruction, and
◊
Any K-12 student who qualifies for the
Special Admit Program
Age distribution of students (Figure 1) shows that nearly two out of three students at Cypress College are be60
low 25 years of age. Median age of students is 22 years.
The mix of students of different age groups demonstrates the commitment towards students with different
goals. Students enroll at Cypress College for a variety
of reasons, such as learning skills, basic skills improvement, earning degrees or certificates, and transferring
to four-year institutions (Institutional Effectiveness
Figure 1
Report, 2008-09). In order to cater to the needs of
students, Cypress College offers a comprehensive program of instruction that prepares students to develop
basic skills, receive vocational training, and prepare for
transfer to four-year colleges and universities. The College enrolled over 16,000 students in Fall 2009 as well
as over 15,000 in Spring 2010 (1.1). Over the last five
years, nearly 65% of students successfully completed
the courses they enrolled in (1.2). Several programs cater to the needs of students seeking a career technical
education. In fact, almost 83% of students who earned
a career technical certificate or degree in the 20082009 school year found jobs (1.3).
The College community includes members of many
surrounding cities as well as areas throughout the state
of California, other states, and other countries. Nearly
fifty percent of the students come from adjoining cities defined as the primary service area of the College
(Figure 2). The relationship between Cypress College
and local communities and high schools resulted in a
large proportion of students coming from the adjoining areas. In Fall 2009, 39% of students enrolled at
Cypress College came from the 15 feeder high schools.
This reflects commitment of the College to contribute
to social and economic development of its surrounding
communities. Cypress College shows that it is committed to economic development and relationships with
Cypress College
Self Evaluation
Figure 2
the community through active memberships in chambers of commerce of eight adjoining cities (Anaheim,
Buena Park, Cypress, Garden Grove, La Palma, Stanton, Seal Beach, and Rossmoor) and Rotary organizations. The strong community relationship is further
demonstrated by the participation of local industries
in College programs. For example, the College runs an
automobile technology program in collaboration with
the Toyota Motor Corporation. The Cypress College
Foundation is also a leader for the College in working
with and for the surrounding community.
Students come to Cypress College from a variety of
backgrounds (Figure 3). The College periodically compares its population with the overall population in Orange County. The race and ethnic composition of the
student population consistently represents that of the
county. The College has been a “minority majority”
institution for a considerable period of time, when no
single community had an overwhelming presence on
the campus. Over the last three years, the proportion of
Hispanic students has consistently increased. In 20092010, the Hispanic students became the largest group
on the campus. This is commensurate with growth of
the Hispanic population in Orange County.
The mission statement reflects the goals and commitments of the College. Nearly 64% of students from
under-represented ethnic minorities and over 39%
first-generation in college (Spring 2010), the College
successfully provides access to the population who
needs it the most. The local community is well represented by the students who enroll in the college. The
support, involvement, diversity, and economic enrichment of the local community are all part of the culture
of the College. Assessment, orientation, and counseling — three matriculation services — have progressively served a larger student population over the years.
During 2008-2009, a total of 9,575 students were assessed, 31,062 received counseling, and 4,925 received
orientation services. The Student Equity Plan specifically compares the performance among various student groups. Based on the findings, special programs
such as Puente are offered to help integrate the students to College and help them succeed.
Planning Agenda
None.
1. The institution establishes student learning
programs and services aligned with its purposes, its character, and its student population.
Descriptive Summary
The institutional mission and vision drive planning,
the development of programs and services, and allocation of resources. The Educational Master Plan 20062016 used the mission and vision as guiding principles
Nearly 64% of the students in Spring 2010 were from
ethnic minority groups and almost 40% of them were
first generation colleges. In accordance with its mission,
Cypress College not only provides access to higher education to these students, but also tracks their success.
Note: All charts were prepared by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning, Cypress College.
Figure 3
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
61
to set long-term goals. Every three years, the campus
engages in a strategic planning process that evaluates
demographic information, discusses challenges and
opportunities facing the College, and creates an action plan for the three-year period. The most recent
Strategic Plan was developed in 2008 for the period
2008-2011. Keeping with the institutional mission, a
primary goal is to help students with diverse interests
and needs meet their educational objectives. The current Strategic Plan has five broad directions.
Strategic Plan Directions
Cypress College staff and students recognize the importance and interdependence of diversity, innovation,
technology, and staff development. These threads are
reflected in all of the five strategic directions. There are
multiple goals that address each direction. The Strategic Plan also provides specific objectives that would collectively fulfill the goals. The accomplishment of goals
and objectives is reviewed annually.
serve.
Based on the mission and vision, Cypress College also
developed Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILO).
The institutional learning outcomes articulate what
students are intended to learn at the completion of
their education and what they are assessed for.
Institutional Learning Outcomes
(ILOs)
Students leaving Cypress College with a vocational
certificate and/or an Associate Degree in Liberal Arts,
Occupational Studies, or General Studies, or students
transferring with general education certification will
demonstrate common learning outcomes. Institutional
Learning Outcomes (ILOs) refer to the scope of requirements either for a vocational certificate or for any
AA/AS degree or general education certification rather than individual courses or programs.
Designing, enhancing, and delivering comprehensive
and accessible instruction to promote academic excellence and student learning.
The College assesses service to students who complete
an overall college degree or certificate by examining and assessing General Education and Basic Skills
PLOs. The College also assesses service to students in
specific courses by examining general student achievement in course-level SLOs.
Direction 2 — Student and Academic Support
Services
A student who receives a certificate from Cypress College…
Developing and providing comprehensive student and
academic support services to foster a positive and effective learning environment.
• Will have acquired a specified set of skills required for particular employment opportunities
Direction 3 — Campus Support and Infrastructure
• Will have achieved the necessary competencies to enter a particular employment field
Ensuring that campus support services and resources
are provided in an effective and efficient manner.
• Will be aware of additional educational and
career opportunities within that field
Direction 4 — Climate, Involvement, and Communication
A student who graduates from Cypress College with an
AA or AS degree in any field or transfers with a general
education certification…
Direction 1 — Instruction
Promoting a campus climate that embraces diversity
and supports excellence, integrity, collegiality, and inclusiveness, by supporting communication and involvement throughout the College.
Direction 5 — Collaborative Relations and
Marketing
Improving marketing efforts and establishing and
strengthening collaborative relationships with other
educational institutions and with the communities we
62
• Will possess a breadth of knowledge and experiences from the areas of the humanities
and arts; the natural sciences and mathematics; the social sciences; and physical education
• Will possess skills for life-long learning in oral
and written communication; human adaptability and health; critical thinking, including
deductive/inductive reasoning, problem-solvCypress College
ing, and quantitative/qualitative reasoning;
and information competency
• Will possess an understanding of civic society
and culture in the areas of citizen rights and
responsibilities; the role of diversity in modern society; and the nature of ethical decision
making (1.4).
The Strategic Plan direction, together with the ILOs
and SLOs, clearly set the institutional intent to serve
its students. Student needs are assessed by carefully
evaluating the demographic information and aligning
resources to serve students.
Programs Designed to Serve Students
The College provides services aligned with its mission
through a full-service student service operation for incoming and current students. With the increase in the
Hispanic population in Orange County, the number
of students whose first language is not English has also
grown. In fact, in Fall 2009, Hispanic students were the
single largest ethnic group on campus. To serve these
students well, the College strengthened its English as
Second Language (ESL) program. The improved performance in ESL reflects the effect of this initiative.
Another example of aligning student needs and services is in the area of Basic Skills.
As the number of first generation students and students from ethnic minorities has increased, the need
for a strong basic skills program was recognized (Figure
4). Under the tutelage of the Basic Skills Committee,
the College has developed a multi-year plan to serve
under-prepared students (1.14). The results are evident
from the improved performance of students moving
Figure 4
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
from basic skills to credit courses.
Each of the student services areas carefully evaluates
the entering student population and offers services to
best suit the needs of students. The Counseling Division provides academic counseling, orientation, classes,
career information, college transfer information, course
articulation, and matriculation placement services. Financial Aid provides grant and loan information and
distribution services. The number of Pell Grant recipients has increased by 39% between 2006-2007 and
2008-2009 (Dashboard of Institutional Effectiveness
1.13). Assessment provides testing, course placement in
math and English, and transcript evaluation to place
students in the correct achievement level for success in
coursework. Specialized programs to help disabled students and economically disadvantaged are also available in the Disabled Students Program and Services
office, TRAC, and the CARE offices.
In addition, the Admissions and Records, Information Counter, and Bursars offices stand ready to help
students enroll in classes. Enrollment and admissions
are summarized in the “Six Easy Steps” process (1.5).
Most of the enrollment services are available online
24/7 through the College website and the College portal: myGateway. Students can apply, enroll, and pay for
classes online. A new Student Services Building was
dedicated in Spring 2009. All student services are available near or around the center of the campus by the
College campanile.
Cypress College is proud to accept 100% of its eligible applicants. The College uses CCCApply, which
was developed for California Community Colleges as
a California Community College Chancellor’s Office
Funded Application System. Because of the open enrollment commitment of all California Community
Colleges, Cypress College accepts over 20,000 applications per year (1.1). Students who enroll go through the
Six Easy Steps to the Registration Process: Admission,
Assessment, Orientation, Counseling, Enrollment Fee
Waiver (optional), and finally Registration. By following these steps, students are coached, encouraged, and
placed in classes and programs according to their educational goals. Cypress College demonstrates effective
measures of instruction, student learning outcomes,
and program completion (1.6).
Cypress College focuses its attention on student learning. Over and over, students come first. Starting with
63
student services and into the classroom, student learning outcomes have been established. The latter part of
the Mission Statement reflects this commitment to students and student success.
relate to the Strategic Plan 2008-2011 and the overriding Educational Master Plan (1.7, 1.8).
Further evidence of commitment to student learning is
demonstrated in the institutional learning outcomes as
well as individual courses and programs. In addition,
discussions of student learning are part of the Strategic Plan Directions One and Two and were prominent in forming of the directions (1.11). The Mission
Statement also includes a statement of commitment to
promoting student learning and success (1.4). This ties
with the student learning outcomes that are part of the
College’s student services, courses, and programs.
The learning programs and services of the College are
aligned with its mission, The student body is representative of the service area of the College. The College
periodically analyzes how well the College mission is
aligned with student needs and how students are benefiting from the services offered by the College. The
mission statement aligns the College with its students
and community, and its commitment to diversity. Its
mission statement also aligns the College with its purpose of being a comprehensive college committed to
student learning and success, and social and economic
development in the community.
Every two years, the College engages the service of
Noel-Levitz — a national organization — to survey its
students (Figure 5). The survey not only measures student satisfaction at Cypress College, but also compares
it with other institutions. The last survey, conducted in
Fall 2009, showed that Cypress College student satisfaction is ahead of the national average in all the areas
measured. Despite overall high level of student satisfaction, however, there are areas that need focus and
improvement. The survey results are discussed with
Deans, Leadership Team, Planning and Budget Committee, and President’s Advisory Cabinet. Areas for
improvement are identified based on the survey, and
remedial action is formulated. For example, the survey
identified that students expressed concern regarding
advising services. The issue was analyzed, and an action plan to identify the underlying cause of concern
was formulated. Beginning Fall 2010, all students will
receive a quick survey after advising sessions, and the
results will be analyzed. This is an example of how
the College uses assessment results to improve student
learning.
A wide range of assessments are applied relating to Cypress College students: Student achievement, success
rates, retention rates, basic skills improvement in math
and English, persistence, awards of degrees and certificates, and transfer to California State Universities
and Universities of California. Other assessments applied relate to enrollment, characteristics of students,
staff, service areas, instructional programs, student service programs, campus support, and special programs.
Student learning outcomes have become integrated as
part of the assessment process. All of these assessments
64
Self Evaluation
Planning Agenda
None.
2. The mission statement is approved by the
governing board and published.
Descriptive Summary
The mission statement of the College was presented
for review again in Fall 2008 to the faculty, administration, and students. During the previous Spring, it was
reviewed by Planning and Budget, the President’s Advisory Cabinet as well as by the Leadership Team. The
Planning and Budget Committee approved it in Fall
2008, with final approval given by the President’s Advisory Cabinet on September 18, 2008 (1.5).
During its last review, the mission statement of Cypress
College was presented as part of the College Strategic
Plan on December 9, 2008, and was entered as formally received by the North Orange County Community College District (NOCCCD) Board of Trustees at
its December 9, 2008, meeting (1.6). It is published in
the College Catalog, Schedule of Classes, and the College’s website (1.3, 1.4, 1.10).
Self Evaluation
The mission statement was reviewed on campus
through the shared-governance practice and process
and presented to the NOCCCD Board of Trustees in
a timely manner.
Cypress College
cess and the inclusiveness of all the stakeholders as well
as Foundation Board of Directors and other community partners (1.7).
Self Evaluation
Figure 5
Planning Agenda
None.
3. Using the institution’s governance and decision-making processes, the institution reviews
its mission statement on a regular basis and
revises it as necessary.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College is a shared-governance institution.
Major planning, policies, and decisions are reviewed at
all levels of governance. Various committees, the Academic Senate, and groups both formally and informally review, discuss, and debate issues and policies. The
mission statement is reviewed and revised according to
this process approximately every three years. This review and process is detailed earlier in this section.
Since the mission statement is part of the Strategic
Plan, it is reviewed each time the Strategic Plan is reviewed. The current Strategic Plan (1.7) covers years
2008-2011 and was developed during 2008 involving many participants from the campus and advisory
groups from the community. With this three-year process, there is substantial dialog between the sharedgovernance groups — students, faculty, managers, and
classified staff — providing substantial opportunities
for input and decision making by all stakeholders.
When the Strategic Plan comes to the end of its cycle,
the Vice President of Administrative Services and the
Director of the Office of Institutional Research and
Planning take the lead to bring the constituencies of
the campus together to review and revise the College
Strategic Plan. The College President’s message on
Page 1 of the current Strategic Plan describes the proInstitutional Self Study — Spring 2011
The College gathers demographic information, labor
market information, and academic information of the
adjoining communities as the basic input for the strategic plan process. The representatives from different sections of the campus then engage in a dialog to identify
strategic directions that would serve potential students.
The core groups of stakeholders, students, members of
the community, faculty, managers, and staff, responding to community demographics and advisory groups,
meet to use assessment data and work as a team to use
the shared-governance process to update the mission
statement of the college.
Planning Agenda
None.
4. The institution’s mission is central to institutional planning and decision making.
Descriptive Summary
The mission statement is central to the Educational
Master Plan (EMP), the long term planning document
of the College. The EMP was created for the ten-year
period 2006 to 2016. In order to identify short-term
goals that would contribute to accomplishment of the
broad goals of EMP, several planning documents were
created. These planning documents, such as Basic
Skills and Distance Education, focus on specific operational areas of the College. Every three years, a strategic plan is drawn up that provides the directions that
the College wants to pursue during the strategic plan
period of three years. The relationship and hierarchy
of plans is shown in the planning diagram (Figure 6).
Thus, the institutional mission is integrated through
the Educational Master Plan (EMP) into the Strategic
Plan document along with Vision, Core Values, and
Strategic Directions (1.8). Program Review, Student
Services Master Plan, and Department EMP as well
as the Institutional Educational Master Plan are all examples of the breadth to which the mission statement
is included.
◊
Funding processes for professional
65
conferences, Program Review, and
One-Time Budget Requests are other
examples of the college commitment
to the Strategic Plan Direction One tie
required to get funding.
◊
◊
The mission statement is integrated into
the Strategic Plan. Page 3 of the current
plan documents the purpose of the plan
and its use in the decisions and allocations made at the College (1.9).
Cypress College’s decision making is
directly prompted by its mission statement, which in turn directly influences
the College’s planning process and all
departmental and institutional planning.
More specifically, the College’s mission,
practices, and decision-making processes
can be found in the College Catalog,
Educational Master Plan, and Student
Services Master Plan (1.3, 1.8, 1.11). All
decisions pertaining to budget changes,
program development, and student
service development originates from the
planning process. These decisions are
confirmed by ensuring that there is a
direct connection to the College’s mission statement. For example, the Cypress
College Principles for Budget Reductions review (updated 9/18/08) indicates
specifically that Cypress College will
keep in mind its vision, mission, and core
values when making budget reductions.
More specifically, Reference point 5
states, “Recognize that Student Services
are a critical part of this college mission”
(1.12).
rent mission of the College and who it is serving. The
College’s emphasis is on student learning and makes its
decisions as a result of the shared-governance culture
of the College. The College ties budgets and funding
to student learning outcomes and shows outcomes and
results as reflected in its mission statement. The College regularly seeks input from and listens to suggestions from its employees and community.
Planning Agenda
None.
Reference Documents
1.1CCCApply, Applications Report, XAP Software,
Culver City, California
1.2Cypress College Institutional Effectiveness Report
2008-2009, November, 2009 — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/rreports.aspx
1.3Cypress College Catalog 2009 – 2010 — www.
cypresscollege.edu/academics/CollegeCatalog.aspx
1.4Cypress College Schedule of Classes 2010 —www.
cypresscollege.edu/academics/ScheduleofClasses.
aspx
1.5Meeting minutes, September 18, 2008, Cypress
College President’s Advisory Cabinet — J:\President’s Advisory Cabinet\2008-2009
1.6Meeting minutes, December 9, 2008, North Orange County Community College Board of Trustees — www.nocccd.edu/Trustees/MtgMinutesArchive2010.htm
1.7Cypress College Strategic Plan 2008-2011 — www.
cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/
pdocuments.aspx
1.8Educational Master Plan — www.cypresscollege.
edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspx
Self Evaluation
1.9
The College’s broad student learning programs and
services coordinate well with its educational purposes,
goals, and student population. As of Fall 2010, the
College has begun creating a centralized repository of
plans and goals where all the plans, stated goals, and
their relationship to the College mission will be identified. The mission statement drives all the planning
processes at the College. Additionally, the College periodically reviews its mission statement to reflect the cur-
1.10Cypress College website — www.cypresscollege.
edu/
66
Leadership Team Meeting
1.11Student Services Master Plan — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.
aspx
1.12Cypress College Principles for Budget Reductions
— J:\President’s Advisory Cabinet\2008-2009
1.13Dashboard of Institutional Effectiveness — www.
cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Research/
Cypress College
SE/2009-2010IERDashboard_alt.pdf
1.14Basic Skills Plan — www.cypresscollege.edu/
about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspxFinal.4-25-08.pdf
1.15Institutional Research and Planning — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspx
Figure 6
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
67
Standard IB: Improving
Institutional
Effectiveness
The institution demonstrates a conscious effort to produce and support student learning,
measure that learning, assess how well learning is occurring, and make changes to improve
student learning. The institution also organizes its key processes and allocates its resources
to effectively support student learning. The
institution demonstrates its effectiveness by
providing 1) evidence of the achievement of
student learning outcomes and 2) evidence of
institution and program performance. The institution uses ongoing and systematic evaluation and planning to refine its key processes
and improve student learning.
1. The institution maintains an ongoing, collegial, self-reflective dialogue about the continuous improvement of student learning and
institutional processes
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College has long engaged in an integrated,
collegial, and self-reflective dialogue about continual
improvement of the College and its student learning
processes, programs, and services. Constituent groups
have established internal structures and procedures
such as program review and budget allocation model
so that their ideas, initiatives, and concerns can be advanced to College-level planning bodies. These planning bodies — in particular the President’s Advisory
Cabinet (PAC), Leadership Team, and the Planning
and Budget Committee (PBC) — bring together all
College constituents to discuss, plan for, and allocate
resources as needed. Along with faculty and staff participation, the College has encouraged the inclusion of
students in the designated campus committees. The
Associated Student representatives participate in all
committees including PAC, Planning and Budget, Curriculum, Diversity, Academic Senate, District Planning
Council, and Student Learning Outcomes. Committee
participations ensure that students’ opinions are considered in the decision-making process. Various dialogues are structured as determined by campus groups
charged with different action plans as outlined in the
68
following paragraphs.
Significant discussion has taken place regarding planning, accreditation, program review, student learning
outcomes, matriculation, research, grant writing, the
planning and budget process, the curriculum development process, and other collaborative activities. Although these activities have not always been recognized
as “dialogues,” they do reflect the primary intent of
the dialogue concept, which is to create “a group discussion among ‘colleagues’ that is designed to explore
complex issues, create greater group intelligence, and
facilitate group learning” (2.37). At Cypress College,
these dialogues have taken many forms that involve
faculty, staff, administration, students, and community
members to provide discussion and the expression of
ideas, concerns, and objections.
A. Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) Dialogue:
When Cypress College embarked on the exploration
of a new type of SLO assessment, dialogues and forums were scheduled to introduce and facilitate the development of the process. These meetings were open
to all faculty and instructional deans. Issues and processes were openly discussed; concerns were heard and
documented. In Fall 2003 and Spring 2004, a series
of dialogues produced a list of Institutional Learning
Outcomes (ILO) that were approved by the Academic
Senate in April 2004, adopted by the College in May
2004, and published in the 2004-2005 College Catalog
(2.1). In Fall 2004, another series of dialogues led to
the mapping of all instructional courses to ILOs according to these two factors: the extent to which the
course provides opportunities for students to achieve
the ILO, and the level of mastery, which reflects the
degree to which students are expected to achieve the
ILO by the time they complete the course (2.2). In addition, the Fall 2004 dialogue group set the groundwork for course SLO assessment. In Fall 2005, an SLO
Trainer was hired to develop and deliver SLO writing
workshops to divisions and departments. In May 2006,
another set of dialogues were held to discuss the best
way to proceed with SLO assessment. In Fall 2007, six
separate dialogues resulted in a series of SLO Assessment Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and Recommendations, which were approved by the Academic
Senate by the end of the semester (2.3). Prior to these
dialogues, the SLO Team consisted of the SLO CoCypress College
ordinator, the SLO Assessment Facilitator, the Staff
Development Coordinator, and the Director of Institutional Research. As a result of the dialogues, an
Expanded SLO Team comprised of divisional representatives was created and has met once a month since
(2.4). During Spring 2008, a subcommittee was formed
to evaluate available assessment management software.
A recommendation was made to the Expanded SLO
Committee about the software most appropriate for
the College.
The subcommittee met several times and selected seven
different software systems for further evaluation. After
observing the software capabilities through web conferences, the subcommittee selected four systems for live,
on-campus presentations open to all faculty members,
administrators, and district colleagues. These presentations were held in April 2008; subsequently, TracDat
— an assessment management software — was selected and purchased in Fall 2008. Before the implementation and configuration of TracDat, the SLO Team
requested that an Institutional Effectiveness Task Force
be convened to review all planning, program review,
and budgeting processes of the College. With the approval and adoption of the Institutional Effectiveness
Plan (2.11) by the Academic Senate and President’s
Advisory Cabinet in May 2009, configuration of
TracDat occurred in May 2009, and training on the
TracDat system began in October 2009. In April 2009
and September 2009, two forums were held to discuss
General Education assessment (2.5). As a result of the
forums, a General Education Committee was formed
with divisional representation to explore the best way
to assess general education learning outcomes. The
General Education Committee met several times in
Fall of 2009 and Spring of 2010 and drafted the General Education learning outcomes. The committee’s
recommendations were taken to the Academic Senate for approval before the assessment process began
(2.99). Starting Spring 2010, the Curriculum committee required all faculty members to include the student
learning outcomes on course syllabi (2.100). The documentation work done by the SLO Team was recognized as exemplary by RP Group, a statewide research
and planning organization.
B. Institutional Effectiveness Dialogue:
The history of dialogues on Institutional Effectiveness
goes back to Fall 2002 when a task force was formed to
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
recommend a process for regular evaluation of institutional effectiveness. The taskforce, which consisted of
faculty, administrators, and staff, reviewed models from
other colleges, identified strengths and weaknesses in
existing campus assessment processes, and considered
ways to align the institutional effectiveness review process with the planning and budget process (2.6). The
task force efforts were followed with a campus-wide
colloquium on institutional effectiveness in March
2003 (2.7). Subsequently, Student Services Quality Review (2.8, 2.9) and Campus Support Services Quality
Review (2.10) were developed in Fall 2003 and Spring
2004, respectively.
Another Institutional Effectiveness Task Force consisting of 14 members (two students; two researchers;
two deans; one staff; and seven faculty members) was
commissioned in 2009 to develop an Institutional Effectiveness Plan. The Task Force met several times during Spring 2009 and conducted a review of all student
learning outcomes processes, College program review
processes, and Strategic Plan/Educational Master Plan
action plans and reporting processes at Cypress College. Through various dialogues, an integrated system
was developed to evaluate how effectively the institution fulfills its mission. During this time, the student
learning outcome management software, TracDat, was
configured. TracDat is a relational database and outcomes management system that links student learning
outcomes with course, program, and department goals
and establishes the connection among the accomplishment of the departmental goals, aligning them with
strategic plan goals and institutional mission (2.11).
The final objective is to centralize all assessment activities, including program review, in TracDat.
C. Strategic Planning Dialogue:
The process of dialogue has been integral to the Strategic Planning process from its inception. The 20002004 and 2004-2008 strategic plans were developed
with involvement from a wide spectrum of the Cypress
College community that included students and employees as well as the Foundation Board of Directors
and other community partners. The 2008-2011 Strategic Plan was developed based on the input from the
nearly 50 members of the Cypress College community
who attended the Strategic Planning Colloquium. The
participants included all segments of the campus, from
students to faculty and managers to classified staff. The
69
colloquium brought together many varied perspectives
about the campus. Their work was then synthesized,
sorted, analyzed, and coalesced into a working draft.
That draft was then shared across campus communities for review, input, and revision (2.12, 2.13).
cation Plan received endorsement of the Curriculum
Committee and approval by the Cypress College Academic Senate.
D. Planning and Budget Dialogue:
By far, though, most of the dialogues that occur on
campus have occurred in settings that do not utilize
the term but which do follow the procedures. The primary assumption of a dialogue is that participants view
themselves as colleagues. Cypress College has adopted
a Core Value of Collegiality (2.22), the concept that
a campus should be “an environment that emphasizes teamwork, collaboration, communication, courtesy and respect both on the campus and with the surrounding community.” The Core Value of Collegiality
underlies the approach taken in the interactions that
occur on the campus, whether they have been formally
identified as “dialogues” or not. Another assumption is
that “dialogue improves collective thinking.” The College has also adopted the Core Value of Inclusiveness
(2.22), the idea that it is “a community that embraces
diverse individuals; provides an accessible, supportive
climate; and encourages a variety of perspectives and
opinions.” As a result, the campus benefits from the
collective thinking of individuals from diverse backgrounds and different ideas who are supported in the
articulation of their positions. While many of the colloquia and retreats have featured the use of a facilitator, the vast majority of campus dialogues have not
relied upon an outside agent but have depended on the
campus’s own processes and values to reach the goals
articulated by the concept of dialogue.
The College has committed itself to a process in which
planning drives the budget. There is a strong belief in
strengthening all relevant committees, constituencies,
departments, divisions, and services. Planning and
budget relies heavily on planning documents developed through dialogues and committee participation.
These documents include: Educational Master Plan
(2.14), Student Services Master Plan (2.15), Distance
Education Plan (2.16), Student Equity Plan (2.17),
Technology Plan (2.18), and Basic Skills Action Plan
(2.19, 2.20). The Planning and Budget Committee recognized the need to and has now tied areas such as
Student Learning Outcomes, Department Planning
and Program Review (2.21), Campus Support Services
Quality Review (2.10), Student Support Services Quality Review (2.9), and the Curriculum Committee process into the Planning and Budget process in order to
improve institutional effectiveness (2.96).
E. Distance Education Plan Dialogue:
Cypress College offered its first course via the Internet
during the Fall 1999 semester. By Fall 2008, nearly 150
online and over 15 hybrid courses were offered. The
tremendous growth of the Distance Education (DE)
Program is a direct result of the determination and
dedication of the students, faculty, staff, and administration of the College. The Cypress College Strategic
Plan 2008-2011, approved on October 23, 2008, set
a goal for the development of a comprehensive Distance Education Plan that addresses standards for student and instructor proficiency, and identifies strategies
to improve student success, retention, and persistence
(2.13). The entire Cypress College community was
invited to participate in its development. Four meetings for the development of the DE Plan structure and
content were held. Conversations included analysis of
strengths and weaknesses of distance education, generally, and at Cypress College, specifically. Individual
team members completed “homework” between meetings, which included results of their research on specific sections of the plan, and written responses to, or
summaries of, that research (2.16). The Distance Edu70
F. Inclusive and Pervasive Dialogue Encompassing all Constituencies:
In addition to the specific topics noted earlier, the curriculum process, course and program development,
student success, retention, and persistence rates, technology planning, accreditation, and meeting of user
groups associated with construction projects have also
been focal points of campus dialogues.
Cypress College
pact on campus-wide planning and decision making
(2.92).
Figure 1: Participation
The Cypress College Foundation has also had several
planning retreats, and the Community Advisory Group
(2.23) has been part of the dialogues in a variety of settings. District and campus policies and procedures are
also discussed in an open process and with a sense of
collegiality.
The College President is committed to the concept of
institutionalization of dialogue and has implemented it
in a variety of forums. In addition to the normal interactions as are found in the President’s Advisory Cabinet, the primary participatory governance group on
campus (2.24), dialogue is a capstone of the Management Team meetings (2.25), Leadership Team meetings (2.26), and a variety of other forums on campus.
In keeping with the College’s Core Value of “Inclusiveness,” these efforts have expanded the participation
of different segments of the campus community in the
process of information gathering and decision making. Figure 1 shows participation in shared governance
committees by constituency.
The Office of Institutional Research and Planning has
proven to be an important source of data and analysis
necessary to support Strategic Planning, Department
Planning and Program Review (2.21), Student Support
Services Quality Review (2.8, 2.9), Campus Support
Services Quality Review (2.10), and Planning and Budget. As more members of the campus community have
become aware of the variety of information available,
they have begun to play a larger and more informed
role in the campus dialogue about improving student
learning and overall institutional effectiveness. The
most recent review by Institutional Research and Planning reveals that over 95% of the respondents believe
Institutional Research and Planning had a positive imInstitutional Self Study — Spring 2011
The President and others on campus have made a conscious effort to engage all constituencies in the planning and institutional improvement dialogue. However, although invited to participate, not all individuals
choose to participate in the dialogue. This is sometimes
a matter of apathy or over-commitment in other areas by a faculty and staff burdened by ever-increasing
workloads. Students, in particular, although encouraged to participate, are often difficult to include in the
dialogue process because of their commitments and/
or a lack of awareness regarding the impact of their
participation.
As a consequence, the dialogue sometimes fails to involve as much participation as desired, or is not attended by as many individuals or constituencies to be
fully characteristic of and as broadly based as a sharedgovernance process should be. Nonetheless, the College embraces and understands the purpose of the dialogue and has made great effort to reach the goal of
institutionalizing that process in a variety of settings.
The awareness, participation, effectiveness, and involvement in the planning process among constituency
groups is shown in Figure 2.
In addition to the opportunities already mentioned,
opportunities for information sharing include the following documents and committees:
◊
Strategic Plan 2008-2011 (2.13)
◊
Educational Master Plan (2.14)
◊
Technology Plan (2.18)
Figure 2: Effectiveness of Planning Process: Climate Survey, Spring 2010
71
72
◊
Student Services Master Plan (2.15)
◊
CTE Advisory Committees (2.86)
◊
Matriculation Plan (2.28)
◊
College Colloquiums and Retreats (2.35)
◊
Distance Education Plan (2.16)
◊
Basic Skills Committee (2.19, 2.20)
◊
Basic Skills Plan (2.19)
◊
Distance Education Committee (2.16)
◊
Student Equity Plan (2.17)
◊
◊
Cypress College Website (2.68, 2.69)
Workforce Development Committee
(Grants) (2.90)
◊
@ Cypress (2.74)
◊
Opening Day (Fall & Spring)
◊
End-of-the-Year Reports (2.57, 2.58,
2.59, 2.60, 2.61)
◊
Campus Budget Meeting scheduled by
Chancellor
◊
Institutional Effectiveness Reports (2.27,
2.42, 2.43, 2.44)
◊
Campus-wide Special Meeting for Budget Update
◊
Institutional Research and Planning Bulletins (2.72, 2.73)
◊
Foundation Strategic Plan (2.82)
◊
Academic Senate (2.78)
◊
Deans & Directors (2.83)
◊
Planning and Budget Committee (2.31,
2.40, 2.41, 2.67)
◊
Management Team (2.25)
◊
Leadership Team (2.26)
◊
Curriculum Committee – evaluate
courses, programs, certificates, and degrees. (2.84)
◊
Division Meetings – Campus activities,
initiatives, goals, programs, directions,
opportunities, challenges, and barriers
are discussed. (2.88)
◊
Department Meetings – faculty members
revise SLOs, develop curriculum, and
evaluate department goals (2.89)
◊
Department Planning and Program Review – Annual academic program review
(2.21)
◊
Student Support Services Quality Review (2.8, 2.9)
◊
Campus Support Services Quality Review (2.10)
◊
President’s Advisory Cabinet (2.24)
◊
Staff Development (2.85)
Self Evaluation
The variety of opportunities to engage in dialogue
reflects the College’s commitment to an environment
where participation, institutional effectiveness, and innovation are encouraged and embraced. Additionally,
because of its commitment to both Core Values of
Collegiality and Inclusiveness, Cypress College has engaged in dialogue on all essential issues but recognizes
that it can always improve the breadth and depth of
the dialogue as well as the level of participation. The
College has succeeded in promoting dialogue among
the groups described in this section, and members of
the College community concur that they have an opportunity to participate in the planning process that
they believe is effective (Figure 2) and that the goal of
the dialogue is to work on improving student learning
and institutional effectiveness.
Planning Agenda
None.
2. The institution sets goals to improve its
effectiveness consistent with its stated purposes. The institution articulates its goals and
states the objectives derived from them in
measurable terms so that the degree to which
they are achieved can be determined and
widely discussed. The institutional members
understand these goals and work collaboratively toward their achievement.
Cypress College
Descriptive Summary
Through a collective, collaborative process, Cypress
College established its Strategic Plan with five clearly
articulated Strategic Directions that reflect 13 goals
and 37 strategies to accomplish those goals (2.13). The
Strategic Plan for the period 2008-2011 was approved
and adopted in Fall 2008. Some strategies are multiyear while others are single year. The 2008-2009 Institutional Effectiveness Report, Table 18, (2.27) lists all
the goals and strategies and provides the status.
The planning process and development of the Strategic Plan at Cypress College build on the strategic goals
identified by the District. Beginning with the Educational Master Plan, the College has developed several
plans to define the scope of activities in the critical areas of the institution. Collectively, these plans set out
the operational context and intended direction of the
institution. The accomplishment of these plan objectives individually and collectively reflects how well the
institution is progressing towards its stated goals. Currently, the following plans have been approved and are
being pursued institutionally:
◊
Educational Master Plan (2.14)
◊
Student Services Master Plan (2.15)
◊
Matriculation Plan (2.28)
◊
Distance Education Plan (2.16)
◊
Technology Plan (2.18)
◊
Basic Skills Plan (2.19)
◊
Student Equity Plan (2.17)
◊
Enrollment Management Plan (2.97)
The periods of these plans differ although all of them
are being implemented concurrently and all influence
the Strategic Plan. Each of the plans has specific and
measurable goals and objectives and a timeframe for
accomplishing them. The action plans are specific so
that it is possible to assess the extent to which the goals
have been achieved. The strategic goals are tied to the
Mission and Vision Statements and Core Values of the
College and ultimately to the student, program and institutional program learning outcomes. An update on
the strategic plan goals was added in the current version of the Institutional Effectiveness Report (2.27) to
provide the operational context of the institution. The
actual plans can be obtained from the Office of InInstitutional Self Study — Spring 2011
stitutional Research and Planning and are referenced
elsewhere in this document.
The planning process at Cypress College is guided
by the overall directions provided in the mission and
Strategic Plan of the North Orange County Community College District. The institutional effectiveness
perspective helps establish the relationship between
the missions of the District and the College, the institutional learning outcomes, program learning outcomes, and the student learning outcomes established
for individual departments and programs. Assessment
results of student learning outcomes are used to evaluate accomplishment of the institutional mission, thereby establishing a cycle of institutional improvement
based on clearly established goals and performance
standards. The assessment outcomes are also used to
drive the institutional dialogue of continuous quality
improvement.
The central theme of institutional effectiveness is built
around student success. This is demonstrated through
the multiple planning documents that collectively define what the short- and long-term goals of the College
are, how the College allocates resources to provide the
physical and academic infrastructure required for student learning, and how the goals align with the mission
and vision of the North Orange County Community
College District (NOCCCD) and those of the College.
The Educational Master Plan sets the long-term goals
of the institution; the Strategic Plan breaks them down
into short-term goals and drives the annual planning
and budget process. The objectives identify specific
ways to strengthen institutional effectiveness within
three-year cycles. Completing the objectives requires
sustained and collaborative efforts by many at the College (2.29). Progress on the objectives is monitored
annually by the Strategic Plan Direction Committees
(2.30), Planning and Budget, President’s Advisory Cabinet, Academic Senate, and other campus constituencies. Figure 29 in the Institutional Effectiveness Report
(2.27) illustrates the connections between the Educational Master Plan (2.14), Strategic Plan (2.13), and
Planning and Budget Process (2.31, 2.31, 2.33, 2.34).
In its Strategic Plan, Cypress College has articulated
five Strategic Directions (2.13) as follows:
Direction One: Instruction
Designing, enhancing, and delivering comprehensive
73
and accessible instruction to promote academic excellence and student learning.
Direction Two: Student and Academic Support
Services
Developing and providing comprehensive student and
academic support services to foster a positive and effective learning environment.
Direction Three: Campus Support and Infrastructure
Ensuring that campus support services and resources
are provided in an effective and efficient manner.
Direction Four: Climate, Involvement, and
Communication
Promoting a campus climate that embraces diversity
and supports excellence, integrity, collegiality, and inclusiveness, by supporting communication and involvement throughout the college.
Direction Five: Collaborative Relations and
Marketing
Improving marketing efforts, and establishing and
strengthening collaborative relationships with other
educational institutions and with the communities we
serve.
The Strategic Plan also serves as a core document for
annual discussions regarding the allocation of faculty
positions, one-time funds, and other resources. For further insight into the role of the Strategic Plan relative
to other college plans and processes, please see the Diagram of the Planning Process (2.31).
Development of the 2008-2011 Strategic Plan
The Strategic Plan was developed with extensive involvement of and understanding by all parts of the
campus community. In March 2008, 50 members of
Cypress College attended a strategic planning colloquium at the UCLA Conference Center in Lake Arrowhead (2.35). Participants included students, faculty,
classified staff, and managers. In addition, colloquium
participants had been at the College from as little as
six months to more than 38 years and represented
many different programs and departments. Please
see Appendix B (Page 12) of the Strategic Plan for a
complete list of colloquium participants (2.13). Prior
to the colloquium, participants prepared statements
about the most significant strengths at the College and
74
what needed most urgent attention. These statements
were based upon a wide variety of resources including interviews of students and colleagues, and existing
reports and plans (including the Educational Master
Plan (2.14), the Student Services Master Plan (2.15),
the NOCCCD District Strategic Plan (2.36), the Basic
Skills Plan (2.19), Matriculation Plan (2.28), Distance
Education Plan (2.16), Technology Plan (2.18), and
recommendations to the College from the accrediting
commission (2.37, 2.38, 2.39). This pre-colloquium assignment was designed to (1) solicit input from members of the College who were not able to attend the
retreat and (2) connect the new Strategic Plan to significant work and plans underway at the College and
District. At the colloquium, participants met in small
and large groups to agree upon the primary challenges facing the College. These challenges soon fell into
several broad topic areas: student success and retention, resource development, communication, campus
involvement, training and orientation, and marketing.
Participants then drafted strategies and objectives to
address the six primary challenges. Towards the end
of the colloquium, participants met as a large group
to reflect upon their work and discuss implications and
next steps. The group agreed that because the previous
strategic directions (and some goals) were still considered to be relevant, the new Strategic Plan should keep
a similar structure, with five strategic directions.
The Office of Institutional Research and Planning
provided demographic trend data for the service areas,
helped to plan and coordinate the retreat, participated
in the break-out sessions, and worked with volunteers
on follow-up activities after the retreat. Scanning teams
composed of individuals from a broad spectrum of
College constituencies gathered and reflected upon information available from a wide variety of sources. At
the Strategic Planning Colloquium, participants identified key trends likely to have significant impact on the
future of the College.
After the colloquium, objectives were compiled from
the colloquium records to form the initial basis of a new
plan. The direction statements were modified slightly
to reflect the six primary challenges identified at the
colloquium, and the new objectives were mapped to
the five strategic directions.
The next phase of developing the plan involved drafting over-arching goals and carrying previous goals forCypress College
ward, as appropriate. Portions of the draft plan were
shared with campus groups for discussion in April
2008. For example, the Planning and Budget Committee reviewed the draft of Direction Three, and the 5%
MORE Committee (now the Enrollment Management
Committee) reviewed the draft of Direction Five. The
entire draft plan was shared with the Leadership Team
at its meeting on May 2, 2008 (2.26). Small group
discussions at that meeting identified language that
needed to be revised for clarity. In general, however,
the suggested revisions made at that point were relatively minor. Suggested changes were incorporated as
appropriate, and a revised draft of the Strategic Plan
was presented to the Planning and Budget Committee on May 15, 2008 (2.40). The committee representatives asked for time to review the plans with their
constituency groups before final approval but agreed
to tentatively approve the plan pending potential additional feedback. This allowed work related to the plan
to continue through Summer 2008. At the September
18, 2008, meeting of the Planning and Budget Committee the Strategic Plan was accepted as written and
forwarded to the President’s Advisory Cabinet with a
recommendation that it be adopted (2.41). That same
day in the President’s Advisory Cabinet approval of
the 2008-2011 Strategic Plan was finalized.
Faculty, staff, students, administrators, and a community advisory group all took part in the development and
revision of the Plan. The 2008-2011 Strategic Plan
was organized around the five Directions cited, which
reflect the importance to the College of learning and
instruction, student success, campus climate and diversity, technology, efficient and effective use of physical,
financial and human resources, and development of
relationships with the external community.
The Strategic Plan 2008-2011 reflects the significance
of accountability: action plans are tied to specific Directions and goals, include a timeline, and a notation
of the person(s) responsible. Each action plan includes
a specific target statement, some of which include very
specific improvement targets. The Strategic Plan Progress Reports (2.30) and annual Institutional Effectiveness Reports identify the extent of progress in specific
areas (2.27, 2.42, 2.43, 2.44).
Given the fact that Cypress College’s overarching Vision and Mission Statements are oriented towards student success, the extent to which the campus accomInstitutional Self Study — Spring 2011
plishes these must be the primary focus of assessment.
Several benchmarks are utilized including those that
indicate the College’s goals and the responses of the
students themselves:
Status of the Strategic Plan
The assessment of the current status of the Strategic Plan was completed during Summer 2009 and is
available in the Institutional Effectiveness Reports for
review by members of the College community (2.27).
Examination of the Report is an accurate means of determining the extent to which the College is progressing towards achievement of its goals.
Results of the Student Satisfaction Survey: It is also
important for the College to know students’ perceptions of their own needs and to assess whether or
not improvement goals are being met. In the Fall of
2009, 14,701 students were surveyed, of which 1,847,
or 12.6% responded. These respondents represented
a cross-section of the College’s demographics. They
completed electronic surveys distributed by the Office
of Institutional Research and Planning which indicated what factors they found important in a college and
their level of satisfaction at Cypress College (2.45).
Twelve parameters covering a broad range of campus activities were measured. Students indicated they
were pleased with the quality of instruction, admissions and registration, campus safety, academic advising, academic services, campus services, the variety of
courses, and the adequacy of the Library, computer
labs, and study areas. They also reported that faculty
are knowledgeable in their fields and are available to
students after class and during office hours. The areas
where students reported dissatisfaction, such as availability of classes and a reduced class schedule, may be
attributable to the heavy budget cuts experienced this
year and in prior years. Compared to the same survey
conducted in the Spring 2007 (2.46), students were significantly more satisfied in the areas of campus safety,
academic services, admissions and financial aid, and
climate. More importantly, they also noted the College’s commitment to underrepresented populations
and to students with disabilities. A summary report
of the Campus Climate and Student Satisfaction Survey was reviewed with all staff on Spring 2010 Opening Day, and the results were shared in detail with the
Leadership Team. Complete survey results are available in the Office of Institutional Research and Plan75
ning (2.47).
The campus budget process also reflects institutional
commitment to achieving the College’s goals (2.31,
2.32, 2.33, 2.34). The process for reviewing and awarding one-time budget requests (generated at the Division/Department level) favors requests that help support the established directions and goals. The Strategic
Plan Directions teams review budget requests relevant
to their area, prioritize them, and make recommendations to the Planning and Budget Committee (2.48,
2.49). Please refer to budget process diagram (2.96).
Although the process of developing the Strategic Plan
in the past had some shortcomings, the campus has
made significant improvements in the processes to address those concerns. Initially, many on campus did
not fully recognize the linkages of planning activities
to campus activities. As a result, participation on the
Direction Committees had been limited to those who
more quickly grasped the significance of that participation. The College recognized and successfully responded to the need to increase the campus awareness
of the linkages between planning and other events and
the need to increase participation in the process.
The College has moved to a planning cycle (2.32,
2.33), which recognizes that the College’s Directions
are expected to be fairly stable over time but that the
process for establishing goals and action plans should
be flexible enough to respond to changing conditions.
Additionally, the older Strategic Plans were not wellinformed by external trends likely to impact the future
of the College, so it was difficult to adapt to external
changes and stay true to the Strategic Plan. This has
been addressed by initiating a process to scan and forecast external factors that impact the goals of the College.
Most personnel understand the College’s directions,
goals, and objectives. The means of reaching those objectives is enhanced as more research and other data
become available and are analyzed and formulated
into understandable formats, such as the Institutional
Effectiveness Dashboard (2.29). As a result, the College’s staff has a better sense of how those goals can
be better achieved. Moreover, most individuals and
constituencies understand the link between planning,
program review, budget allocation, institutional effectiveness, and student success. That understanding has
been advanced by the development of the College’s
76
Planning and Budget Guidelines (2.31, 2.32, 2.33,
2.34), which exist to assist Planning and Budget operationally, and individuals and constituencies in the budget request and allocation process, and the Principles
for Budget Reductions, which assist divisions and departments in making thoughtful and effective budget
reductions (2.53).
Achieving the strategic goals is dependent upon staff
sharing those goals and understanding the processes of
decision making on campus. In a recently conducted
Campus Climate Survey (2.47), over 80 percent of all
survey respondents felt that “all of us” or “most of us”
have a unified commitment to achieving the goal of
student success. This sense of commitment did not differ by employee group.
As a result of the flow of communication, the College
community has a broad understanding of the planning
process, the goals of the institution, and the processes
used to implement them. Results from the Campus
Climate and Planning Survey (2.47) conducted in Fall
2009 received a record 441 responses, up by nearly
30% over Spring 2008. The electronic survey was sent
to the entire population of Cypress College faculty,
staff, and managers (1,112 individuals). Although the
survey attracted responses from different demographic
groups, there was one notable change from previous
response trends. A significantly large number of parttime employees participated in the survey this time
(168 responses compared to 84 in Spring 2008). It is
worth noting that in each of the planning-related questions, a large percentage of employees were “neutral”
(neither agree nor disagree) in their opinion. Also, it
is particularly noteworthy that administrators, faculty,
and staff report being more knowledgeable about the
campus planning process than in the prior Campus
Climate Surveys (2.54, 2.55, 2.56, Figure 2). There was
a significant increase in the number of adjunct faculty
participating in the survey in Fall 2009 compared with
Spring 2008. Since the adjunct faculty are present on
the campus for a limited period of time, their opportunity and motivation to participate in campus activities
are restricted compared to those who are on campus
full time. This fact was noted while analyzing the results. The comparisons with prior periods were made
after controlling for the response of the adjunct. The
higher response from adjuncts helped to better understand issues that they face.
Cypress College
Knowledgeable about
planning
process
Know how
to participate
Participate
Participation
influences
outcome
Encouraged
to participate
Administrators
89.3
89.3
85.7
88.9
88.9
Faculty
59.1
53.9
45.8
30.6
55.2
Classified Staff
63.2
42.9
32.7
25.7
49.5
Table 1: Awareness, participation, and perception of planning process
On the issues of Decision Making, General Job Satisfaction & Planning, administrators, faculty and staff
members reported a broad awareness of the College’s
strategic goals and the planning process, and believe
that their contributions are influential. Administrators were most likely to agree that they are aware and
involved in campus planning, while part-time faculty
were least likely to agree.
There was a new section in the survey on effectiveness
of the planning process. The employees were asked
about their awareness, participation, effectiveness, and
perception of the campus planning activities. Overall,
the full-time employees are aware of the planning process and know how to participate. Certain employee
groups feel more strongly than others that their participation influences the planning process. The survey
indicates that the majority of managers, faculty, and
staff are knowledgeable about the planning process, as
shown in Table 1. The percentage of the faculty reporting their familiarity with the planning process is
influenced by the large number of less-knowledgeable
part-time faculty participating in the survey. Neutral
responses were indicated by 10.7, 24.0, and 28.3 percent, respectively. The majority of managers, faculty,
and staff indicated that they knew how to participate
in the planning process. Neutral responses were indicated by 10.7, 25.6, and 42.9 percent, respectively.
The majority of managers, faculty, and staff indicated
that they actually participate in the planning process.
Neutral responses were indicated by 10.7, 25.9, and
42.1 percent, respectively. On the question of whether
participation influences the outcome of the planning
process, managers, faculty, and staff believed it did.
Neutral responses of 3.7, 41.1, and 49.5 percent, respectively, were reported. When asked if they are encouraged to participate in the planning process, a majority of managers, faculty, and staff strongly agreed or
agreed. Neutral responses were indicated by 7.4, 25.5,
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
and 36.4 percent, respectively.
The information was reviewed during the Leadership
Team meeting where the teams proposed strategies to
improve engagement in the planning process.
Members of the College community not only have an
understanding of the planning process, the College’s
goals, and work together to achieve those goals, they
believe the planning process leads to achievement of
those goals. Perhaps the most important of the questions on the Campus Climate and Planning Survey was,
“I think the planning process helps the college achieve
its desired goals.” In response to this question, the majority of all employee groups — managers (92.9%),
faculty (57.9%), and staff (58.3%) — strongly agreed
or agreed. Neutral responses were received from managers (7.1%), faculty (30.3%), and staff (36.1%).
Faculty, staff, and managers are encouraged to be creative and innovative in achieving the College’s goals
and report that they work together for the common
good of the College. The majority of managers, faculty, and staff report that they collaborate with other
divisions and departments to achieve the College’s strategic goals.
Clearly, the campus has a broad understanding of the
College’s planning process, the goals, and the possible
means of working to achieve those goals, and that
the institution is committed to achieving its identified
goals. All managers are required to include activities in
support of the College’s strategic goals from the Directions in their individual annual performance goals and
objectives. Direction teams meet annually or more frequently, as needed, to review and report on the progress
towards each of the goals in their Direction area. This
review and status report process forms the basis for reports to the campus and the Board of Trustees regarding the completion of the College’s goals, as evidenced
by the annual Institutional Effectiveness Reports (2.57,
77
2.58, 2.59, 2.60, 2.61).
ning as a priority at Cypress College.
Self Evaluation
Planning Agenda
As evidenced by the Campus Climate and Planning
Survey and the long list of accomplishments identified
in the Institutional Effectiveness Reports (2.27, 2.42,
2.43, 2.44), the completion of new buildings, growth of
online education, integration of online registration and
support services, and articulation and communication
of the planning process and goals in a variety of formats, the College has a broad-based understanding of
the goals and great success in achieving them. The Institutional Effectiveness Report has provided two categories of information: (1) a consistent set of information on college demographics and program review, and
(2) special segments that summarize important activities that were initiated or completed during the period
of review, such as Campus Survey Results and Student
Learning Outcomes. The consistent information enables comparison of institutional performance over a
period of time by using the trend data on the same parameters. The special segments provide an overview of
the specific activities relevant to institutional effectiveness. This past year, apart from continuing to maintain
the trend information and special segments, two chapters were added to bring specific focus to institutional
effectiveness with respect to the changing academic environment; specifically, the Dashboard of Institutional
Effectiveness and Comprehensive Planning Process
(2.29, 2.62, 2.63). As the College grows, the need for
on-going communication and processes to engage new
faculty, staff, and managers will continue. As SLOs at
the course, program and institutional level continue to
be used and refined, opportunities to develop additional and expanded strategic goals will continue into the
future.
None.
Through an organized and comprehensive process
of planning, goal setting, communication, dialogue,
review, assessment, and revision to refine its key processes and improvement strategies, the College engages
in sustainable and continuous quality improvement.
There is an on-going positive dialogue at all levels at
the College about institutional effectiveness wherein
data and analyses are widely distributed and discussed
and further input received. As recognized by faculty,
staff, and administration, this translates to a consistent
and continuous commitment to improving institutional
effectiveness and demonstrates the importance of plan78
3. The institution assesses progress toward
achieving its stated goals and makes decisions
regarding the improvement of institutional effectiveness in an ongoing and systematic cycle
of evaluation, integrated planning, resource
allocation, implementation, and re-evaluation. Evaluation is based on analyses of both
quantitative and qualitative data.
Descriptive Summary
Ongoing planning is something that is taken very seriously at Cypress College. So much so that in early
2009, the Director of Institutional Research position
was restructured to include planning. As a result, that
position now directly reports to the President and also
serves as a member of the President’s staff, which also
includes the Executive Vice President of Educational
Programs and Services and the Vice President of Administrative Services. This significant change illustrates
that planning is at the forefront of student success at
Cypress College.
The planning process at Cypress College focuses on
institutional effectiveness in order to achieve the ultimate outcome: student success. The cycle of institutional effectiveness begins with the aligned missions
of the North Orange County Community College
District (NOCCCD) and Cypress College. These missions drive the strategic goals and objectives set forth
by the College. Student learning outcomes are then
established for individual areas and then assessed to
see if the College has made any progress in achieving
its mission. These outcomes help to drive an ongoing
dialogue about continuous quality improvement (2.64).
The planning process itself utilizes a variety of different
documents that define the short- and long-term goals
of the College along with how the College allocates its
resources to fulfill its mission and vision to bring about
student success (2.65). The NOCCCD Strategic Plan
Framework (2.36) of Innovation, Collaboration, and
Effectiveness helps drive the College Educational Master Plan (2.14). The Educational Master Plan sets the
long-term goals of the College and helps drive planCypress College
ning in other specialized areas such as Student Services
(2.15), Matriculation (2.28), Distance Education (2.16),
Student Equity (2.17), Technology (2.18), and Basic
Skills (2.19).
The Cypress College Strategic Plan (2.13) then breaks
down all of these areas into short-term goals and steers
the annual planning and budget process. These strategic plan outcomes are documented in the Institutional
Effectiveness Report and are reported to the Board of
Trustees by the President each November (2.66). Once
that takes place, the information is disseminated campus-wide through a variety of forums such as the Management Team (2.25), the Leadership Team (2.26),
which includes representatives from all areas throughout the College, Department and Division Meetings,
Deans Meetings, various shared-governance committees (2.67), as well as the College website (2.68, 2.69).
The fiscal allocation process begins once a series of
continuous reviews takes place. These reviews include
the assessment of student learning outcomes, a variety
of institutional effectiveness measures contained in the
Institutional Effectiveness Report, departmental curriculum review, and several areas of quality review. All
areas of quality review include both quantitative (enrollment, outcomes, etc.) and qualitative data (faculty
and/or student surveys). Department Planning and
Program Review (instructional quality review) takes
place on a three-year rotation with one third of the
programs participating each Fall. This process is continuously improving with the Program Review Committee recommending and the Academic Senate approving revisions to the review, such as to now include
fiscal allocations and student learning outcomes for
a more comprehensive assessment of a department’s
performance (2.21, 2.70). Student Services Quality
Review takes place on a four-year rotation with onefourth of the programs participating each Fall. This
process has also been improved. After a review by the
Institutional Effectiveness Task Force and the Student
Services Council, a decision was made to include program level information about faculty/staff involvement and needs assessment, facilities, technology, and
fiscal resources and planning into the quality review to
meet ACCJC standards of assessment and planning.
Campus Support Services Quality Review takes place
in the Spring semester every three years. This process is
also being revamped to make it more in line with both
instructional and student services program review. The
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
most recent round of Campus Support Services Quality review took place in Spring 2010 (2.92 ). Beginning
in Spring 2008, a review was piloted for special programs on campus that receive one-time funding allocations; however, the future schedule of this process is yet
to be determined (2.71).
Once all of these reviews are complete, the information
is ready for the Planning and Budget Committee (PBC).
This is a shared-governance committee comprised of
faculty, administration, classified staff, and students. Its
charge is to direct the planning effort, complete the annual planning and budget processes — which includes
faculty positions (2.50), classified staff needs (2.51), facilities projects (2.52) and one-time budget allocations
(2.48) — and make appropriate recommendations to
PAC for final consideration, discussion, and approval.
For example, the one-time budget allocation process
requires those seeking funding to tie their request to
either the Educational Master Plan or the Student Services Master Plan. Also, each request must specify what
goal the budget request would support and how each
goal supports the College strategic directions and goals
set forth in the Strategic Plan. Once this is completed,
each request is assessed by a Direction Committee,
which looks at whether it supports the College mission,
if an area is growing, the quality of the area, the demonstrated need, and if safety issues are involved (2.48,
2.49). The committees rank the requests and present
their recommendations to Planning and Budget where
the requests are prioritized into one list and presented
to PAC for final approval (2.98).
Self Evaluation
Since the last accreditation visit, the amount of datadriven decision making has increased. The Institutional Effectiveness Report (IER), established in 20042005, serves as the primary document assessing how
well the College is doing in achieving student success.
The IER, for the first-time in 2008-2009, now includes
a dashboard, which examines a variety of measures related to student success for each of the five directions
of the strategic plan. The resources section also provides a complete listing of other information provided
to inform planning. In the most recent Institutional Research Campus Services Quality Review, conducted in
Spring 2010, 97% of respondents “strongly agreed” or
“agreed” that information received from Institutional
79
Research is easy to understand, and 97% of respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that Institutional
Research data have had a positive impact on planning,
and, 95% “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that Institutional Research data have had a positive impact on decision making at Cypress College (2.91).
The College uses a variety of planning processes to ensure that data-driven decision making is taking place,
and budget allocations are linked to College planning.
While this is currently happening in instruction and
student services, additional work needs to be completed in the areas of assessing campus services and special
programs to make sure that funding in these areas are
similarly allocated based on the College mission.
Planning Agenda
None.
4. The institution provides evidence that the
planning process is broad-based, offers opportunities for input by appropriate constituencies, allocates necessary resources, and leads
to improvement of institutional effectiveness.
Descriptive Summary
At Cypress College, the shared-governance process is
a system whereby all affected persons have an opportunity to give input into decision making, directly or
through representation in all planning, budget, off-site
planning colloquia, and other collegial consultation
committees. For example, one important committee is the President’s Advisory Cabinet (PAC), which
serves as the primary recommending body to the College president on the establishment of campus policies,
procedures, and general college issues. PAC includes
President’s Staff and representatives from the College’s
main constituent groups. The Academic Senate represents the faculty on academic and professional matters
as defined in Title 5 of the California Education Code
on Strengthening Academic Senates. The United Faculty (UF) represents the faculty on wages, hours, working conditions, and contractual matters. The California School Employees Association (CSEA) represents
the classified staff on wages, hours, working conditions,
and contractual matters. The District Management Association (DMA) represents Cypress College managers
and their views regarding affected areas in deliberating
and formulating decisions. Students are represented by
80
the Associated Students (AS) and have rights as defined
by Title 5.
Broad involvement in the College planning process is
guaranteed by the shared-governance policy that functions in accordance with (1) the mandates of AB 1725,
the California Education Code, and Title 5 regulations, (2) the collective bargaining agreements with the
UF, (3) the policies of the Board of Governors, and
(4) the policies and procedures of the North Orange
County Community College District Board of Trustees to ensure that these groups are represented in the
planning process. A strong collegial atmosphere and a
shared vision and commitment to student success generates the interest of administration, faculty, staff, and
students to participate and follow the above policies.
A recent campus survey (2.47) provides evidence that
there are recognized opportunities for broad-based
participation in a successful planning process. The
majority of managers (89.3%), faculty (59.1%), and
staff (63.2%) either agree or strongly agree that they
are aware of the planning process. The majority of
managers (92.9%), faculty (57.9%), and staff (58.3%)
either agree or strongly agree that the planning process
helps the College achieve its desired goals. The majority of managers (89.3%) and faculty (53.9%), but only
42.9% of staff either agree or strongly agree that they
know how to participate in the planning process. As
referenced in earlier portions of this report, the College President and others have made a conscious effort
to engage all constituencies in the planning process relating to institutional improvement. However, although
invited to participate, students, staff, and faculty may
not participate in this process for reasons ranging from
apathy to over-commitment. As a result, the campus
process may represent views from a smaller segment of
the campus community than desired. The Leadership
Team engaged in developing strategies to improve participation and transparency in planning and decisionmaking processes to further improve on this area.
Goal 9 and Assessments 23 & 24 under Direction Four
of the Strategic Plan were established to further guarantee broad involvement in College activities, including the planning process:
Goal 9: Expand involvement in College activities,
plans and initiatives to reflect broader participation by
all members of the College.
Assessment 23: By Fall 2008, establish a task force
Cypress College
on campus involvement to explore and establish strategies and activities to increase involvement and to identify the responsible individuals or departments to lead
these efforts (e.g., a written guide to campus involvement, spirit week, and student life activities plan). Lead
Person: Chair of Direction Four.
Assessment 24: By Fall 2010, reflect upon the recent
strategies to increase campus involvement and develop
ways to sustain or expand the most effective ones. Lead
Person: Chair of Task Force on Campus Involvement.
Involvement is also further enhanced by allowing different individuals from the various constituency groups
the opportunity to participate on a variety of shared
governance committees. This allows for each constituency group to determine if somebody with past experience is best suited to meet the needs of the group or if
it is better to rotate to a new individual who can bring
fresh new ideas and a new perspective. Each group sets
forth the ground rules on when and how their representation will be reviewed.
The College allocates resources — to the extent resources are available — in accordance with established
plans and procedures. Program and quality reviews are
incorporated as part of the allocation process whenever requests for funding are considered. Allocations are
monitored and reviewed to assure that College dollars
are being allocated and effectively expended in accord
with identified priorities.
The College has an effective resource allocation process
to continuously identify and access outside resources
wherever possible. By way of example, the College
secured a Department of Education STEM grant totaling $2.5 million for modernizing laboratory instructional equipment, multimedia upgrades for lecture and
laboratory instruction, outreach, tutoring services, and
collaborative student research projects with local universities. The District has also been able to pass a local
general obligation bond Measure X for major building
construction and upgrades to existing buildings.
Corporate sponsorships with entities such as Toyota
Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Volvo Penta, Sherwin-Williams, Snap-On, Matco, AAA, TurboCor, Yamaha
Corporation, and many others support various programs at the College by providing instructional materials, equipment, and supplies.
The Cypress College Foundation supports department
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
grants, equipment purchases, faculty mini-grants, student scholarships, and student emergency relief funds.
The College has also developed relationships with numerous hospitals and facilities in support of instruction
in Nursing and the allied health professions. The Nursing Program conducted a POD drill with the Orange
County Public Health Dept. and local police and fire
authorities. An aditional drill is in planning stages for
November 2010. Nursing students conduct flu clinics
each semester on campus as well as in senior centers
and local hospitals. Pediatric nursing students do developmental assessments for Orange County Childrens’
Services each December, visit local grade schools to talk
about nursing, and do a “show and tell” for Cypress
College’s KinderCaminata each year. In addition, the
California Nursing Student Association (CSNA) sponsors Toys for Tots every December, conducts a job fair
on campus each semester with local hospitals, military, and Veterans Hospitals participating. and participates in outreach to high schools. The Dental Hygiene
Program has contracts with Share Ourselves Clinic
in Costa Mesa and Rancho Los Amigos in Downey.
These facilities allow dental students to go to each facility for training. The Hotel, Restaurant, Culinary Arts
Program receives support from Disney Resorts, Knott’s
Berry Farm, the Hotel Industry Association, numerous
hotels, and other entities. The College also generates
$1.2 million in unrestricted funding annually by renting space to a weekend swap meet.
With regard to enrollment, as the College has reduced
budgets, resources have been allocated based upon
the implementation of effective plans. These plans
addressed issues of FTES reduction and resource allocation. The information considered in making these
reductions and allocating resources included:
◊
Unmet student demand reports
◊
Unfilled seat reports
◊
Five year enrollment trend reports
◊
Program review reports
◊
College Educational Master Plan
The result has been a significant reduction in expenditures and seats available, at a time of significant increases in student demand, increased fill rates, and FTES.
When resources to fulfill plans and meet the College’s
goals are reduced, the College follows prescribed bud81
get reduction guidelines, incorporates strategies for effective class scheduling reductions — while preserving
the integrity of programs — and seeks alternatives to
improve productivity and efficiency. Effective planning
has led to some positive changes during this economic
downturn and time of uncertainty. The College has
successfully completed three new major facilities and
four significant remodels because it had appropriate
and effectively developed plans in place to capture the
State’s scarce available resources.
Finally, program quality is significantly supported by
the engagement of a funding process that provides for
the consideration of both short-term and long-term
goals. Significant one-time program needs are addressed through a rigorous one-time funding process
that funded significant improvements and upgraded
equipment and support for a variety of programs. Unexpected needs and/or emergencies are also addressed
by Planning and Budget on an ad hoc basis as the need
arises through a special or emergency funding request
process.
Self Evaluation
Planning and decision making is broad based and participatory throughout the College. All shared-governance committees allow for participation from each of
the various constituency groups on campus. Awareness
and recruitment by each of these groups allows for opportunity and assures that involvement is broad within
each constituency group.
The College allocates resources through an extensive
planning process that allows for the inclusion of data-driven decision making. The College also uses this
information to set priorities and determine whether efficiencies can be obtained locally to increase resources
or funding should be sought out from external bodies
such as through grants and/or corporate sponsorships.
The planning process has allowed the College to make
necessary changes to update facilities and programs to
better meet the needs of its student population.
Planning Agenda
None.
5. The institution uses documented assessment results to communicate matters of quality assurance to appropriate constituencies.
82
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College collects, analyzes, and disseminates
a variety of student assessment and quality assurance
data. It utilizes a variety of means to communicate information pertaining to student achievement to a wide
variety of different groups. The reports integrate a
range of quantitative and qualitative assessment. Apart
from the college-wide reports such as success and retention, program-specific reports are also developed. Examples of program-specific reports include effectiveness of Supplementary Instruction and Improvement
in successive basic skills mathematics courses. Among
the means that are used to communicate matters of
quality assurance are the annual Institutional Effectiveness Reports (2.27, 2.42, 2.43, 2.44) and End-ofthe-Year Reports (2.57, 2.58, 2.59, 2.60, 2.61). Further
information about institutional effectiveness is found in
a variety of detailed research data and reports disseminated by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning (2.68, 2.72, 2.73). In addition, the office analyzes,
synthesizes, and presents information in a manner that
is readily understood by the College community. Research reports are usually presented to audiences in
person by the Director. This provides the Director with
the opportunity to observe how well the material meets
the expectations of the audience and whether it provides appropriate detail. It allows the Director to assess
how it is interpreted and likely to be used and gives
the audience members the chance to ask questions or
request further information. In the Spring 2010 survey of Institutional Research and Planning, 97% of respondents said that reports are easy to understand, and
98% said that researchers are open to feedback.
While these exchanges are valuable and have improved
significantly over the past several years, they are timeconsuming, and this approach leaves room for continued improvement. Often, the primary audience consists of one or more committees such as Planning and
Budget, the Management Team, Leadership Team, or
Deans and Directors Team. Although some committee members share the research with others, in years
past, the information sometimes never reached the
broader campus community. The College has worked
at making significant improvements over the past five
years in the sharing of information, which is corroborated by the Fall 2009 Campus Climate Survey (2.47).
They include, among others, dissemination of such
information on the College website (2.69), within the
Cypress College
@Cypress newsletter (2.74), via Institutional Research
and Planning Bulletins (2.72), Opening Day in Fall and
Spring, and through a variety of other research surveys and reports (2.73). In some cases, comprehensive
written reports are prepared and distributed campuswide. Other means used to communicate the status
of student success are regular reports to the Board of
Trustees, news releases, website postings, meetings with
community advisory boards and career technical advisory committees, outreach counseling, reports to the
College Foundation, and program publications and
brochures from a number of campus areas.
Since 1990, Cypress College has had a comprehensive
instructional program review process in place. This
is “Department Planning and Program Review,” formerly, “Instructional Quality Assessment” (2.21). With
substantial changes on campus, as well as changes in
the Accreditation Standards, in addition to the foregoing, the campus developed both a Student Services
Quality Review (2.8) and a Campus Support Services
Quality Review process (2.92). Both reviews are providing valuable information, establishing and monitoring goals, and evaluating and reporting effectiveness on
a regular basis.
Department Planning and Program Review, Student
Services Quality Review, and Campus Support Services Quality Review reports are communicated to appropriate constituencies as part of their self-study processes. While the Department Planning and Program
Review results are shared with those in the department, these results are also available for review by anyone wishing to examine them. The Student Services
Quality Review and Campus Support Services Quality
Review results are used for setting goals and program
improvement and are shared campus-wide via allusers
email and then stored on the J: drive for campus-wide
access.
In addition, the campus regularly reviews the effectiveness of the Strategic Plan. At the conclusion of each
four-year cycle, a planning retreat or colloquium (2.35)
is held to lay the groundwork for the development of
the succeeding plan. In this process, the Department
Planning and Program Review reports, Student Services Quality Review and Campus Support Services
Quality Review reports, and a variety of other campus
documents are evaluated so that the Strategic Plan is
responsive to them. An external scan of factors impactInstitutional Self Study — Spring 2011
ing planning is also conducted.
Each semester, the Office of Institutional Research and
Planning publishes and distributes its Institutional Research and Planning Bulletins (2.72) that highlight enrollments, demographics, and a variety of other sound,
action-oriented research to help decision-makers to act
effectively on behalf of students and the community
and to foster student success and institutional effectiveness.
Externally, the Public Information Office publishes
some of the more global achievements of the College’s
students and faculty in a variety of media, including
traditional publications and electronic media. It also
builds rapport with the community, promotes Cypress
College, and publishes basic transfer and completion
rates and information regarding degrees and certificates awarded.
While some data have always been published as part of
the required “Student Right to Know” Report (2.75),
the College only recently began publishing extensive or
comprehensive statistics on student achievement and
learning in the Institutional Effectiveness Report (2.27),
which is accessible to the community and demonstrates
the many contributions Cypress College makes.
Finally, the Public Information Office publishes “@
Cypress,” a weekly publication to students, faculty,
staff, administration, and the community that focuses
on achievements of the College, students, faculty, staff
and administration. This publication routinely contains demographic data and student success information (2.74).
The College assesses whether it is effectively communicating information about institutional quality to the
public through a variety of different means. On an asneeded basis, surveys are conducted to determine if its
marketing efforts are effective. This was last done in
Spring 2005 to determine the best ways to get information about Cypress College to the public (2.93). During
that same time, the Public Information Office initiated
a comprehensive communications program focused on
connecting with students via email. Over time, these
messages have become more sophisticated and are now
segmented so that they contain information relevant to
the individual student receiving them. For example,
students enrolled in 9 units receive a personalized message encouraging them to add an additional class so
that they can become a full-time student. This strate83
gic communication has also been utilized to encourage
students who may be at or nearing eligibility for earning a degree or a certificate to meet with a counselor.
In recent years, Cypress College has taken a proactive
and leading role in the use of social media to communicate about the College’s success, including the success
of its students, faculty, and alumni. During the period
between accreditation visits, the College has utilized a
variety of social media methods, including Facebook,
Twitter, YouTube, iTunes, Podcasts, and MySpace.
The focus of these endeavors has primarily been to
convey information that fosters student success and student participation as well as highlighting the success of
students, faculty, and alumni. A blog, launched in Fall
2010, furthers this effort.
The College is always reviewing how it disseminates
information to the public. For the first time this past
year, the College developed a four-page document
called the Dashboard of Institutional Effectiveness.
This serves as a companion piece to the Institutional
Effectiveness Report. It gives a quick snapshot on how
well the College is performing on a variety of measures
tied to the Strategic Plan Directions (2.29). It has been
well received by the Board of Trustees and community
groups.
Cypress College also understands the importance of
communicating and connecting with other educational
entities. Specifically, the College works closely with the
School of Continuing Education (SCE) to promote
each other’s programs. This has lead to increasing
numbers of SCE high school graduate program students enrolling at the College. The College also collaborates with local high schools regarding a wide variety of academic and vocational course offerings. All
College managers are assigned to the ten local chambers of commerce from the College’s service area and
special populations. The College also invites the community on campus to participate in various events such
as KinderCaminata, Senior Day, and the High School
Principals’ Breakfast. Despite the economic downturn,
College enrollment is up, and College-sponsored community events like the Foundation Golf Tournament
and Americana Awards continue to thrive. Cypress
College makes a point of having a presence in the community and letting them know how well it is contributing to student success (2.94).
Finally, several advisory committees comprising of
84
industry, business, labor union, civic, and community
representatives meet to provide the College with information and to provide opportunities for the College to
inform them and receive feedback assessing the College’s effectiveness. Current advisory committees include the following:
◊
Management Advisory Committee
◊
Marketing Advisory Committee
◊
Accounting Advisory Committee
◊
Computer Information Systems Advisory Committee
◊
Court Reporting Advisory Committee
◊
Automotive Technology Advisory Committee
◊
T-TEN Advisory Committee
◊
Automotive Collision Repair Advisory
Committee
◊
Aviation Advisory Committee
◊
Airline Travel Careers Advisory Committee
◊
Hotel Restaurant Culinary Advisory
Committee
◊
Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Advisory Committee
◊
Nursing Advisory Committee
◊
Dental Hygiene Advisory Committee
◊
Dental Assistant Advisory Committee
◊
Diagnostic Medical Sonography Advisory Committee
◊
Mortuary Science Advisory Committee
◊
Psychiatric Technology Advisory Committee
◊
Radiologic Technology Advisory Committee
◊
Health Information Technology Advisory Committee
◊
Art - Computer Graphics Advisory
Committee
◊
Communications/Journalism Advisory
Committee
Cypress College
◊
Photography Advisory Committee
◊
Human Services Advisory Committee
Self Evaluation
The College collects a variety of data used to assess
whether it’s doing a successful job of achieving student
success. The College has done a much better job in
the last few years in disseminating this information to
a variety of audiences on campus, off campus, and
through the Internet. The College continually reviews
whether the dissemination of information is working
well or whether changes need to occur. Through these
methods, matters of quality assurance and institutional
effectiveness are communicated to the public. Given
the high number of local community members choosing the College, these strategies appear to be working.
Planning Agenda
None.
6. The institution assures the effectiveness of
its ongoing planning and resource allocation
processes by systematically reviewing and
modifying, as appropriate, all parts of the cycle, including institutional and other research
efforts.
Descriptive Summary
The College uses several processes to evaluate the effectiveness of evaluations, integration of planning efforts, and budget allocation. The College’s institutional
effectiveness cycle serves as a comprehensive model to
assess, summarize, and report how well the College is
doing with respect to its goals and objectives to ensure
that they are relevant and being achieved in an appropriate timeline. All components of these processes —
including Strategic Plan goals and objectives, student
learning outcomes, and validation of mission fulfillment — serve as an effective process that drives the
institutional dialogue of continuous quality improvement.
For a number of years, the College has developed and
used a Strategic Plan to effectively guide decision making and resource allocation. In addition, the NOCCCD
Board of Trustees approved a district-wide Master Plan
in 1999, which has been used to guide facilities development on the campus. It was not until 2006 that the
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
College developed its Educational Master Plan 20062016 that provides direction for each department and
for the College as a whole (2.14). This was done partly
in response to recommendations of the Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges and
partly because it was a tool recognized by the College
as important to planning, budget allocation, evaluation, and continuous quality improvement. The College launched an ambitious project to develop the Educational Master Plan 2006-2016 during the 2005-2006
academic year. The strength of the plan lies in the fact
that the faculty, staff, and management in each division and department developed their section, following
a template established by the task force and responding to a broad array of data provided by the Office of
Institutional Research and Planning. This grass-roots
effort resulted in a plan that is based on real needs and,
therefore, will be a valuable resource as the College
moves forward.
This Educational Master Plan has become the foundation on which all other College planning is based. It
drives the development of future strategic plans and is
operationalized through the goals and objectives that
become part of the Strategic Plans. It is also used as
decisions are made about resource allocations, including new faculty and staff, facilities, and budgets.
Another piece of the ongoing planning process is the
College’s Strategic Plan. Since 1996, the College has
been using a four-year Strategic Plan. Each year, this
plan has become more significant in guiding campus
decision making.
The culture of this institution in planning has always
been to involve representatives from all constituencies
in an all-day retreat to develop the ideas for the College’s Strategic Plan. The current plan used a consultative approach involving 50 faculty, staff, and administrators in a colloquium. The participants reviewed
and updated the Vision and Mission of the College,
reviewed the Core Values for the institution, considered community demographics and data supplied by
the Office of Institutional Research and Planning,
performed internal and external scans, and reviewed
the status and effectiveness of the previous Strategic
Plan as part of a systematic cycle of evaluation. It also
involved the analysis of a variety of other planning
documents including academic program reviews, noninstructional program reviews, research reports, and
85
the various campus plans referenced below.
decisions.
In addition to the review of individual planning processes and their integration with budget allocation, the
College also conducts a systematic and comprehensive
review of the planning processes, including evaluation
of mechanisms for reviewing the effectiveness of the
planning process at Cypress College. As part of this
process, the campus community is asked to evaluate the
adequacy of research data for all planning purposes.
In an effort to provide a more efficient way to evaluate its efforts and progress, in Fall 2005, several reports
were combined together into one document, called
the Institutional Effectiveness Report (2.42). Chapter
one included student and staff data, chapter two included the summaries for the Department Planning
and Program Reviews, chapter three and four included
summaries for the Student Services Quality Reviews
and the Campus Support Quality Reviews, and chapter five included a status report of the Strategic Plan.
This document is produced and distributed each Fall
in order for the campus to have a summary of its effectiveness and to act as an additional resource for continuous evaluation, planning, and responsible budget
allocation. The document has continually evolved to
now include chapters on a dashboard of institutional
effectiveness, special programs quality review, student
learning outcomes, and planning in general.
Each of the five directions in the Strategic Plan is monitored by a direction committee and headed up by a
direction leader who is part of the Planning and Budget Committee (PBC). There are over forty individuals,
including students, who work on the plan each year.
In the Fall semester, PBC focuses on planning by communicating with those responsible for completing the
action plans and developing a progress report in December. A final report of the action plans is completed
in June. In the Spring, requests for one-time funding
are prepared, and it is the direction committees that
prioritize the requests based upon the goals and objectives of that part of the Strategic Plan. Those prioritizations are then discussed in PBC and merged into
one list for the campus and presented to PAC for final
approval. During the last two years, those submitting a
request have also been required to submit their completed quality review report to identify why a particular
request is being submitted.
The evaluation form used by the direction committees
to rank requests gives points for specific criteria including if the request is part of a plan developed through
the quality review process. Other parts of the comprehensive planning process in existence are the various
quality review processes. The College has used Department Planning and Program Review (formerly Instructional Quality Assessment or IQA) for 19 years as its
program review process for instruction. The College
has also initiated Student Services Quality Review and
Campus Support Services Quality Review. All of these
quality review processes are cyclical, thus providing the
vehicle for continuous evaluation and assessment. The
processes have and will continue to undergo continuous improvement, and the cycle is now repeating these
processes, and has been integrated into campus decision making. The quality review reports have continuously gained importance among the constituents because they are being used by the College to help make
86
The Educational Master Plan (EMP), which covers a
ten-year period, has become the umbrella for other
College plans. The Technology Plan, the Student Equity Plan, the Facilities Plan, the Matriculation Plan,
and the Distance Education Plan all support the EMP.
Each of these plans is systematically reviewed and
modified, as appropriate, to ensure continuous quality
improvement.
Most importantly, the EMP focuses the directions of
the Strategic Plan, which is revised every four years;
and the action plans, which are revised every two years.
Since the Strategic Plan is so much a part of the culture
of Cypress College, it is the vehicle to guide short-term
decision making including resource allocation. Standardized data and measurable outcomes have been established. Measures of institutional effectiveness that
relate to the College mission and the directions/goals
of the Strategic Plan have been established. College
performance on these measures is published annually
in the Institutional Effectiveness Report. The Educational Master Plan has proven to be a valuable tool as it
is used to set priorities for human resources and budget
allocations.
Department Planning and Program Review (2.21) reviews each department’s curriculum/programs, goals
and objectives on a 3-year rotation. The Career Technical Education programs follow a bi-yearly program
review cycle. This provides a systematic review of the
Cypress College
progress on goals since the previous review cycle. Integrated within Department Planning and Program
Review is the SLO process, which is established to ensure that students are achieving learning outcomes of
courses and programs. SLOs and PLOs are defined,
and corresponding data is collected and analyzed for
implementing an action plan. The effectiveness of the
SLO process will be evaluated and assessed once the
first cycle is completed by Spring of 2011. Department
Planning and Program Review is also linked to the
budget process.
Budget requests from divisions must have a Strategic
Plan Direction and a division, department, or program
priority number assigned following faculty, staff, and
management collaboration within that division, department or program. Budget items move from Direction Subcommittees to the Planning and Budget Committee where a priority list is created and presented to
the President’s Advisory Cabinet for final approval. As
funds become available, the priority list is used to fund
the budget requests. The College’s Program Review
form (2.21) has been updated to reflect the needs of the
institution, including SLOs and linking resource needs.
The Institutional Effectiveness Report (2.27) reviews
and reports on the effectiveness of the program.
Student Services is another area that reviewed its planning and resource allocation process following the
adoption of the Educational Master Plan (EMP) (2.14)
in 2006. The Student Services division formed a task
force for development of SLOs for all Student Service areas. In 2007, the Student Services Master Plan
(SSMP) (2.15) was completed. The driving force for developing the SSMP was to help students achieve their
educational and/or occupational goals. This comprehensive support services and guidance plan was developed as a tool to help students overcome challenges as
they arise. The SSMP, which covers a seven-year period, supports the Educational Master Plan and will be
used for strategic planning in the Student Services divisions. Review of this process is ongoing.
As indicated earlier in Standard IB, the campus regularly reviews the effectiveness of the Strategic Plan.
During its four-year cycle, the Plan is annually reviewed
by the Planning and Budget Committee and a variety
of constituencies across campus, and adjustments are
made in preparation for the following year.
Campus Support Services reviews and evaluates each
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
program on a three-year cycle. The process was just
updated to include more information about achieving previous goals, developing administrative unit
outcomes (AUOs), as well as determining the impact
on services in light of current economic uncertainties
(2.92).
The planning process does an effective job of fostering
improvement. Specific elements within the institutional
effectiveness cycle allow for continuous improvement
in accord with articulated and identified needs. The
Educational Master Plan gives evidence that the College defines the scope of its operations and identifies
goals and strategies. Evaluation is conducted on all aspects of planning from the effectiveness of one-time
funding requests to the accomplishment of strategic
plan goals, which are directly tied back to the District
and College mission.
Realistically, when funds are reduced, it creates challenges, and improvements are met at a slower pace. Divisions and departments have limited allocated budgets
to work with, and they often have to ask the Planning
and Budget Committee for special funding for emergencies and program or services improvements.
Self Evaluation
The College regularly and systematically assesses the
effectiveness of its planning processes to achieve improvements in both the process and the College’s outcomes. Changes in the planning process will continue
to occur to respond to evolving College needs, such as
the ongoing integration of SLO assessment within the
program review process and the further integration of
planning with the budgeting process to form a single,
cohesive, and participatory process.
Planning Agenda
None.
7. The institution assesses its evaluation mechanisms through a systematic review of their
effectiveness in improving instructional programs, student support services, and library
and other learning support services.
Descriptive Summary
The institution utilizes planning processes and mechanisms to measure the effectiveness of campus programs
87
and services. Quantitative and qualitative data are
used in an effort to continually improve College programs and services. The comparison of successive program reviews, college-wide survey results, and ad-hoc
research conducted on student learning and success
indicate the extent to which the College has improved
and provides information on areas that still need improvement. These determinations are based on statistical data, qualitative observations, and goal setting done
during a specific review period. The other part of the
College improvement process involves improving the
process itself.
The institutional planning process is outlined in the
2006 Educational Master Plan (EMP), which lays the
foundation for the institution’s planning and assessment process. This master plan, coupled with shortterm plans, has set the stage for a comprehensive
campus-wide planning process that serves as the primary evaluative tool for campus programs and services. Specific goals have been indicated in the EMP and
in other campus plans and then are measured after a
predictable timeframe to determine the effectiveness
of these programs and services. The EMP serves as the
College’s primary planning mechanism. This plan and
others will be referenced in the following paragraphs
as they relate to the discussion of determining the College’s effectiveness.
First is the Accreditation Self Study. The College’s planning process and respective timelines for evaluation of
programs and services are carefully considered with respect to the Self Study. The last Self Study report was
released by the College in 2005. As a result of the Self
Study findings, along with Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (ACCJC’s) recommendations, the College implemented further plans and
action measures with the goal of improving programs
and services. These are reflected in recent plan updates
as discussed below, as well as in the 2008 Accreditation
Midterm Report (2.39).
Among the primary action measures was the implementation of an Educational Master Plan (EMP). This
plan will be updated every ten years and is now effective through 2016. The EMP serves as the College’s
comprehensive planning process and provides a means
of gathering evidence and incorporating long-term
goals with respect to College programs and services.
88
The EMP’s primary focus is on aligning goals with the
mission and vision of the College. The EMP also informs and guides other campus plans, such as the College’s Strategic and District Strategic plans, Matriculation Plan, Student Equity Plan, Technology Plan, and
Facilities Plan, as well as provides input into long-term
decision making related to resource allocation (2.14).
The College’s Strategic Plan is updated every four years
with the current 2008 plan in effect until 2011. This
plan’s objectives appropriately align with the new EMP
but have a more specific focus on the campus “Quality
Review” process in terms of evaluation of instructional
programs and courses and student services programs
with shorter-term goals. The 2004-2008 Strategic Plan
(2.12) was developed and approved before the development of the EMP. To capitalize on the work and vision
set forth in the new EMP, the College established new
action plans that are reflected for the last two years of
that Strategic Plan — 2006 through 2008. These action measures included efforts to coordinate goals with
the EMP, a new Student Services Master Plan (SSMP)
(2.15), and a new campus Technology Plan (2.18), in
addition to the establishment of a multi-year calendar
of major planning activities. This calendar identifies
timeframes and sequential development of all such
planning mechanisms (2.76).
The 2008-2011 Strategic Plan includes additional action measures and campus-wide goals impacting programs and student services (2.13). This latest strategic
plan has a specific timeframe and lead persons assigned
to make sure that each objective is met.
Also considered a major planning mechanism in the
area of strategic planning is the new 2006 Districtwide Strategic Plan, developed by the District in an effort to address the changing workforce of California
and meet the demands of neighboring communities
through various programs. This plan has a direct impact on the programs and services being offered by the
District’s colleges (2.36).
The College evaluates its curriculum in terms of instructional quality, campus support services, and overall institutional effectiveness based on outcomes of
measurable goals specified in various campus plans.
The College also utilizes results of systematic surveys
as a means of self evaluation and institutional effectiveness. The Noel-Levitz Student Survey is distributed
in the Fall semester in odd-numbered years, i.e. 2003,
Cypress College
2005, 2007, 2009, etc. The 2009 and prior surveys
address important questions concerning matters that
mean the most to students and whether or not the College is meeting these expectations (2.45).
Several questions in the Climate Survey conducted in
2009 were related to satisfaction and importance of
employee opinion on decision making (Figure 1). Although the general results indicated overall satisfaction on both areas to be satisfactory, perception varied among employee groups. Administrators, full-time
faculty members, and members of shared-governance
committees are more satisfied with their work and
believe that their contributions are more influential,
compared to the staff, part-time faculty, and those not
involved in shared-governance committees. Administrators were also most likely to agree that they are
aware and involved in campus planning, while parttime faculty were least likely to agree. Average scores
are shown in the chart below for a select group of questions related to satisfaction and decision making (2.47).
Both surveys collect information about specific populations, i.e. students, faculty, etc. The data are compared
from one year to the next to determine which areas
of the campus may need improvement and which ar-
eas have improved. In the area of campus services, the
College set a standard of at least 75% satisfaction with
each of the core survey measures although some departments set a higher standard for themselves. After
the surveys are analyzed by the Office of Institutional
Research and Planning, managers in each area review
the results with their staff and complete a quality review report including a narrative that places the data
in context, comments on any standards not met, and
establishes program goals and objectives for the next
several years. Summaries of these reports are included
in an Institutional Effectiveness Report (IER) so that
others on campus may see and understand the current
goals of campus service programs. Campus services
were reviewed in 2004, 2005, and 2007. They are now
on a standard three-year cycle and were reviewed in
Spring 2010. The campus also utilizes the IER and
other data to make enrollment management decisions
with potential impact on programs and services. The
campus has a new Enrollment Management Committee to deal with related issues.
Student services also gather evidence by conducting
surveys of students who avail themselves of such services. The reviews are done at the department/division
Figure 1
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
89
level, discussed with deans, submitted to the Executive
Vice President and, finally, entered into the Institutional Effectiveness Report (IER) (2.27).The IER includes
student and staff demographics, institutional outcomes,
and quality review results (2.27). This report has been a
planning mechanism for the campus since 2005 (2.42,
2.43, 2.44). Quality Review includes outcomes as a result of Department Planning Program Review (2.21),
Student Services Quality Review (SSQR) (2.8, 2.9),
Campus Support Services Quality Review (CSSQR)
(2.10), and Special Programs Quality Review. This report is yet another mechanism which serves as a validation tool for affirming what the College does right
and what needs improvement. This helps in setting
campus-wide priorities and budgeting.
the divisions’ programs participated in a four-year review cycle; it is now a three-year process. Each review
involves a re-confirmation of course requisites through
the curriculum process, among other important re-validation measures. Recent program progress and future
plans of instructional programs are also evaluated as
part of this process. In 2005, the Self Study Report
(2.38) discussed this Quality Review process not only
in terms of evaluation of the instructional programs
themselves, but also the viability of this review process
to determine if adjustments and/or revisions should
be made. The decision to change to a three-year cycle
of program review was a major outcome. Department
Planning and Program Review was then revised to
make it more focused on program effectiveness.
Program Review is an important evaluation mechanism with its goals stated in various plans such as the
EMP and Strategic Plan. This process includes a comprehensive and multi-program review that takes into
account all of the Quality Review processes noted
above. The Program Review rotation schedule indicates which departments are up for review for instruction, as well as the rotation schedule for student services, campus services, and special programs (2.21, 2.77).
The College also responded to AACJC’s recommendation (2.37, 2.38, 2.39) to identify and assess student
learning outcomes (SLOs) across the campus. The
EMP and Strategic Plan both include strategies for incorporating SLOs into the College’s plans. As stated in
the EMP, “Student Support Services will start the process of developing their SLOs in 2006-2007 and will be
finished by the end of five years” (p. 152). This process
was also applied to all of the College’s active courses
and instructional programs and the institution as a
whole with Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs).
The SLO process is a cyclical process that is designed
to effectively assess student achievement in our courses
and programs once every 3 years. The steps involved to
complete the course-level SLO process include the following: defining SLOs, defining means of assessment,
collecting data for assessment, analyzing the collected
data, and, finally, writing a report that includes action
plans, to improve/maintain the quality of instruction.
The overall goal of SLOs for all campus programs,
including student services, is to collect, analyze, and
use the information to improve courses, programs,
and services. All issues pertaining to SLOs, including
the process itself, are regularly evaluated to establish a
continued cycle of institutional improvement and effectiveness (2.13).
The Campus Support Services are reviewed during
the Spring every three years including Spring 2010.
Cypress College distinguishes campus services from instructional and student service programs based upon
function and the areas served. The College recognizes
nine campus services (2.10):
◊
Academic Computing-Media Services
◊
Maintenance and Operations
◊
Bookstore
◊
Staff Development
◊
Bursar’s Office
◊
Production Center
◊
Campus Safety
◊
Public Information
◊
Institutional Research and Planning
Department Planning and Program Review for instructional programs requires that one-third of the
College’s programs are reviewed each Fall on a rotating basis. Each rotation includes departments from a
wide range of disciplines. Prior to Spring 2008, all of
90
The Academic Senate and the Associated Students
Executive Board approved a draft of ILOs in April
2004; on May 6, 2004, the President’s Advisory Cabinet (PAC) reviewed and adopted the approved draft of
ILOs (2.24, 2.78). The next step was to develop SLOs
in instructional and student services areas. The College
has made significant progress in this area. In Spring
Cypress College
2007, departments had gathered data for at least one
course and started analyzing that data the following
Fall. A significant milestone for the College was the
establishment of a Faculty SLO Coordinator position
that Spring. Responsibilities of the coordinator include
leading the SLO Team meetings to develop a cohesive,
integrated process for assessing, documenting, and reporting SLOs; tracking and following up on the various SLO-CATs stages; organizing faculty and staff dialogues to plan the direction of the SLO-CATs process;
providing updates to appropriate audiences; ensuring
campus-wide communication and discussion of SLOs
and their assessment; and writing an annual executive
summary of progress. By May 2007, all 18 student services programs had established SLOs and assessment
plans. In reviewing the SLO process recently, the College discussed the possibility of all student service programs focusing on a single theme - such as retention or
persistence - for a single SLO cycle. The campus also
has plans to explore ways to more fully integrate SLOs
with the College’s quality review process for student
services. The goal in integrating the two processes is a
more comprehensive assessment of each program, including how well it is helping students to achieve their
educational goals.
Faculty members have since been involved in SLO Dialogues, and several recommendations have been made
to Academic Senate (2.78). Among those recommendations were that the College establish a timeline for
completing the SLO assessment process for all courses,
that each division appoint at least one SLO representative to an expanded SLO Team, and that each department create a plan for meeting the 2011 College goals
and provide status reports to the deans and to the SLO
Team representative at least twice a semester. The recommendations were discussed and approved at the
September 27, 2007, meeting of the Cypress College
Academic Senate (2.78). As of October 2010, faculty
members have defined SLOs for 85% of the courses,
defined assessment methods for 82%, and closed the
loop on 48% of all the courses (2.95). Although the
College started out focusing primarily on establishing
and assessing course SLOs, the process has expanded
to include individual program learning outcomes as
well as special instructional programs (e.g. Supplemental Instruction, Peer Assisted Learning, Honors, and
Service Learning).
The College has been guided primarily by its Strategic
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Plan, which includes directions and goals for Student
Services. In 2005-2006 with the development of the
EMP, a new Student Services Master Plan (SSMP) was
also developed during the 2006-2007 academic year
and adopted by the campus in Fall 2007 (2.15). The
SSMP, which covers a seven-year period, supports the
EMP. It is a document that will be used for strategic
planning in the student services divisions at the College.
The development of the SSMP was a very beneficial
exercise for all areas. It provided student services staff
members with an opportunity to review and evaluate
their current programs, in addition to future planning.
The SSMP was also developed in conjunction with
recently completed Student Services Quality Reviews.
The Program Review rotation for student services requires one-quarter of the programs to be reviewed
each Fall. Special Programs were also included in this
rotation beginning with the Spring 2008 semester.
The student services offices included in this review
include California Work Opportunity and Responsibility for Kids (CalWORKS), Cooperative Agencies
for Resource Education (CARE), Disabled Students
Program and Services (DSPS), Extended Opportunity
Program and Services (EOPS), Library/Learning Resource Center (L/LRC), Study Abroad, International
Students, Puente, Veterans Affairs, Admissions and Records (A&R), Assessment, Counseling, Financial Aid,
Transfer Center, Student Activities, and the Health
Center.
The diagram of the planning process illustrates the relationship between long-term planning, strategic planning, and resource allocation processes (2.31).
Apart from the formal mechanisms of evaluation already described, faculty and staff often make ad hoc
research requests to the Office of Institutional Research
and Planning to get information about the effectiveness
of their programs and services (2.68, 2.72, 2.73).
Self Evaluation
The College uses a variety of mechanisms to gather
evidence about the effectiveness of programs and
services and does extensive program planning at the
department and instructional level. The entire quality review process, which includes instruction, student
services, campus services, and special programs, takes
a comprehensive look at effectiveness levels. While the
instructional component has been around for quite
91
awhile, the student services, campus services, and special programs quality reviews are still rather new and
are changing and evolving over time to help the institution do a better job of collecting evidence on effectiveness than had been the case in the past.
One of the recent changes to the quality review process
is to not only develop goals and objectives, but to also
review those from the past to see if past practices have
been effective or need to be changed. Those changes
along with utilizing departmental performance data in
considering one-time funding requests have led programs and services to continue improving or run the
risk of losing out on much needed funding.
Planning Agenda
None.
March 2004 – J:\Quality Review\Campus Support
Services Quality Review
2.11 Cypress College Institutional Effectiveness Plan
2009 – www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/rreports.aspx
2.12Strategic Plan 2004-2008 for Cypress College 2004-2008 Strategic Plan with Objectives and Action Plans – J:\Planning
2.13Strategic Plan 2008-2011 for Cypress College –
www.cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Planning/
StrategicPlan2008-2011Final.pdf
2.14Educational Master Plan for Cypress College- www.
cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Planning/EducationalMasterPlan.pdf
2.15Student Services Master Plan for Cypress College –
www.cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Planning/
StudentServicesMasterPlan_2007-2014.pdf
Reference Documents
2.16Distance Education Plan at Cypress College – www.
cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Planning/CC_
DE_Plan_Final_040209.pdf
2.1 Cypress College Institutional Effectiveness Report
2006-2007. Chapter 5: A brief History of SLOs at
Cypress College – J:\Institutional Effectiveness Task
Force\IE Report 2007\IER07_Final.pdf
2.17Student Equity Plan at Cypress College – www.
cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Planning/20040
5StudentEquityPlanupdateoct06.pdf
2.2Institutional Learning Outcomes Meeting Minutes,
Reports and Information (2003-2004) – 2005 SelfStudy reference citations (2.1)
2.18Technology Plan at Cypress College – www.
cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Planning/CTC_
TechplanUPDATED.pdf
2.3Student Learning Outcomes Dialogue and Forum
Minutes (2007-2009) – J:\SLO Team\Dialogues\Minutes
2.19 Basic Skills Initiative Action Plan – www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.
aspx
2.4 Expanded Student Learning Outcomes Committee
Agenda and Minutes (2007-2010) – J:\SLO Team\
ESLO
2.20Basic Skills Initiative – www.cypresscollege.edu/
about/InstitutionalResearch/ResearchandEvaluation/
bsinitiative.aspx
2.5 General Education Outcomes Committee Agenda
and Minutes (2009-2010) – J:\SLO Team\GE\Agenda-Minutes
2.21Program Review - Department Planning & Program
Review (formerly IQA) Cypress College Website
– www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/ProgramReview
2.6 Institutional Effectiveness Task Force Meeting Minutes (2000) - 2005 Self-Study reference citations
(2.2)
2.22Core Values Document (2004). Also see Reference
2.13
2.7 Campus-wide Institutional Effectiveness Colloquium
Agenda, Minutes and Reports (2003) – J-Drive
2.23 Community Advisory Committee Agenda and Minutes (2004)
2.8 Student Services Quality Review Report (March
2004) – J:\Quality Review\Student Support Services
Quality Review
2.24President’s Advisory Cabinet – Agenda and Minutes
– J:\President’s Advisory Cabinet
2.9Student Services Quality Review form – J:\Quality
Review\Student Support Services Quality Review\2009-10\ SSQR form
2.10 Campus Support Services Quality Review Report
92
2.25Management Team information dissemination – J:\
Strategic Plan Review\Strategic Plan Update
2.26Leadership Team information dissemination
2.27Institutional Effectiveness 2008-2009 – www.
Cypress College
cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Research/SE/
IER2009forwebsite.pdf
2.28Matriculation Plan – www.cypresscollege.edu/
about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspx
2.29Strategic Planning Dashboard – www.cypresscollege.edu/Media/Website%20Resources/PDFs/
pio/2009-CypressCollege-Dashboard.pdf
2.30 Strategic Plan Progress Report
2.31Diagram of the Planning Process – www.cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Planning/DiagramofthePlanningProcessatCypressCollege.pdf; www.
cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Research/SE/
IER2009forwebsite.pdf
2.32Schedule of Major Planning Events – J:\Planning –
PBC Background Documents
2.33Synchronizing Major Planning Efforts – J:\Planning –
PBC Background Documents
2.34Budget Planning Process – J:\Planning – PBC
Background Documents
2.35Strategic Planning Colloquium - J:\Planning\2_Planning\Strategic Plan 2008-2011
2.36NOCCCD District Strategic Plan – www.nocccd.
edu/StrategicPlanning/documents/nocccd_strategic_plan_062706.pdf
2.37Accreditation Reports – www.cypresscollege.
edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/Accreditation/
ResourcesforSelf-Study/areports.aspx
2.38Institutional Self-Study – www.cypresscollege.edu/
IRP/Resources/Accreditation/R/CC-Self-Study-wlinks.pdf
2.39Focused Mid-Term Report – www.cypresscollege.
edu/IRP/Resources/Accreditation/R/FocusedMidTermReport_Final_Feb5_2008.pdf
2.40Planning and Budget Minutes (May 15, 2008) – J:\
Planning & Budget Committee\PBC Minutes-Prior
Years
2.41Planning and Budget Minutes (September 18, 2008)
– J:\Planning & Budget Committee\PBC MinutesPrior Years
2.42Institutional Effectiveness 2005-06 – www.cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Research/SE/InstitutionalEffectivenessFullReportwCover2006.pdf
2.43Institutional Effectiveness 2006-2007 – www.
cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Research/SE/
IER07_FinalOct22.pdf
2.44Institutional Effectiveness 2007-2008 – www.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Research/SE/
IER_2007-2008.pdf
2.45Student Satisfaction Survey, 2009 – www.cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Research/SE/NoelLevitz_summary_F09Sp10.pdf
2.46Student Satisfaction Survey, 2007 – www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/rsurveys.
aspx
2.472009-2010 Campus Climate and Planning Survey
Report – www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/ResearchandEvaluation/rsurveys.
aspx and www.cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/
Research/SE/CLIMATE200910brief.pdf
2.48One-time Budget Allocation Form – J:\Planning &
Budget Committee
2.49One-time Budget Allocation Assessment Form – J:\
Planning & Budget Committee
2.50Faculty Request Form – J:\ 2010-11 faculty request
form
2.51
Classified Staff Needs Form
2.52
Facility Projects Form
2.53Principles for Budget Reductions – J:\Planning &
Budget Committee
2.542003-2004 Campus Climate Survey – www.
cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Research/SE/
CampusClimateSurveyReport1_2004.pdf
2.552005-2006 Campus Climate Survey – www.
cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Research/SE/
CypressCollege2006ClimateSurveyReport.pdf
2.562007-2008 Campus Climate Survey – www.
cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Research/SE/
CAMPUSCLIMATESURVEYREPORT2008wsurvey.
pdf
2.572005 End of the Year Report —www.cypresscollege.edu/newsEvents/Publications
2.582006 End of the Year Report —www.cypresscollege.edu/newsEvents/Publications
2.592007 End of the Year Report —www.cypresscollege.edu/newsEvents/Publications
2.602008 End of the Year Report – www.cypresscollege.
edu/Media/Website%20Resources/PDFs/pio/2008CypressCollege-EOY.pdf
2.612009 End of the Year Report – www.cypresscollege.
edu/Media/Website%20Resources/PDFs/pio/2009CypressCollege-EOY.pdf
93
2.62Institutional Effectiveness Cycle, Institutional Effectiveness Report, Figure 28, p.72 – www.cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Research/SE/IER2009forwebsite.pdf
2.63Cypress College Planning Diagram, Institutional
Effectiveness Report, Figure 29, p.73 – www.
cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Research/SE/
IER2009forwebsite.pdf
Research/PROGRAM_REVIEW_ROTATION_
SCHEDULE.pdf and www.cypresscollege.edu/IRP/
Resources/Planning/CypressCollegeCycleofQualityReview_revised.pdf
2.78Academic Senate Minutes – September 27, 2007 –
J:\Academic Senate\Senate Minutes 07-08
2.79Campus Technology Survey – J:\Campus Technology Committee
2.64Institutional Effectiveness Cycle, Institutional Effectiveness Report, Figure 28, p.72 – www.cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Research/SE/IER2009forwebsite.pdf
2.80Campus Technology Minutes – J:\Campus Technology Committee
2.65Cypress College Planning Diagram, Institutional
Effectiveness Report, Figure 29, p.73 – www.
cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Research/SE/
IER2009forwebsite.pdf
2.82 Foundation Strategic Plan
2.83 Deans and Directors Minutes
2.66Board of Trustees minutes – www.nocccd.
edu/Trustees/documents/MinutesBoardMtg2008_11_11_000.pdf
2.67Planning and Budget information dissemination – J:\
Planning & Budget Committee\PBC Minutes-Prior
Years
2.68Institutional Research and Planning website –www.
cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch
2.69Cypress College website – www.cypresscollege.
edu/
2.70Departmental Planning and Program Review form –
J:\IQA\Department Planning and Program Review\
Department Planning and Program Review Form
2.71Cycle of Quality Review at Cypress College – www.
cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Planning/CypressCollegeCycleofQualityReview_revised.pdf
2.72Institutional Research Bulletins – www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/ResearchandEvaluation/irbulletins.aspx
2.73Institutional Research Surveys & Reports –www.
cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/ResearchandEvaluation/rsurveys.aspx
2.74@Cypress – www.cypresscollege.edu/newsEvents/
news/AllNews.aspx
2.75Student Right to Know Report – College Catalog,
Page 45 – www.cypresscollege.edu/academics/
CollegeCatalog.aspx
2.76Strategic Planning Framework – www.nocccd.edu/
StrategicPlanning/documents/Strategic_plan_at_a_
glance_June06.pdf
2.77Program Review Rotation Schedule at Cypress
College – www.cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/
94
2.81Institutional Research Calendar – J:\Planning - 1_
IRP Office at CC
2.84Curriculum Committee Minutes – J:\Curriculum
minutes & other info
2.85Staff Development – www.cypresscollege.edu/facultystaff/default.aspx
2.86CTE Advisory Committees – Minutes maintained by
individual CTE programs
2.87
Program Review Form – J:/IQA
2.88Division Meetings – Agendas and Minutes retained
in Division Offices
2.89 Department Meetings – Agendas and Minutes retained by Department
2.90 Workforce Development Committee – Agendas and
Minutes retained in the Grants Office.
2.91Campus Support Services Quality Review 20062007 – J:\Quality Review\Campus Support Services
Quality Review\2006-2007\Inst Research Quality
Review_Sp2007
2.92Campus Support Services Quality Review 20092010 – J:\Quality Review\Campus Support Services
Quality Review\2009-2010\CSSQRform.doc
2.93Advertising Survey, Spring 2005
2.94North Orange County Community College Districtwide Strategic Plan 2008-09 Update – J:\District
Strategic Plan
2.95SLO Status Worksheet for March 1st 2010 – J:\
SLO Team\SLO Status\2010
2.96 Budget Process Diagram (found at the end of Standard IB)
2.97Enrollment Management Plan – www.cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Planning/EnrMgtPlan2009.
Cypress College
pdf
2.98PBC Minutes re One-Time Funding – J:\Planning
& Budget Committee\One Time Funding Process
1011
2.99GE & BS Program Learning Outcomes – J:\Academic Senate\Senate Minutes 09-10, CCAS Minutes 4-22-10.approved, p. 6
2.100Curriculum discussion re SLOs on syllabus – J:\
Curriculum minutes & Other Info\2008-2009, 14 apr
2009 min, p. 1
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
95
96
Cypress College
Draft 1
Projects may be funded out of order if
grants or other additional monies are
found.
Step 8: PAC & PBC review prioritized
list of funding proposals, allocating
available one-time funding to the
projects with the highest priority.
Step 3: PAC &
PBC decide to open
carry-over to onetime funding
requests
43
Step 5: Safety
Committee reviews
one-time funding
proposals and
identifies safety risk
associated with the
projects
Step 4: PBC/Vice
President of
Administrative Services
calls for one-time
funding proposals
Step 9: Projects receiving funding
submits evaluation form showing
utilization of project funds to PBC.
PBC reviews evaluations to
determine successful utilization of
funds.
Step 6: Strategic Plan
Direction Committees
rank one-time funding
proposals in their areas
Step 2: PAC & PBC
decide to fund pending
projects from prior year
and pre-allocations
Step 7: PBC members
individually rank proposals based
on proposal merits, direction
committee priorities, and safety
issues. The committee prepares a
final priority list taking into
consideration individual rankings.
The list is forwarded to PAC for
approval
Step 1: President’s Staff
reviews budget and
recommends that carryover funds are allocated
Budget Process Diagram
Standard II
Student Learning Programs and
Services
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
97
Standard IIA: Instructional
Programs
The institution offers high-quality instructional programs in recognized and emerging fields
of study that culminate in identified student
outcomes leading to degrees, certificates, employment, or transfer to other higher education
institutions or programs consistent with its
mission. Instructional programs are systematically assessed in order to assure currency,
improve teaching and learning strategies, and
achieve stated student learning outcomes. The
provisions of this standard are broadly applicable to all instructional activities offered in
the name of the institution.
Student learning and success is a high priority at Cypress College as evidenced by the breadth and depth of
the instructional programs, the wide range of student
services, the extensive library services and holdings,
and the array of academic support services. Students
are challenged to achieve excellence whether they are
working toward a degree, preparing to transfer to a
four-year institution, training for a technical career, developing basic skills, or seeking personal enrichment.
The quality of instructional programs, student services,
and library and academic support services are ensured
through institutionalized cycles of program review and
a painstaking curricular process. Student learning and
student satisfaction are monitored using a variety of
methods including assessment of student learning outcomes (SLOs) and student satisfaction surveys.
1. The institution demonstrates that all instructional programs, regardless of location
or means of delivery, address and meet the
mission of the institution and uphold its integrity.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College continues to fulfill its mission and meet
the current and future needs of its students and community through a wide range of high quality courses
and training. The College mission states, “Cypress College enriches students’ lives by providing high quality
education for transfer to four-year institutions, associate degrees, career technical education, and certificate
coursework, as well as basic skills and opportunities for
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
lifelong learning. The college is committed to promoting student learning and success, embracing diversity,
and contributing to both the economic and social development of the surrounding community” (3.1).
The College has continued to provide the highest
course and instructional quality. For existing courses
and programs, the College has developed SLOs for
85% of all active courses and has also developed General Education and Basic Skills PLOs and ILOs. At the
same time, the College has implemented the use of the
software program CurricUNET to streamline the curriculum process and the assessment management software TracDat to facilitate effective organization and
use of SLOs (3.88).
In addition, the College continues to respond to the
needs of the local community and industry by expanding course offerings and modes of delivery for collegiate, pre-collegiate, transfer, and occupational courses. For example, in Fall 2001, the College offered 12
online courses across five divisions; by Spring 2008,148
online sections and 15 hybrid sections (utilizing both
online and face-to-face teaching methods) of 113
courses were offered across nine divisions (3.2).
The quality of each instructional program is ensured
through a variety of means, including a rigorous curriculum approval and revision process, ongoing and
systematic program review, integration of student
learning outcomes into course curriculum outlines and
course evaluation, regular review of student success
and retention data by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning, and analysis of student satisfaction as measured every two years.
Instructional offerings are in two primary modes – traditional classroom and distance education. Distance
education course offerings (fully online and hybrid)
have been increased progressively over the last five
years to provide access to students. In order to ensure
that distance education courses follow the rigorous
requirements of traditional courses, a Distance Education Plan (DE Plan) was prepared and approved in
Spring 2009 (3.2). The College submitted a proposal
to approve the substantive change caused by offering
50% or more of the courses in DE mode for 18 associate degree programs and 54 certificate programs. ACCJC approved the proposal on September 17, 2009.
The DE Plan provides details of how the College ensures quality of instruction as well as student services
99
for students enrolled in its DE courses.
1.a. The institution identifies and seeks to
meet the varied educational needs of its students through programs consistent with their
educational preparation and the diversity, demographics, and economy of its communities. The institution relies upon research and
analysis to identify student learning needs and
to assess progress toward stated learning outcomes.
Descriptive Summary
At Cypress College, students have the opportunity to
select from a wide variety of courses and programs to
meet their educational goals, whether these goals include working toward an Associate of Arts or Associate of Science degree, an occupational certificate, or
life-long learning. Cypress College offers a variety of
formats for instruction to help address the diverse educational needs of students such as classroom, online,
short-term, full-term, and hybrid.
Instructional opportunities are available to students
from 7 am to 10 pm, Monday through Friday. Online
courses are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Planning for class schedules involves collaboration between
faculty, department chairs, division deans, instructional
staff, and student support services. In addition, Cypress
College utilizes economic forecast data, community
demographic profiles, and ongoing collaboration with
industry partners, employers, and members of advisory committees to inform and validate course offerings,
programs, implementation, and scheduling. Two documents prepared and used extensively are Research Bulletins (3.81) that are prepared every semester and the
annual Institutional Effectiveness Report (3.36). These
reports provide a demographic analysis as well as student information. The deans, under the leadership of
the Executive Vice President, use the demographic information, fill-rate data, demand for classes, and success and retention information to offer courses and
programs suited to student needs.
Complementing a well-rounded schedule of classes
and outstanding student support services, Cypress College also provides extensive Matriculation services for
all students. Student assessments help students determine college readiness. Counselors utilize assessment
results to assist students with course selection during
100
group orientations. Currently, the College is exploring the feasibility of implementing mandatory student
orientations for all incoming students. Research shows
that students completing Counseling 140, Educational Planning, are more likely to be successful in later
coursework and more likely to graduate than students
who do not take Counseling 140 (3.3).
In Summer 2010, Cypress College implemented a pilot summer bridge program, LinkME to College, targeting students from the top ten feeder high schools
who test into developmental Math or developmental
English. LinkME to College student participants are
tracked by the Office of Institutional Research and
Planning for program evaluation and outcomes. All
Cypress College students are currently tracked by the
Institutional Research and Planning Office to analyze
persistence, retention, and the impact on successful student matriculation.
Cypress College ensures the quality of instruction, programs, and services through ongoing dialogue among
faculty members via departmental meetings, collaboration with business and advisory committees, a rigorous curriculum process, and a comprehensive program
review process and quality review process facilitated
by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning
(3.82). In addition, the Staff Development office coordinates forums to share best practices across disciplines
(3.85). Finally, the College utilizes the Educational
Master Plan, which provides a decade of direction for
educational planning (3.84).
Planning at Cypress College involves collaboration and
shared governance. Each campus stakeholder contributed to the Mission and Vision of Cypress College in
a variety of forums. Academic Senate, campus-wide
committees, division meetings, and department meetings are a few examples of how the College integrates a
diversity of perspectives into the planning process. Examples of these committees and groups include Management Team, Leadership Team, Deans and Directors Team, President’s Advisory Cabinet, Planning and
Budget Committee, Student Services Council, Enrollment Management Committee, Matriculation Committee, Basic Skills Initiative Committee, Curriculum
Committee, Staff Development Committee, Student
Services Master Plan Committee, Educational Master
Plan Committee, Diversity Committee, and Student
Equity Plan Committee. The College relies on leaderCypress College
ship from these various committees and groups in the
planning process to set priorities, conduct needs assessments, identify outcomes, develop activities and timelines, identify resources, implement evaluation, and
coordinate collaboration with each other to achieve
desired results.
In addition, the College utilizes data from the Office
of Institutional Research and Planning to make informed planning decisions. Examples of this research
include Student Satisfaction Surveys, Campus Climate
Surveys, Institutional Effectiveness Reports, ARCC
Reports, Institutional Research Bulletins, and Program
Reviews for instruction, student services, campus support services, and special programs (3.82).
Despite substantial budget reductions to categorical programs during the 2009-2010 and 2010 – 2011
school years, the North Orange County Community
College District (NOCCCD) and Cypress College have
remained committed to providing premier student support services for all students, including for some of the
most socio-economically disadvantaged students on
campus. For example, during the 2009-2010 academic
year, Cypress College and NOCCCD provided substantial funding to offset the budget shortfalls from the
state of California. Rather than transfer the budget
shortfalls directly to the most disadvantaged students
served on campus by severely reducing or eliminating
programs and services, the administration at the College provided financial support to minimize downsizing of staff as well as provided money for books for
EOPS/CARE students. This gesture exemplifies the
commitment of the campus to students during challenging economic times—a commitment to the most
disadvantaged students on campus, keeping the promise of access and retention to higher education in California, and ultimately ensuring a campus climate rich
in diversity (3.89).
Self Evaluation
The Office of Institutional Research and Planning provides Cypress College with an enhanced understanding of student needs, which help implement data-driven decisions impacting programs and services. Central
to the mission and vision of Cypress College, embracing diversity and facilitating student success are commitments that manifest themselves in various forms
throughout the campus and in the community (3.4).
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
The Office of Institutional Research and Planning provides Success and Retention Reports at the conclusion
of each semester. These reports inform the campus
about specific courses where students achieve success.
Equally important, these reports reveal specific courses
where students may be struggling. The data are used
by instructional leaders during department meetings as
well as by student support services areas, including academic support services. Additionally, this information
is included in program review documents. It provides
the foundation for meaningful discourse when faculty
and staff review curriculum, analyze intervention strategies, and enhance academic support tools to assist student learning (3.36).
In addition to Success and Retention Reports, the Office of Institutional Research and Planning provides
every semester a list of courses with low student success rates. Academic support services in the Learning
Resource Center regularly utilize this list to target very
limited resources for Tutorial Services, Supplemental
Instruction, and learning tools available in the Math
Learning Center. Also, student support services at the
College utilize this data to target intervention efforts
for students from educationally, socially, and economically disadvantaged backgrounds.
The Office of Institutional Research and Planning also
provides data regarding the effectiveness of special
programs and the success of specific student populations, i.e., the Supplemental Instruction program (SI).
SI provides students with an opportunity to participate
in a study group led by an SI Leader, usually someone
who has previously passed the same course with the
same instructor. In all student performance measures,
SI proved to be a beneficial program. Students who
attended an SI session had higher success rates than
students in the same sections who did not attend an SI
session. Students who attended 12 or more hours of SI
(SI participants) had higher success rates than did either those who attended SI for fewer than 12 hours and
those who did not attend any SI study group sessions.
Finally, students who attended more hours of SI were
more likely to be successful than students who attended
fewer hours of SI (3.5). Cypress College searches for
innovative ways to find permanent funding for the institutionalization of Supplemental Instruction.
Students in Extended Opportunity Programs & Services (EOPS), exemplify a specific population of students
101
for which data on success is provided by the Office of
Institutional Research and Planning. Table1 shows a
comparison of math course success rates for EOPS students—historically disadvantaged students from lowincome backgrounds—and Cypress College students
as a whole. EOPS relies on data like that in Table 1 to
make informed decisions regarding academic support
services, student support services, and allocation of diminishing resources during these challenging budget
years.
The ongoing data provided by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning is very beneficial for
programmatic efforts targeting specific subgroups of
students. The data in the table provides EOPS with
a helpful snapshot of how EOPS students perform in
comparison to the overall College.
The Fall 2009 Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory revealed that student respondents most often
reported high satisfaction with the quality of instruction, safety and security of the campus, and ease of
accessibility of the online process for course registration. Overall, from 2007 to 2009, student respondents
reported increased satisfaction with the beautification
of the College campus, campus safety, and the institutional commitment to students with disabilities. Conversely, student respondents reported increased dissatisfaction with course registration, infrequent course
offerings, and inconvenient class times. The areas of
dissatisfaction may be explained by increasing enroll-
ments and decreasing state funding resulting in the reduction of course sections offered at the College (3.36,
pp. 14, 19 & 21).
Planning Agenda
None.
1.b. The institution utilizes delivery systems
and modes of instruction compatible with the
objectives of the curriculum and appropriate
to the current and future needs of its students.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College offers a full spectrum of educational
delivery systems and modes of instruction to best serve
the current and future needs of students. Access to
learning at Cypress College includes the following options in addition to traditional on-campus courses (3.6):
◊
Learning Communities
◊
Online courses
◊
Hybrid courses
◊
Web-enhanced courses
◊
Service Learning courses
◊
Short-term courses of varying lengths
◊
Study abroad programs
◊
Summer sessions
Student Success Rates for Selected Math Courses
Spring 2009
Course
EOPS*
Success Rate
Cypress College
Success Rate
Math 15 Pre-Algebra
48%
57%
Math 20 Elementary Algebra
36%
37%
Math 40 Intermediate Algebra
50%
46%
Math 141 College Algebra
46%
38%
Math 142 Trigonometry
45%
45%
Math 150A Calculus & Analytical Geometry
45%
42%
Table 1
*Due to the smaller number of EOPS student enrollment, the data is taken from Fall 2006 to Spring 2009.
102
Cypress College
◊
Teleconferencing (Educational Interpreter Training Program)
◊
Webinar (Health Information Technology)
◊
Weekend classes (currently discontinued)
◊
Work experience
◊
Open-entry/exit courses
Dialogue surrounding delivery systems and modes of
instruction on campus is extensive and occurs regularly
at the Curriculum Committee, the Deans Meetings,
the Distance Education Committee, and at Staff Development planning meetings.
Like many colleges, Cypress College has increased the
number of courses and sections offered in an online
format. In Fall 2001, the College offered 12 online
courses across five divisions; by Spring 2008, it offered
148 online sections and 15 hybrid sections (utilizing
both online and in-person teaching methods) of 113
courses across nine divisions. Cypress College academic programs have implemented distance education for
a variety of reasons, including a desire to offer instruction in a variety of formats and delivery modes, meet
student needs, provide instructional opportunities to
students who would not otherwise have access, meet
high student demand for distance education options,
program survival in periods of low enrollment, recruitment of Distance Education students to the on-campus
program, competition with programs offered by other institutions, and efficient physical space utilization
when distance education is the only way to grow a program (3.7).
Given the growth in the number of courses offered
through Distance Education, the Distance Education
Plan for 2008 – 2011 was created. The development of
the plan included:
◊
Planning Stage
◊
Development Stage
◊
Writing Stage
◊
Review Stage (entire College invited to
participate)
◊
Final Review and Approval
The Educational Interpreter Training Program (EITP)
began offering courses in Fall 2006, which included
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
regular live teleconferences. The EITP broadcast originates from Cypress College with participation of students both on-campus and at various alternative locations throughout the State from as far north as Butte
County and as far south as Imperial County. Off-site
students view the broadcast and interact with the instructor and students from Cypress College, as well as
those at each remote location. EITP offers training that
meets the needs of sign language interpreters in K-12
settings and complies with state certification requirements (3.8).
The Study Abroad Program provides students the opportunity to enrich their educational experience by
studying abroad for one semester or for a shorter period of time, depending on course offerings, while earning college units. The program is designed not only to
enrich course content by their location in the country
where they are offered, but also to provide students
with a multi-cultural experience by living in a society
and environment different from that of the United
States. Cypress College frequently offers programs in
partnership with Fullerton College (3.9, 3.86).
Health Information Technology (HIT) classes are designed to provide students optimal support for learning
through traditional course offerings and Webinar—
synchronous seminars conducted over the Internet
(3.10). A recently procured grant specific to HIT will
provide program faculty with the opportunity to explore the development of additional curriculum and
alternative delivery modes.
Although Cypress College began offering weekend
classes nearly 20 years ago, with the budget crisis, these
classes are not being scheduled at the present time. Before the decision to eliminate the weekend classes was
made, an analysis was done to understand the impact
of such a decision. Only 3% of students were found
to be attending weekend classes only; the rest of the
students taking weekend courses were also on campus
on other days.
A variety of year-long learning programs provide students with unique and exciting educational experiences. These programs include the following: the Puente
Program, the Legacy Program, and LinkME. The Puente Program pairs English classes focusing on Latino
literature with a counseling class. Legacy, which is a
three-semester program, links English courses with a
counseling class in the Fall and an Ethnic Studies class
103
in the Spring and the following Fall, focuses on issues
of cultural diversity by significantly incorporating African-American literature. LinkME targets students from
the top ten feeder high schools who test into developmental Math or developmental English classes and are
linked to a counseling class (3.10).
In addition, several learning communities have provided interdisciplinary instruction. These learning community cohorts integrate common goals, objectives,
student learning outcomes, and assignments. In the
University Transfer Achievement Program (UTAP) —
a year-long learning community — students enroll in
an English class that is paired with a counseling class
and additional academic classes such as Theater, U. S.
History, College Study Strategies, Human Communication, Psychology, Library Research Skills, or Geology. These courses share integrated instruction and assignments. Semester-length learning communities have
also been offered. “Reading Between the Lines” provided integrated instruction in a developmental English and math class. The “Dental Talk” learning community paired Dental Assisting with an Interpersonal
Communication course. “Close Encounters” linked
Interpersonal Communication with Airline Customer
Care. In the latter two learning communities, technology was used to enhance the interdisciplinary curriculum and community connections. An English and a
Japanese learning community has also provided integrated instruction for several years (3.12).
The Teacher Preparation Program offers course sections designed for future teachers (3.10). During year
five of the last Title V Grant, thirty students completed
the Vocational Internship Program, in collaboration
with businesses and industry in the surrounding community (3.13).
Self Evaluation
Cypress College determines that delivery of instruction
fits the objectives and content of its courses primarily through the curriculum approval process, but also
through the application of student learning outcomes
(SLO), data from Student Success and Course Completion research, data from degree/certificate completion, transfer rates, the Distance Education Report
for online instruction, comparison of performance in
same courses offered via different modes, and faculty
recommendations.
104
Course and curriculum approval is the responsibility of
the Cypress College Curriculum Committee, overseen
by the Academic Senate. The Curriculum Committee
relies upon the expertise of the faculty to determine
appropriate delivery methods for individual courses.
The formal process for course approval is well defined
and compatible with student needs, and SLO courselevel assessments provide data on the effectiveness of
instruction in relationship to course objectives.
The Distance Education Subcommittee established
course Instructional Objectives as the core criteria in
determining which of the Distance Education delivery
methods is most appropriate for instructional needs.
If all Instructional Objectives of a particular course
can be accomplished with comparable rigor, depth,
and breadth to traditionally delivered courses, then
the Curriculum Committee can approve the course to
be offered in the online format. In this respect, if the
course’s Instructional Objectives require a significant
student-faculty in-person component to achieve the
learning objectives, the Committee may recommend
the Hybrid course format rather than the exclusively online format (3.17). All Cypress College distance
education courses are offered in accord with applicable statutory and regulatory guidelines. Substantive
change proposals have been approved as required by
ACCJC for all programs subject to the 50% or more
on-line provisions. The most recent request for substantive change was approved in Fall 2009.
The Educational Interpreter Training program operates independently of the Distance Education Program
and, therefore, has established its own policies and procedures. However, documentation of guidelines pertaining to broadcast distance education is a part of the
DE Plan Goals and Objectives (3.7).
Measuring the effectiveness of an institution’s delivery
methods and evaluating student learning is essential to
student success. Understanding what is working and
why it is working is just as important as understanding
what is not working and why it is not working. Cypress
College evaluates the effectiveness of delivery methods
in meeting student needs and accomplishing student
learning through:
◊
Program review
◊
Instructor and course evaluations
◊
Completion and success rate reports
Cypress College
◊
Course SLOs and PLOs utilizing different modes of delivery
Between the Lines.” As a consequence, this learning
community had a full cohort in Fall 2008.
◊
Enrollment trends in courses utilizing
non-standard methods of delivery.
◊
Title V-funded evaluations of specific
programs, such as specific learning communities
The courses offered via distance education undergo
the same review process as traditional courses. The
Distance Education Program will be reviewed as an
administrative unit and undergo a Campus Support
Service Quality Review process with other special programs in Spring 2011 (3.82).
Evaluations and adjustments have been made within
the College’s learning communities to make them more
effective. In May 2007, after an evaluation of the Year
4 University Transfer Achievement Program (UTAP)
Freshman Experience Program, it was determined that
adding a dedicated counselor and counseling class to
the year-long learning community greatly enhanced
the ability of its students to succeed and persist. Also
contributing to the success of the 2006-2007 UTAP
cohort was that Cypress College students, rather than
staff, called high school students assessed for English
placement in the spring and encouraged them to enroll in the UTAP learning community. Consequently,
in Fall 2007 the UTAP Freshman Experience sections
filled quickly with students eager to initiate their college careers. UTAP Freshman Experience Program
added another cohort of students, increasing the number of students served to 50 students. At the end of the
year, the success rate for both cohorts exceeded previous years’ rates. To revise the 2006-2007 year-long
UTAP Freshman Experience Learning Community,
the Learning Communities Coordinator and lead faculty member worked with three other course instructors, a counselor, the Dean of Counseling, and the Matriculation Manager. Together they analyzed previous
years’ success and retention rates, the characteristics of
the previous years’ learning community students, the
organization of the curricula shared by the instructors, and the extent of support from student services.
Based on their analysis, a counselor was assigned to the
2007-2008 learning community; the two cohorts of the
UTAP learning community experienced an 89% success rate in Year 5 (3.83).
The Basic Skills English and math learning community “Reading Between the Lines” was also evaluated
and revised. Because of the success of student-initiated
calls for UTAP the previous year, in Summer 2008, Cypress College students contacted high school students
assessed into basic skills English/reading and math
courses and encouraged them to enroll in “Reading
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
An additional goal of the Distance Education Plan is
to work with campus-wide groups including Disabled
Students Program and Services (DSPS), Academic
Computing, and Staff Development on an accessibility review process. Currently, the DE Program is in the
process of acquiring software for Ed Code 508 compliance. After the faculty is trained, the Committee plans
to create a review process, as required by the State
Chancellor’s Distance Education Guidelines (3.19).
Expected completion date is Spring 2011 (3.7).
Success and Retention reports are incorporated into
Program Review reports and are re-examined by online
status, basic skills progress, prerequisite and placement
exam validations, and evaluations of other programs
and grant-funded activities. Although the Success and
Retention Report comes out every fall and spring, the
IR&P Office provides in-depth analyses for specific
programs throughout the year (3.36, 3.77).
Planning Agenda
None.
1.c. The institution identifies student learning
outcomes for courses, programs, certificates,
and degrees; assesses student achievement of
those outcomes; and uses assessment results
to make improvements.
Descriptive Summary
The campus has engaged in considerable dialogue related to the adoption of the student learning outcomes
(SLO) assessment process. The campus initiated discussions regarding institutional learning outcomes as
early as 2002 and adopted its final version in 2004. The
initial group of interested faculty and campus personnel has evolved into the Expanded SLO Committee
comprised of the SLO coordinator, the SLO Facilitator, at least one faculty representative from each division, the campus Staff Development Coordinator, the
105
Director of the Institutional Research and Planning,
and other interested campus representatives. Over the
past few years, many meetings and multiple dialogue
sessions have provided the opportunity for faculty and
management to raise concerns, voice questions and
frustrations, and provide input.
In late 2007, the Academic Senate approved a timeline
for the completion of the SLO assessment process or
“loop.” At that time, the timeline called for the completion of all course SLOs by Spring 2011 and completion of 50% of all course loops (3.20). Completion of
the loop consists of writing the SLOs, developing an
assessment plan, collecting data, analyzing the data
collected, completing a report of assessment results,
and implementing any necessary changes. As of Fall
2009, 68% of all SLOs were completed and 21% of
the loops were completed; SLOs were on target, but
loop completion rate was below target (3.21). In 2008,
the Academic Senate and Curriculum Committee approved the addition of SLOs as part of the curriculum
approval process (3.22) for all new and revised courses.
It is to be noted, however, that the curriculum committee does not approve the course SLOs. SLOs development is the responsibility of each academic department, advised by the SLO Committee. SLOs have
been added to course outlines, and starting in Spring
2010, SLOs were required in course syllabi across the
campus and were added to the program/quality review
evaluations. These changes will accelerate the completion of the campus SLO writing timeline.
The development of course SLOs and PLOs and implementation of the SLO assessment process are faculty responsibilities. Most of the process has occurred at
the individual, team, and/or department level. Teams
and/or departments have met to identify course SLOs,
assessment methods, analyze data, and complete reports. Each department is responsible for developing
assessment methodology, timelines, and evaluation
processes.
SLO reports were submitted to the SLO Team and
were archived on the campus’ J: drive. In 2008, the
campus purchased the TracDat assessment management software for the SLO process (3.23). Most of the
SLO reports on the J: drive were uploaded into TracDat. Faculty training of data entry methods began in
Fall 2009. As with the curriculum process, data entry
into TracDat will become a faculty responsibility in the
106
future.
In 2009, the campus SLO Team began to focus on
program and general education outcomes. Two forums
and multiple division presentations were conducted by
the SLO Team to introduce the PLO process. A General Education and Basic Skills Committee compromised
of representatives from all divisions was formed and
the GE & Basic Skills PLOs were developed after 10
meetings that were held during Fall 2009 and Spring
2010. PLOs were developed for mostly vocational programs. As of October 2010, 27 out of the 32 programs,
including the GE & Basic Skills Program, have developed their PLOs. The remaining programs will define
their PLOs by Spring of 2011. In the Campus Support
Services Review conducted in Spring 2010, all units
noted that they will develop AUOs by Fall 2011 (3.76).
Self Evaluation
The College has successfully engaged the faculty in a
dialogue regarding the SLO assessment process. Although the campus shared the statewide concern regarding workload issues that did not stand in the way
of moving the SLO process forward. The campus
management team has been supportive and involved
in the entire process, evident by their willingness to
purchase and maintain the TracDat assessment management software. The campus Office of Institutional
Research and Planning has consistently worked with
the SLO Team, campus departments, and individual
instructors. The office provides departments with the
data relevant to the entire SLO process. Data related
to enrollment trends, FTES, WSCH/FTEF, successful
course completion, retention, and number of certificates and/or degrees, where applicable, are supplied.
The history of the SLO assessment process at Cypress
College as documented in the “Introductory Documents — SLOs” section is evidence of the milestones
the College has achieved in establishing this process.
The program review form was modified in Spring 2009
to include SLO assessment. Beginning Fall 2009, all instructional and student services programs included reporting progress of SLO achievement as a part of their
internal review and used the information to strengthen
the programs. Campus Support Services has also made
the commitment to develop Administrative Unit Outcomes by 2012.
Cypress College
Planning Agenda
None.
2. The institution assures the quality and improvement of all instructional courses and
programs offered in the name of the institution, including collegiate, developmental, and
pre-collegiate courses and programs, continuing and community education, study abroad,
short-term training courses and programs,
programs for international students, and contract or other special programs, regardless of
type of credit awarded, delivery mode, or location.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College regulates the quality and improvement
of all instructional courses by the interplay of highly
qualified faculty and other personnel, the Curriculum
Committee, Academic Senate, the Deans Council, advisory boards, and stringent course and program review. Programs and courses are developed and offered
using the quantitative and qualitative information obtained by the institution and the divisions. Examples of
quantitative information are the Institutional Research
Bulletin (published every semester) and Institutional
Effectiveness Report (3.36, 3.81). Qualitative information is obtained from the expertise of faculty in their
fields and environment scan.
The College is committed to hiring faculty who go
beyond the state mandated minimum qualifications,
seeking those with outstanding expertise in their discipline and demonstrated ability to effectively communicate that expertise to students. For those programs
which are technical and/or occupational, hiring committees look for individuals with high levels of training and proven workplace experience. Programs and
courses are developed and offered using quantitative
and qualitative information obtained by the institution
and the divisions. Examples of quantitative information are the Institutional Research Bulletin (published
every semester) and Institutional Effectiveness Report
(3.36). Qualitative information is obtained from the expertise of faculty in their fields.
The Curriculum Committee at Cypress College is
committed both to facilitating a department or program’s ability to create new courses and/or revise exInstitutional Self Study — Spring 2011
isting ones and also to ensuring that such courses meet
the highest standards. Each division has its own Curriculum Committee Representative to help disseminate information and assist in getting courses through
the curriculum process. The Curriculum Committee
developed a Curriculum Handbook in 1989-1990 to
assist Division Representatives and other committee
members who were working with faculty in the creation and revision of curriculum. The current CurricUNET system incorporated all the pertinent policies,
processes, and forms contained in the Handbook into
this automated system; making the information more
widely available and readily accessible to any faculty or
staff member participating in curriculum development
and approval. In 2009, the committee also created and
disseminated a new Curriculum Development Training Guide and a FAQ document in order to provide
up-to-date guidance on developing a quality Course
Outline of Record and ensuring timely approval of
proposals. The original Handbook is still available in
print, but most assistance is now provided via links to
resources on the College’s CurricUNET page and accompanying help screens. (3.24, 3.25).
Program Review is an integral part of quality assurance at Cypress College. The instrument used for program review has been revised several times over the
last nineteen years. The latest review of the process
was conducted in Spring 2009. In its current form,
the program review process analyzes quantitative data,
evaluates SLO achievement, and identifies resources
required for continued service to students. This is the
first time that the program review process directly links
budget allocation with quantitative and qualitative review of programs. The process of linking budget planning with program review has been implemented for
student support and campus support programs as well
(3.76).
Self Evaluation
Faculty form the cornerstone of instructional quality at
Cypress College. It takes four years for a faculty member to attain tenure, and both full-time and adjunct
faculty are formally evaluated on a regular cycle. Regular faculty members are evaluated every three years
in accord with the Education Code and the Collective
Bargaining Agreement. Adjunct faculty members are
evaluated in the first semester of service and at least
once in every six semesters subsequently. Some de107
partments, such as the English as a Second Language
Department, use a mentor system whereby an experienced full-time faculty member provides assistance to
other faculty members who may be teaching a course
for the first time. In addition, faculty can participate every semester in a voluntary Student Satisfaction Survey
(3.26) of any course they teach in order to gain further
feedback on their effectiveness.
The College is committed to providing continuing
education and development for its faculty. Opening
Day, held each semester, has featured keynote speakers
who address pedagogical issues such as the August 18,
2006, presentation by Dr. Janet Zadina, “Using Brain
Research to Enhance Student Success.” In addition to
providing training on any new technology that affects
faculty, such as Web Training, Blackboard, CurricUNET, and TracDat, Staff Development often conducts
pedagogically-related events during the semester such
as “Instructors’ Understanding and Use of Learning
Styles,” a sabbatical presentation by Michael Flores,
Professor of History, April 15, 2010 (3.27) Faculty are
also encouraged to present at and/or participate in
professional conferences.
The curriculum process continues to provide guidelines
for a high standard of quality assurance. The search
for a means to streamline the process and make it more
accessible to both faculty and Curriculum Committee
members led to the advent of CurricUNET. The entire
curriculum process is now online and readily available
to all parties involved in creating a new course or revising an existing one.
Faculty within their individual departments and programs are responsible for the quality of course content and instruction. Their expertise enables them to
determine if new courses are needed or if a course’s
content needs to be updated to remain current with
recent and/or future developments within their discipline. Each course outline must be revisited every five
years, if not sooner. A full Program Review by each
department or program is on a three-year cycle. During Spring 2010, a Distance Education Course Quality
Rubric was approved by the Academic Senate. The rubric provides guidelines to help faculty teaching online
to assess the quality of their online course content and
ease of use to students (3.28).
Open dialogue with other offices or governing bodies
on campus, such as the Academic Senate, Matricula108
tion, the Office of Institutional Research and Planning,
and the UC/CSU Articulation Officer, among others,
as well as the use of a wide variety of data sources including SLOs, the Institutional Effectiveness Report,
the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction, and the Climate
Survey of Faculty and Staff, are used to assist in determining the quality and effectiveness of the College’s
courses and programs.
Planning Agenda
None.
2.a. The institution uses established procedures to design, identify learning outcomes
for, approve, administer, deliver, and evaluate
courses and programs. The institution recognizes the central role of its faculty for establishing quality and improving instructional
courses and programs.
Descriptive Summary
The responsibility for developing courses and programs lies in the hands of the faculty. Recommendations for courses and programs may come from a variety of sources such as administrators and advisory
committees, but it is only when faculty take action that
the course development process can begin. The consultation phase of the curriculum process is delineated
in the Curriculum Handbook and incorporated automatically into the CurricUNET approval process. In
this first phase, the faculty member is encouraged to
interact with others in the department, division, related
divisions on campus, Fullerton College, the Articulation Officer and, in some cases, the Dean of Career
Technical Education and Economic Development
(3.25). The intention is that the extended discussions
with others will identify potential problems and lead to
a better and more fully developed course or program.
CurricUNET approval requires a sign-off by a representative from each level (department, division, Articulation, Fullerton & SCE campuses) before the proposal
can move ahead to the Curriculum Committee. Proposals can be returned to the originator at any time
for further discussion with others and modifications if
necessary.
Once those preliminary steps have been taken, courses
and programs must be submitted to the Curriculum
Committee for approval. That Committee is faculty
Cypress College
chaired and dominated by faculty representatives but
also includes representatives from the administration,
classified staff, and Associated Students. Careful scrutiny is given to all elements of the course proposal, particularly the course outline. The Curriculum Committee may either suggest or insist upon certain changes in
the course or program before final approval is granted
in order to improve the proposal and thus, ultimately,
the instruction that occurs in those courses (3.25).
The responsibility for evaluating courses and programs
is also faculty driven. While some evaluation does occur during tenure and peer review, the primary evaluative tool is the Program Review process. Every three
years each department on campus is asked to evaluate
its courses and programs and provide an Action Plan
for improvement (3.44). Under newly revised procedures, the Action Plans are more closely linked to both
the curricular and planning and budget processes as
one means of enhancing the potential improvements
(3.30).
Another means of evaluating courses and programs
is the review by external agencies. The health science
programs have accrediting bodies that have determined the appropriate and expected student learning
outcomes for each profession and program. It is the
responsibility of the faculty and Department Coordinator to ensure that these outcomes are met. Both a
Departmental Self Study and a site visit by the accrediting agency for each program take place in order to
ensure compliance (3.31).
As data related to the SLO process started increasing, a
way to integrate the assessment process and create a repository for all SLO-related data was needed. The College invested in an integrated assessment management
software, TracDat (3.23), in September 2008. The
main purpose of this software is to house all the SLOs
and PLOs, work as a centralized source for documenting assessment results, and generate reports that inform the institution about the status of SLO and PLO
accomplishments. One of the functional requirements
of the software is the existence of an Institutional Effectiveness Plan that maps the SLOs and assessments
with the institution’s Mission and Vision.
A taskforce created in December 2008 developed an
Institutional Effectiveness Plan that helped prepare a
roadmap for configuration of TracDat according to
the needs of the College (3.35). The plan was develInstitutional Self Study — Spring 2011
oped during Fall 2009, and after a review by various
shared governance committees and feedback from the
faculty and staff, the plan was approved by the Academic Senate and President’s Advisory Cabinet in May
2009. The initial training for configuration of TracDat
was also conducted in late May 2009. During Summer
2009, the core team worked on migrating some of the
SLOs from different locations onto TracDat (3.33).
During Summer 2009, the work of the core team also
included developing training programs for faculty. The
plan was to conduct a few pilot training programs for
the faculty in Fall 2009, adjust the training program
based on the feedback, and roll out comprehensive
training for all divisions in Spring 2010. Also, the new
program review format developed as a part of the Institutional Effectiveness Plan was used for the first time
in Fall 2009. During Fall 2010, the campus will conduct program reviews using the new format and feed
the data into TracDat so that the reports generated can
be used for planning purposes (3.33).
Another development that greatly improves the quality
of instructional courses and programs is CurricUNET.
CurricUNET allows for a smoother curriculum approval process with input from the School of Continuing Education, Fullerton College, and all concerned
parties so that students have relatively timely access to
new courses, certificates, and programs. CurricUNET
has resulted in increased discussion about course numbers, content, and class size that may affect students
on both campuses. Currently, developers are trying to
coordinate so that students who enroll at either of the
campuses can do so with a minimum of confusion —
especially with regard to course titles, numbers, and
prerequisites. Instructors creating new courses consult
with the library to ensure that important supplementary materials are available to support students taking
the course. Further, developers are working on a flagging system that will allow CurricUNET to flag courses
that need to be reviewed and prerequisites that need to
be re-validated. Also, CurricUNET includes more information regarding possible transfer status and articulation than the previous “paper-process” system. This
ensures a more comprehensive articulation process for
students planning to transfer to a four-year institution.
Self Evaluation
The Curriculum Committee, a subcommittee of the
109
Academic Senate, is made up of faculty members and
is responsible for overseeing revision and updates of
course outlines and departmental programs. During
the Fall semester, the committee’s focus is on approving curriculum. Issues that need discussion or investigation are placed on the committee’s list of “Issue Bin
Items.” These items are then placed on Spring semester agenda to be worked on to resolve the issues. Some
items necessitate a subcommittee to investigate further
to determine the best course of action. Any changes
are then put into the Curriculum Training Guide,
added as links from the CurricUNET homepage or
incorporated in the Help screens available as faculty/
curriculum committee members are actually inputting
data (3.32).
A key order of business is the current development of
SLOs. The initial discussion of SLOs in the Fall of
2002 has led to much progress. Since that time, faculty
and deans attended regional workshops to familiarize
themselves with SLOs and assessment techniques, the
Staff Development Coordinator facilitated meetings to
encourage SLO dialogue, and an SLO Team was created, which worked with departments to map courses. Later, the SLO trainer was added to help faculty
and staff learn about the SLO process. Accordingly,
workshops were offered to all departments throughout
Spring 2007 and Fall 2008 in 3 different areas: 1. writing SLOs and developing assessment plans, 2. analysis,
Page 114: Updated chart
and 3. report writing. More than 220 faculty members
Division
BUS/CIS
Counseling
CTE
Fine Arts
Health Science
Language-Arts
Library
PE
SEM
Social Science
SUM
Total # of
Courses
199
14
133
223
140
86
2
96
67
133
1093
# of
Course
SLOs
Posted
147
14
90
221
138
70
2
95
57
90
924
# of
Course
CATs
Posted
147
14
89
219
138
66
2
90
56
77
898
participated in these workshops (3.33, 3.80). Since
2007, the more expansive and educated SLO Team
has worked diligently to oversee the development of
both program and General Education and Basic Skills
PLOs. As of October 2010 (Table 2), faculty members
have defined SLOs for 85% of the courses, defined
assessment methods for 82%, and closed the loop on
48% of all the courses (3.21).
Planning Agenda
None.
2.b. The institution relies on faculty expertise and the assistance of advisory committees when appropriate to identify competency
levels and measurable student outcomes for
courses, certificates, programs including general and vocational education, and degrees.
The institution regularly assesses student
progress towards achieving those outcomes.
Descriptive Summary
Each course offered at the College has been designed
and implemented by relevant faculty and has an official
course outline specifying course objectives. Guidelines
for course syllabi ensure that students know the specific objectives of a course, its SLOs, and its criteria
for successful completion. Faculty of each department
continue to conduct program reviews on a regular ba-
# of
Course
Reports
Submitted
133
10
47
48
135
48
2
22
39
39
523
# of
Course
Reports
On
TracDat
45
10
38
48
137
39
2
18
38
29
404
%
SLOs
Posted
74
100
68
99
99
81
100
99
85
68
85
%
CATs
Posted
74
100
67
98
99
77
100
94
84
58
82
%
Closed
Loop
67
71
35
22
96
56
100
23
58
29
48
SLO data as of this report (3.37)
Table 2
Page 118
110
The College follows a program review calendar. All programs are reviewed on a three-year
cycle. The following table show the semester when the program is reviewed.
Cypress College
Division
Business
Counseling
Division
Fine Arts
Business
Health Science
Counseling
Language Arts
Fine Arts
Physical Education
Health Science
SEM
Language Arts
Social Science
Physical Education
Voc/Tech (CTE)
SEM
College-wide
Social Science
Fall 07
Spring 08
Fall 08
Spring 09
Fall 09
Spring 10
62.1
67.1
66.2
65.8
67.7
65.7
66.6
Fall 07
66.4
62.1
80.0
66.6
67.5
66.4
70.3
80.0
55.1
67.5
59.6
70.3
69.9
55.1
64.3
59.6
62.6
Spring 08
67.5
67.1
77.1
62.6
67.1
67.5
73.5
77.1
55.1
67.1
63.9
73.5
69.8
55.1
65.7
63.9
68.0
Fall 08
68.8
66.2
77.2
68.0
68.2
68.8
71.2
77.2
55.5
68.2
62.6
71.2
75.8
55.5
65.8
62.6
65.1
Spring 09
69.8
65.8
80.7
65.1
66.6
69.8
70.0
80.7
57.1
66.6
64.0
70.0
70.8
57.1
66.1
64.0
74.5
Fall 09
72.4
67.7
82.1
74.5
71.3
72.4
71.2
82.1
61.0
71.3
66.7
71.2
71.5
61.0
69.1
66.7
70.0
Spring 10
71.5
65.7
81.1
70.0
71.2
71.5
67.9
81.1
61.0
71.2
66.4
67.9
72.2
61.0
68.2
66.4
70.8
71.5
72.2
66.1
69.1
68.2
Success
Rates by Division, Fall
69.92007-Spring
69.8 2010 75.8
Voc/Tech (CTE)
College-wide
64.3
65.7
65.8
Counseling
Division
Fine Arts
Business
Health Science
86.0
Fall
07
81.9
76.9
88.9
80.6
Spring
79.8 08
79.2
87.0
86.8
Fall
08
81.1
80.2
87.1
84.6
Spring
82.5 09
79.8
90.4
90.2
Fall
09
84.6
80.1
90.7
89.3
Spring
83.3 10
76.0
90.6
Health
SEM Science
Language
Arts
Social Science
88.9
72.7
81.3
78.9
87.0
71.9
78.9
79.4
87.1
73.2
80.6
80.5
90.4
73.3
78.7
81.6
90.7
77.7
83.1
84.5
90.6
76.8
82.0
82.6
The tableRates
showsbythe
improvement
in success rate
over the past three years. Although the success
Success
Division,
Fall 2007-Spring
2010
rate varies from one division to another as well as from one semester to another, there has been a
Table 3
modest gain in overall student success. The more important role of this data is to provide a
context
forshows
analysis
setting benchmarks
The
table
the and
improvement
in successfor
rateimprovement.
over the past three years. Although the success
rate varies from one division to another as well as from one semester to another, there has been a
modest gain
in overall student
The more
role of 09
this data
Division
Fallsuccess.
07
Spring
08 important
Fall 08
Spring
Fallis
09to provide
Spring a10
context
for
analysis
and
setting
benchmarks
for
improvement.
Business
76.9
79.2
80.2
79.8
80.1
76.0
Counseling
Language Arts
Fine
ArtsEducation
Physical
Physical
Voc/TechEducation
(CTE)
SEM
College-wide
86.0
81.3
81.9
85.6
85.6
85.9
72.7
80.3
80.6
78.9
79.8
86.9
86.9
84.4
71.9
79.6
86.8
80.6
81.1
86.3
86.3
89.1
73.2
80.9
Social Science
78.9
79.4
80.5
Retention
Rates by Division,
Fall 2007-Spring
2010
Voc/Tech (CTE)
TableCollege-wide
4
84.6
78.7
82.5
85.2
85.2
84.9
73.3
80.8
81.6
90.2
83.1
84.6
87.4
87.4
85.7
77.7
83.7
84.5
89.3
82.0
83.3
84.7
84.7
84.5
76.8
82.0
82.6
85.9
84.4
89.1
84.9
85.7
84.5
80.3
79.6
80.9
80.8
83.7
82.0
Retention rates
depict
a similarFall
picture.
There have
been moderate gains over the years although
Retention
Rates
by Division,
2007-Spring
2010
theand
result
varies
by division
and by semester.
sis
make
course
and/or program
modifications as
desired or required by industries and licensure reguladeemed necessary.
tions.
Retention rates depict a similar picture. There have been moderate gains over the years although
Data resulting from the application of SLOs are used
Results of licensure examinations, employment statisthe result varies by division and by semester.
tics, and basic skills improvement assessments also protogether with other measurements such as successful
vide a means of evaluating the effectiveness of student
course completion rates, completion of degrees and
certificates, and transfers to four-year institutions for
learning. For example, the Radiology & Diagnostic
program review. Program review also establishes the Medical Sonography Program has advisory members
connection between student achievement measured by
which it reports to. It also has evaluative tools for students in clinical training, which have to be completed to
the parameters mentioned above and resource requirereach competency. The program has state and national
ments. In other words, accomplishment of SLOs plays
an important role in identifying resources necessary for accreditation standards for both radiology (jrcert.org)
and ultrasound (jrcdms.org). In addition, the Program
successful continuation of programs (3.43).
Advisory committees are required for all vocational utilizes employer surveys, pass rates, and graduate surveys to assess effectiveness (3.38).
programs and identify specific competencies that are
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
111
Self Evaluation
Faculty and advisory committees provide the essential
means of assessing student learning and of ensuring
that course criteria are met. While course grades and
other assessment vehicles have traditionally provided
the means of evaluating student success, the role of
SLOs in this process has just begun. Apart from being
an integral part of program review, assessment information is also published and disseminated annually via
the Institutional Effectiveness Report and on the IR&P
website (3.36).
Since its inception, the Institutional Effectiveness Report has provided information on course completion
rates and retention rates. The annual reporting is particularly useful for comparing trends over a period of
time.
Table 3 shows the improvement in success rate over the
past three years. Although the success rate varies from
one division to another as well as from one semester to
another, there has been a modest gain in overall student success. The more important role of this data is to
provide a context for analysis and setting benchmarks
for improvement.
Retention rates depict a similar picture. There have
been moderate gains over the years although the result
varies by division and by semester (Table 4).
Planning Agenda
None.
2.c. High-quality instruction and appropriate breadth, depth, rigor, sequencing, time to
completion, and synthesis of learning characterize all programs.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College demonstrates the quality of its instruction in a myriad of ways. Faculty play the key role in
decisions regarding the appropriate breadth, depth,
rigor, sequencing, time to completion, and synthesis of
learning of programs, as overseen by the Curriculum
Committee under the direction of the Academic Senate (3.39).
In order to determine if a course or program is collegiate or pre-collegiate, the College uses Title 5 requirements and the new CB-21 coding rubric guidelines.
112
These guidelines help to determine whether a course is
categorized as transfer level or basic skills. If it is a basic
skills course, the guidelines assist in determining how
many levels below transfer the course is placed (3.40).
The District has also completed an in-depth review of
the collegiate/pre-collegiate coding assignments to assure accuracy (3.41).
Cypress College uses placement tests in math, English,
and ESL to determine the baseline knowledge in basic skills of students wishing to enroll in the College’s
courses and programs. Several studies have been conducted to validate the placement cut scores, as well as
identify placement and enrollment patterns and trends
in levels of placement (3.51). Students who do not place
into the lowest-level credit basic skills courses (Math 10
and English 57) or the intermediate ESL course (ESL
080C) are advised to consider noncredit basic skills
programs.
Quality of instruction is also assessed through the Program Review of instructional programs (3.42, 3.43),
including a targeted review process for career technical programs. Program review now incorporates student learning outcomes, a process of defining learning
outcomes, assessing student performance in relation to
these outcomes, and thereby determining what areas
of instruction may need change in order to facilitate
student learning. Success and retention rates are also
provided by the Office of Institutional Research and
Planning every term by division and course so that departments can complete their program review. As this
process is ongoing and cyclical, instruction is ever improving (3.44).
The overall quality of instruction at Cypress College
is further validated by increasing numbers of degrees
awarded (3.36). Performance data is described in the
annual Institutional Effectiveness Report (IER), which
details success and retention rates (through time by
division and by distance education status), as well as
progress from one basic skills course to the next higher
course, persistence rates, degrees and certificates, and
transfer data (3.36). The performance of students who
transfer to four-year institutions is another indication
of quality of instruction — the GPA of Cypress College students who transfer to California State University system are comparable to the overall GPA of all
students in the system, as reported in the Institutional
Effectiveness Report. Progress and achievement data
Cypress College
are also available from a statewide accountability report (ARCC) (3.45). This report is distributed to the
Board, executive staff, deans, and managers.
Proper course sequencing is also evaluated. The Institutional Research and Planning office conducts
research validating prerequisites, thus providing empirical support for sequencing of courses. Articulation
agreements between the College and local universities
also demonstrate that courses are at the correct level
of breadth, depth, and rigor as equivalent courses at
universities (3.46).
Awards to students and programs also demonstrate
high quality instruction by showing that external organizations recognize excellence among both students
and faculty; the End of the Year Report (3.47) details
successes in Instruction and Learning. For example, the
2009 End of the Year Report noted several successes
related to quality of instruction, including a CCC Athletic Association Scholar Team Award in 2007 - 2008
to baseball and men’s golf. A Cypress College student
was also named to the Women’s Basketball Academic
All-Star Team. A Social Science instructor was awarded the Medal of Excellence for Teaching in 2009; that
year she was also a nominee for the Cypress College
and Orange County Teacher of the Year. The EOPS
office named this same instructor as an Outstanding
Teacher. A Cypress College Health Science student
has won a research award by the American Dental Hygienists’ Association for the past two years. In the Career Technical division, the T-TEN program has been
nationally ranked by Toyota as among its top performing graduates for the last six years. Also in this division,
Court Reporting received an award for 30 years of excellence from the National Court Reporters’ Association (3.48).
At this time, the departments, divisions, and the institution are actively involved in formulating student
learning outcomes. Campus-wide Opening Day events
have mandated time for departmental SLO dialogues
since 2006 (3.49). The GE SLO Committee has recently completed its full draft of GE & Basic Skills PLOs
(3.50).
Self Evaluation
Cypress College is actively engaged in offering a quality educational experience for students and community
members at large, whether transfer or non-transfer.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
The College has begun formulating and implementing student learning outcomes in order to better monitor and evaluate course quality. By virtue of a process
that uses those with expertise in their field to determine
exactly what students should be able to do, and that
requires the outcomes to be evaluated and potentially
refined on a periodic basis, the overall quality across
courses and across the curriculum is high.
In short, the College uses data obtained from students,
other institutions, and industry to assess the overall effectiveness of its instructional programs.
Planning Agenda
None.
2.d. The institution uses delivery modes and
teaching methodologies that reflect the diverse
needs and learning styles of its students.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College is committed to fulfilling its Mission
by maximizing accessibility to learning. To reflect the
diverse needs and learning styles of students, Cypress
College delivers instruction in a wide variety of modes,
ranging from 18-week in-person and distance education courses offered weekdays, weekends, daytime, and
evening to short-term courses and self-paced independent study programs (3.52).
Evaluating and assessing all of these modes is difficult,
but course outlines of record indicate an increasing
commitment to addressing a variety of learning styles
and student needs. Other metrics indicating that these
modes and methodologies serve students include:
◊
Student demand (which has been increasing since 2003 and has substantially
increased in the past two years)
◊
Success and retention rates
◊
Increased degrees and certificates awarded
◊
Gains in student satisfaction (some of
which are also related to course success)
and higher satisfaction than the national
average (3.36, 3.87)
The College assesses students’ academic behaviors,
values, and expectations through administration of the
113
College Success Factors Index (CSFI). It is currently
completed in a number of basic skills courses each term
to aid at-risk students in their academic performance.
Analyses of these survey results have been descriptive
(describing students’ behaviors and expectations), prescriptive (acknowledging strengths and weakness of
individual students), and predictive (showing what behaviors or expectations are related to course success)
(3.54).
The College introduces new instructional delivery
styles to meet student needs based upon the overall academic environment, areas of growth across the nation
in specific areas such as Distance Education, and faculty expertise regarding student needs. Once a new style
is introduced, careful assessment is conducted. The
assessment includes comparative analysis of success
and retention rates in same courses offered in different
styles. For example, a comparative analysis of success
and retention in online versus classroom instruction is
conducted by the Office of Institutional Research and
Planning (3.36). Based on the comparative data, decisions are made to offer or withdraw specific courses.
The College demonstrates that it meets student needs
and learning styles as evidenced by success and retention rates, number of degrees and certificates awarded,
and the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Survey (3.36,
3.87).
A variety of campus activities are designed to ensure
that faculty are pedagogically informed and appropriately match instructional methodologies with student
needs, including required training for newly-hired
tenure track instructors, required training for instructors wanting to teach distance education and webenhanced courses, and expectations that they pursue
supplemental learning opportunities. Staff development opportunities have included workshops on brain
research as well as cross-departmental sharing of best
practices. The use of CSFI, support for attendance at
conferences related to developmental education, and
quality/program review of special programs all reflect
the institution’s focus on learning styles and varied
modes of learning.
The College’s Basic Skills/ESL Committee (BSI) has effectively provided support for departments attempting
to meet diverse needs and learning styles of students.
For instance, BSI equipped three computer classrooms
for students in developmental reading/writing courses.
114
The committee also financed expensive software programs that allow developmental reading/writing and
math students to complete self-paced, independent reinforcement activities that accommodate a variety of
learning styles.
Department faculty develop course methodologies
based on their knowledge and expertise. A wide range
of methodologies is typical for any given course to
address diverse needs and learning styles. Methodologies range from lecture, demonstration, discussion,
and group activities to media presentation, computerenhanced instruction, oral assignments, aural assignments, and lab assignments.
Self Evaluation
Cypress College faculty and staff work together to
ensure overall quality of instruction and diversity of
delivery modes in such a way as to meet a variety of
student needs and learning styles.
By hiring faculty with expertise in their field, by encouraging ongoing professional development of faculty
through Staff Development and conference participation, and by requiring that course outlines be revisited
and updated every five years, the College maintains the
currency of its course content, teaching methodologies, and delivery modes (3.36).
Planning Agenda
None.
2.e. The institution evaluates all courses and
programs through an on-going systematic
review of their relevance, appropriateness,
achievement of learning outcomes, currency,
and future needs and plans.
Descriptive Summary
Academic departments and programs, student services, campus services, and special programs systematically review and reflect on their activities to improve the
quality of education and services provided to students
(Table 5). Currently, the College has a three-year cycle
of review for instructional programs, with approximately one-third of the programs reviewed each year
(3.44). The ongoing systematic review of courses and
programs consists of a loop beginning with Program
Review; continuing to generation of data for General
Cypress College
Program areas; linking the data to the College mission,
and institution-, course-, and program-level SLOs;
subsequently linking the data to resource allocation;
and completing the loop by returning to the Program
Review in the following cycle (3.57). This cyclical process was facilitated by the implementation of TracDat
in Spring 2010.
Page Program
114: Updated
chart
Some
Reviews
must meet additional crite-
Self Evaluation
The departmental program reviews are submitted to
the campus Program Review Committee. The committee analyzes the report, seeks clarification, if required, and forms an overall idea as to how the program is helping students. For example, if a program
reports declining student enrollment over the years,
the committee questions the reasons for such decrease
and the plans to reverse such trends. The commitria. Both the Health Science Division and the Career
tee submits its report to the Executive Vice President
Technical Education Division include outside agencies
for his evaluation.
Upon approval from the Executive
in reviewing the quality of their programs. Nursing, for
# of
Vice
President,
the
reports are archived. A summary
example, must be accredited by#the
of National
# ofLeague # of
Course
of the reviews
in%
the Institutional
Effective%
%
Course
Course the Course
Reports is included
of Nursing Accrediting Commission.
Likewise,
Total
#
of
SLOs
CATs
Closed
SLOs
CATs
Reports
On
Automotive Technology program has to meet the re- ness Report (3.36).
Division established
Courses
Posted
Submitted TracDat Posted Posted Loop
quirements
by the Posted
Bureau of Automotive
BUS/CIS
199
147
147
133The program
45 review
74 process
74provides
67 the basis for inRepair and those for Automotive Service Excellence
depth
College
analysis
of
the
effectiveness
of its proCounseling
14
14
14
10
10
100
100
71
and
National
Automotive
Technicians
Education
are
CTE
133
90
89
47grams and
38services.68These reviews
67
35 central to ColFoundation
Fine Arts certifications.
223
221
219
48lege discussions
48
99
98 allocation
22
regarding
the
of resources,
Science
140
138 departments
138 com- 135including137
99 resources.
96
financial 99
and human
The imporOnHealth
a department/program
level,
Language-Arts
86
70
66
48
39
81
77
56
plete a Department Planning and Review form. In de- tance of these reviews is signified each year as they are
Library
2
2
2
2incorporated
2
100 regarding the
into 100
College 100
discussions
veloping
their plan, faculty
and department
members
PE
96
95
90
22
18
99
94
23
allocation of full-time faculty positions
and in addressutilize their own expertise within their discipline in
SEM
67
57
56
39
38
85
84
58
ing
requests
for
funding.
In
addition,
program
reviews
conjunction
with the133
results of student
learning
out- 39
Social Science
90
77
29
68
58
29
a dialogue
in the 82
department
as well as on
come
other assessment
data 898
including 523generate 404
SUMstatistics and 1093
924
85
48
student success and retention provided by the Office the campus regarding curriculum, student learning
outcomes, student success, and resource identification.
of Institutional Research and Planning. The results of
Program Review are then used in the ongoing refine- The quantitative and qualitative data contribute to the
ment
program/course offerings such that they meet understanding of the relevancy of the program. The
Pageof118
dialogue enables faculty to determine if curriculum
current and future student need.
The College follows a program review calendar. All programs
reviewed on
a three-year
revieware
is necessary.
Linking
resources with program
cycle. The following table show the semester when the program
is reviewed.
review aids
in the budget allocation process. Changes
2010…)
Program
rotation
Review
Campus Support Services: Spring semesters, every three years (2004, 2007,
DPPR: One third of the programs each fall semester, programs on a three-year
Student Support Services: One third of programs each fall semester, programs on
a 3-year rotation
Noel-Levitz Student Survey: Fall semesters in odd-numbered years (2003, 2005, 2007…)
Campus Climate Survey: Spring semesters in even-numbered years (2004, 2006, 2008…)
In developing this plan, campus researchers considered surveys that might overlap in content. For
example, the Noel-Levitz survey contains many items about student supports services-especially
admissions and records, counseling and financial aid. The plan avoids scheduling similar surveys during
the same semester.
Institutional SelfCampus
Study —
SpringServices
2011
Support
Timeframe
(CSS)
Departmental Planning &
Program Review (DPPR)
Student Support
Services (SSS)
115
Timeframe
Timeframe
Fall 2010
Campus Support Services
(CSS)
Departmental Planning &
Program Review (DPPR)
Student Support
Services (SSS)
Campus Support Services
(CSS)
Departmental Planning &
Program Review (DPPR)
Group 1
Student Support
Services (SSS)
1. CalWORKS
2. CARE
3. DSPS
4. EOPS
5. Library/LLRC
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Spring 2011
Fall 2011
Accounting
History
Anthropology/Archaeology
Journalism
Art Computer Graphics
Music
Dental Hygiene
Philosophy & Religious
Studies
English/Reading
Photography
Foreign Language
Physical Science
Health Information
Technology
Theater Arts
Group 2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Air Conditioning &
Refrigeration
Ethnic Studies
Airline & Travel Careers
Human Services
Aviation
Mortuary Science
Biology
Nursing
CIS
Physical Education
Counseling
Psychology
Dance
Sociology
ESL
Group 1
1.
2.
3.
4.
A&R
Assessment
Counseling
Financial Aid
(1 survey)
Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI)
Spring 2012
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
116
Campus Climate Survey of Faculty/Staff
Group 3
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
1. Academic ComputingMedia Services
Art
Economics
Auto Collision Repair
Geography/GIS
Auto Technology
Management/Marketing
Chemistry
Mathematics
Communication Studies
Political Science
Court Reporting
Psychiatric Technology
Culinary Arts
Radiology Technology
15. Dental Assisting
Group 1
1. Career Center
2. Transfer Center
3. Student
Activities
4. Health Center
5. Library/LLRC
(1 survey)
Cypress College
Spring 2013
Timeframe
1. Academic ComputingMediaSupport
Services Services
Campus
(CSS)
Media Services
2. Bookstore
3. Bursar’s Office
4. Campus Safety
5. Institutional Research
6. Maintenance &
Operations
7. Staff Development
8. Production Center
9. Public Information
Fall 2013
13. Culinary Arts
14. Radiology Technology
15. Dental Assisting
Departmental Planning &
Program Review (DPPR)
Student Support
Services (SSS)
Group 2
1. Air Conditioning & Refrg.
2. Art
3. Chemistry
4. CIS
5. Computer Science
6. English/Reading
7. ESL
8. Ethnic Studies
9. Geography
10. Physical Education
11. Psychiatric Technology
Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI)
Table 5
following program review include reducing number of
High Schools report describes top feeder
Page
154
seats in areas not in demand, increasing seats for high
high schools (3.36).
demand programs, and exploring ways to improve stu ◊
Three-year Follow-up of Cypress Coldent
success.
Climate
Survey conducted in Fall 2009 indicate that the employee ratings
lege regarding
Students, the
alsogeneral
known as Student
atmosphere
has improved
since
the last survey
Compared
InCollege
this systematic
assessment
of its
effectiveness
in conducted in Spring
Right 2008.
to Know
(SRTK),toshows degree
the 2008student
study, goals
more employees
the College
to and
supporting
meeting
and needs, felt
the that
College
utilizes has a strong commitment
attainment
transfers , including
thatreports
addresssuch
issues
relevant
to gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender
employees
adiversity
variety ofactivities
studies and
as the
following:
identifying top
transfer institutions (3.59).
and students. A substantial portion of the survey focused on employees’ perceptions of how
◊ the
TheCollege
Institutional
Report
responsive
is to itsEffectiveness
diverse students
and staff. The following chart shows the ratings
Planning Agenda
student
and stafftodemographgiven by theincludes
respondents
in relation
questions on diversity.
ics, institutional outcomes, and quality
None.
review results (3.36).
2.f. The institution engages in ongoing, sys ◊
Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventematic evaluation and integrated planning to
tory is based on the fact that satisfaction
assure currency and measure achievement of
is related to student performance (3.36).
its stated student learning outcomes for courses, certificates, programs including general
◊
The Climate Survey of Faculty and Staff
and vocational education, and degrees. The
gathers information regarding Cypress
institution systematically strives to improve
College employees’ opinions on job satthose outcomes and makes the results availisfaction, diversity, and decision-making
able to appropriate constituencies.
(3.36).
◊
The Academic Characteristics and Enrollment Patterns of Students from Local
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
117
Descriptive Summary
The College systematically engages in instructional
program review, which is integrated with institutional
planning in order to better achieve student learning
outcomes. As individual departments and programs
complete program reviews and quality assurance evaluations, using such data as Student Learning Outcome
assessments or the Institutional Effectiveness Report
(3.36), this information is used to develop action plans
that are, in turn, directly linked on an institutional level
to the College’s Strategic Plan and the Educational and
Facilities Master Plans, for example. Such integration
allows the College to better determine the allocation
and use of its resources to better serve students and the
community.
The progress of the College in defining, assessing, and
reporting on SLOs over the last eight years attests to
its commitment to long-term integration and utilization of SLOs for student success. With the advent of
TracDat for housing and linking SLO data with other
campus plans, the effective use of data from a variety
of sources will enhance each department or program’s
ability to determine appropriate directions, goals, and
action plans.
Self Evaluation
The College continues to engage in systematic self
evaluation in order to best accomplish its mission. As
departments and programs have instituted SLOs, for
example, they have already begun a cyclical review of
SLOs to assure currency. Such review data is used to
evaluate the department/program’s needs in light of
institutional goals and planning.
Since 2009, program review forms for instruction,
student services, and campus support services have reflected the link between SLOs and allocation of fiscal
resources (3.76, 3.77).
The establishment by the Academic Senate of an SLO
Assessment Committee in Spring of 2010 will further
ensure that SLO assessment results are used in program
planning and revision. Assessment Committee members consist of the SLO Coordinator, SLO Facilitator,
and three faculty members. The committee is charged
with providing feedback to respective faculty regarding
SLO assessment results. Faculty members are required
to respond to each of the recommendations based on
118
the following three options:
1.Accept the recommendation and indicate if the recommendation will be
implemented during the current assessment cycle.
2.
Accept the recommendation and indicate that it will be implemented in the
next assessment cycle.
3.
Provide an explanation of why the recommendation does not apply.
Recommendations by the SLO Assessment Committee and responses by faculty members are documented
in TracDat to provide future reference (3.23). The full
implementation of TracDat is expected to help the
College accomplish its goals of implementing and integrating SLO assessment with planning and program
review by 2012. Such review data is used to evaluate
the department/program’s needs in light of institutional goals and planning.
Planning Agenda
None.
2.g. If an institution uses departmental course
and/or program examinations, it validates
their effectiveness in measuring student learning and minimizes test biases.
Descriptive Summary
The English Department’s English 60 departmental
exam was eliminated in 2005 in light of the development of specific student learning outcomes measurements.
Cypress College does not make use of departmental
course exams. Students in many Health Science Division take externally administered examinations for certification and licensing; however, these exams are not
used as part of the programs’ internal student evaluations.
Self Evaluation
At this time, the College has no departmental course
and/or program examinations.
Cypress College
Planning Agenda
Descriptive Summary
None.
The primary means of addressing issues related to
credit is through the College Curriculum Committee.
Its rigorous process of curriculum review focuses upon
issues of unit equivalencies, articulation, and certifications. Each degree and certificate program undergoes
in-depth review on a regular basis to verify viability
and appropriateness. Student performance standards
for credit courses are established by faculty, confirmed
by the Curriculum Committee, and clearly communicated to students through course outlines and syllabi.
Faculty engage in rigorous and well-defined processes
to establish meaningful degree and certificate programs
in the interest of advancing the College mission. As
the process of establishment of student learning outcomes for all of its courses and programs continues, the
connection between successful student achievement as
evidenced in the attainment of degrees and certificates
and transfers to four-year colleges and universities is
becoming increasingly connected to stated learning
outcomes. Major requirements are established by faculty of each of the College programs offering associates degrees through the regular curriculum process.
General education requirements are established and
maintained through an ongoing dialogue engaged primarily at the Curriculum Committee in consideration
of State regulations and System standards. Certificate
requirements are established collaboratively with program representatives significantly informed via the engagement of community and private industry advisory
boards.
Self Evaluation
Self Evaluation
The curriculum process follows Title 5 regulations and
State criteria. Units are determined in accord with
standards established Title 5, section 55002.5, of the
California Code of Regulations. All course outlines
specify any prerequisites, the objectives of the course,
course activities, unit assignments for the course, and
course materials. Each department has formulated student learning outcomes for specific courses and lists
them on the course syllabi.
All degree and certificate requirements are clearly communicated by means of the Cypress College printed
catalog, online catalog, and on program websites and/
or printed brochures.
2.h. The institution awards credit based on
student achievement of the course’s stated
learning outcomes. Units of credit awarded
are consistent with institutional policies that
reflect generally accepted norms or equivalencies in higher education.
Descriptive Summary
Faculty within every College department and program
conducts Program Review on a regular basis, at which
time student performance standards are re-examined
and re-affirmed. In addition, individual faculty review
serves to verify the individual faculty member’s understanding of and compliance with required student performance levels.
Planning Agenda
None.
2.i. The institution awards degrees and certificates based on student achievement of a program’s stated learning outcomes.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
New courses or programs must go through the Curriculum Committee approval process, which requires
clearly stated instructional goals and student learning
outcomes.
In addition, Cypress College has instituted student
learning outcomes in its existing courses to further
clarify required student achievement levels.
Consequently, students have clear access to requirements for completion of their degree or certificate.
Students wishing to graduate must file a petition with
Office of Admissions and Records to ensure that they
have met such requirements.
The Office of Institutional Research and Planning
publishes data on degrees/certificates issued and also
on transfer rates (3.90).
Planning Agenda
None.
119
3. The institution requires of all academic and
vocational degree programs a component of
general education based on a carefully considered philosophy that is clearly stated in its
catalog. The institution, relying on the expertise of its faculty, determines the appropriateness of each course for inclusion in the general
education curriculum by examining the stated
learning outcomes for the course.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College states its philosophy for General Education in the 2009-2010 College Catalog, page 51 (3.9).
education criteria through the curriculum development process. In addition to meeting standards for AA/
AS degrees or certificates, close communication with
transfer institutions confirms that general education
courses will satisfy UC and/or IGETC requirements.
Also, the Articulation Officer reviews all curriculum as
a required step in the CurricUNET approval process
to ensure that requirements have been met (3.24).
The development of GE & Basic Skills PLOs and the
Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs) will help the
College determine the ongoing quality of its courses
and programs.
The General Education & Basic Skills Program Learning Outcomes Committee finalized a draft of Cypress
College General Education and Basic Skills Program
Learning Outcomes (3.50), which was approved by the
Academic Senate in Spring 2010 (3.92).
Planning Agenda
In order for a course to be included on the general
education list, it must meet specific criteria established
by the Cypress College Curriculum Committee. Criteria, found in the Training Guide on the CurriUNET
homepage (3.24) are: A course must fulfill all criteria
in Category I: (A) It must contain a body of knowledge
that educated people have in common; (B) It must present the fundamental principles of a discipline; (C) Its
coverage must be broad in scope rather than specialized; and (D) It must enhance critical evaluation and
critical thinking. In addition, a course must meet at
least one criterion from Category II: (A) It is helpful to
students in examining, evaluating, and expressing the
principles of a discipline; (B) It integrates knowledge;
(C) It develops clear and effective communication
skills; and (D) It promotes understanding of diverse
cultures. During its course review process, the Curriculum Committee provides faculty with explanations as
to why a course has not met the criteria and what can
be done to correct it, or why the course is not appropriate for general education.
3.a. An understanding of the basic content and
methodology of the major areas of knowledge:
areas include the humanities and fine arts, the
natural sciences, and the social sciences.
Rationale for general education is communicated to
both students and faculty via the Cypress College Catalog, the College website, and CurricUNET (3.9, 3.1,
3.24).
Self Evaluation
The College ensures quality of instruction and general
120
None.
General education has comprehensive learning outcomes for the students who complete it,
including the following:
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College offers a variety of General Education
courses designed to introduce students to the many
ways people comprehend the modern world. The
subject matter presented in general education courses
is designed to be broad, and frequently introductory,
rather than specialized, narrow, or advanced. These
courses, offered in various formats such as full and halfsemester, on-campus, online and hybrid, form a pattern of learning experiences designed to develop the
following insights and capacities in all students regardless of their ultimate educational goals:
◊
Knowledge of the common principles,
concepts, and modes of inquiry in the
major disciplines;
◊
Appreciation and understanding of the
environment, culture, society, and self;
◊
Ability to think and communicate clearly
and effectively, critically, and ethically
both orally and in writing;
◊
Proficiency in mathematics, natural sciences, and analytical thinking;
Cypress College
◊
Understanding of the political and economic environment in order to be better
informed and more responsible citizens;
◊
Desire to continue education throughout
their lives (3.9)
Cypress College currently offers General Education
courses in the areas of humanities and fine arts (106),
the natural sciences (51), mathematics (17), and the social sciences (78), to help students develop foundational
skills towards the completion of AA/AS degrees, certification programs, and the Intersegmental General
Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC).
Students entering Cypress College in Fall 1995, or later, must complete 25 units of General Education (of
the total 60 degree-applicable units required for the
Associate Degree) taken from the following areas:
◊
Language and Rationality: Written
Communication (a minimum of 3 units);
Analytical thinking (a minimum of 3
units)
◊
Natural Sciences and Mathematics: Life
Sciences and Physical Sciences (a minimum of 3 units); Mathematics (a minimum of 3 units)
◊
Arts and Humanities: Arts (a minimum
of 3 units); Humanities (a minimum of 3
units)
Completion of all the requirements in the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC)
will permit a student to transfer from Cypress College
to a campus in either the California State University or
the University of California system without the need,
after transfer, to take additional lower division general
education courses to satisfy campus general education
requirements.
Self Evaluation
The faculty and administrators on the Curriculum
Committee rigorously evaluate and review all existing,
revised, and newly introduced courses to ensure that
they meet the general education standards and adhere
to the requirements for articulation with CSU and UC
(3.24).
All divisions are currently engaged in the SLO process,
which includes developing and assessing SLOs and
PLOs and mapping course SLOs to at least one of the
GE & Basic Skills PLOs.
The final draft of Cypress College General Education
and Basic Skills Program Learning Outcomes, as finalized by the GE & Basic Skills PLO Committee, was approved by the Academic Senate in Spring 2010 (3.60,
3.92). It included the following GE & Basic Skills PLOs
relevant to breadth of knowledge and experience:
I. Breadth of Knowledge and Experiences
◊
Social Sciences (6 units)
Students will possess a breadth of knowledge and experiences from the following areas:
◊
Physical Activity and Health (1 unit)
◊
Proficiency in reading may be satisfied
by completing a college-level reading
course with a satisfactory score on the
Cypress College reading proficiency test,
and is required for California State University (CSU) general education certificate, IGETC certification, and a Bachelor’s degree from a regionally accredited
institution (3.9).
1. Aesthetic Awareness: Examine the visual arts, dance, music, and/or literature
of diverse cultures.
Students planning to transfer to one of the campuses
of the California State University system must complete a minimum of 48 semester units in General Education breadth courses. Cypress College is permitted to
certify completion of the lower division 39-unit general
education requirement (3.1, 3.9).
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
A. Humanities and the Arts
2. Critical Analysis: Assess the methods
used to create art and interpret its literal
and/or symbolic meaning.
3. Creativity: Engage in artistic creative
endeavors.
B. Natural Sciences and Mathematics
1. Scientific Principles: Demonstrate an
understanding of scientific principles
that govern the natural and physical universe.
121
2. The Scientific Method: Apply scientific
processes to solve problems and measure and observe natural phenomena,
including the design, performance, and
analysis of experiments.
3. Mathematical Systems: Demonstrate an
understanding of mathematics as a symbolic, universal language.
C. Social Sciences
1. Cultural Competence: Demonstrate
knowledge and understanding of the
feelings, opinions, and/or values of other people and cultures
2. Global Perspective: Recognize important economic, political, social, and historical issues and values in one’s own
community, state, country, and/or the
world.
3. Human Experience: Use qualitative
and/or quantitative methods to study
the human aspects of the world.
D. Physical Education
1. Fitness: Understand the development,
care, and exercise of the human body
through movement.
2. Health and Nutrition: Understand and
apply the principles of nutrition, hygiene, and safety to develop mental and
physical well being.
3. Movement
Competence:
learned skills competently.
Perform
Planning Agenda
None.
3.b. A capability to be a productive individual
and life long learner: skills include oral and
written communication, information competency, computer literacy, scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical analysis/logical
thinking, and the ability to acquire knowledge
through a variety of means.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College general education course structure is
inclusive of courses that have been designed for students with the goals of earning associate degrees as
well as transferring to four-year institutions (UC and
CSU). These courses provide well-rounded instruction
in oral and written communication skills, information
competency, computer literacy, scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical analysis and logical thinking,
and, the ability to acquire knowledge through a variety
of means.
The general education courses offered at Cypress College are designed to introduce students to various pathways of learning and the means and resources that can
be used to become a life-long learner; to help students
develop effective oral and written communication; to
think clearly and logically; to acquire competency in
gaining and retaining relevant information by applying
technology as well as traditional sources; to understand
scientific principles and methods of inquiry; and to develop creative skills and social awareness.
Self Evaluation
Cypress College General Education & Basic Skills Program Learning Outcomes, as finalized by the GE &
Basic Skills PLO Committee, were approved by the Academic Senate in Spring 2010 (3.60, 3.92). It includes
the following GE & Basic Skills PLOs relevant to communication and critical thinking competency:
II. Communication
Students will communicate effectively, which means
the ability to
A. Read:
1. Comprehend, interpret, and/or evaluate various written information.
B. Write:
1. Communicate thoughts, ideas, information, and messages in writing.
2. Compose and create documents with
correct grammar, spelling, punctuation,
and appropriate language, style, and
format.
3. Check, edit, and revise written work for
correct information, appropriate em-
122
Cypress College
phasis, form, style, and grammar.
C. Listen:
1. Sense and appropriately perceive and
respond to verbal and/or nonverbal
messages.
D. Communicate:
1. Organize ideas and communicate verbal
and/or non-verbal messages appropriate to the audience and the situation.
2. Communicate clearly and ask relevant
questions in conversations, discussions,
group activities, and/or public speaking.
III. Critical Thinking and Information Competency
Students will think critically, which is characterized by
the ability to
A. Analyze:
1. Recognize and apply rules and principles to new situations.
2. Use logic (induction and deduction) to
draw conclusions from information given.
3. Differentiate between facts, inferences,
assumptions, and/or conclusions.
B. Compute:
1. Use basic numerical concepts, such as
whole numbers, percentages, and estimates of math without a calculator.
2. Use tables, graphs, charts, and diagrams
to explain concepts or ideas.
3. Use basic geometrical shapes, such as
lines, angles, shapes, and space.
C. Research:
1. Effectively and ethically acquire, organize, analyze, synthesize, evaluate, and
communicate information.
2. Determine which technology resources
will produce the desired results
D. Solve Problems:
1. Define a problem and identify its components.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
2. Create a plan of action to resolve the issue.
3. Execute and evaluate the effectiveness
of the plan.
Planning Agenda
None.
3.c. A recognition of what it means to be an
ethical human being and effective citizen:
qualities include an appreciation of ethical
principles, civility and interpersonal skills;
respect for cultural diversity; historical and
aesthetic sensitivity; and the willingness to assume civic, political, and social responsibilities locally, nationally, and globally.
Descriptive Summary
As an educational community, Cypress College embraces the shared characteristics as well as the diverse
intellectual viewpoints and ideas of its culturally rich
population. To prepare students to meet the challenges of increasingly diverse campus and work environments, selected academic courses are designed to: 1)
foster respect for diverse populations; 2) assist students
in understanding and critically evaluating personal biases; and 3) encourage students to apply the knowledge
gained in these courses in their daily lives. The general
education program at Cypress College prepares students to develop as effective, ethical, and socially responsible human beings. To achieve these educational
goals, Cypress College requires all students to take at
least one course that emphasizes the United States or
focuses specifically on issues such as race, gender, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, socio-economic background, physical and mental ability, and
how they impact the struggles of people to achieve civil
and human rights (3.9).
Self Evaluation
The final draft of Cypress College General Education
& Basic Skills Program Learning Outcomes, as finalized by the GE & Basic Skills PLO Committee, were
approved by the Academic Senate in Spring 2010
(3.60). It includes the following GE & Basic Skills PLOs
relevant to being an ethical human being and responsible citizen:
123
IV. Self Development
Students will develop self-awareness and responsibility
by means of the following:
A. Self Integration
1. Understand the person as an integrated
physiological, social, and psychological
being.
B. Personal Responsibility
1. Develop skills and identify values for
personal growth and life-long learning.
C. Global Citizenship
1. Understand the interconnection between current events, ethics, and personal and societal choices within our
world.
Planning Agenda
None.
4. All degree programs include focused study
in at least one area of inquiry or in an established interdisciplinary core.
Descriptive Summary
Each of Cypress College’s degree programs include
focused study in at least one area of inquiry or in an
established interdisciplinary core. Requirements for
the AA degree in an area of inquiry typically include
the successful completion of all major requirements,
elective requirements, and general education requirements. For associate degrees in an area of inquiry, students must successfully complete courses established
through the curriculum process as significantly related
to the area of focus, general education requirements,
and electives.
Self Evaluation
The overall requirement for an AA or AS degree is 60
units total with a cumulative grade point average of
2.0: 24 units as stipulated by the Cypress College graduation requirements plus 1 unit of Physical Education;
39 units as stipulated by the CSU general education
certification requirements or 37-39 units as stipulated
by the IGETC. For the major, a student must achieve
124
a grade of “C” or better in each course attempted that
is counted for the major or area of study. A “C-” does
not satisfy this requirement. For each area of emphasis,
a student must complete a minimum of 18 units (3.9).
Planning Agenda
None.
5. Students completing vocational and occupational certificates and degrees demonstrate
technical and professional competencies that
meet employment and other applicable standards and are prepared for external licensure
and certification.
Descriptive Summary
Accrediting and licensing agencies provide information
to departments regarding the performance of Cypress
College students on their examinations. Departments
maintain and make available the statistical data as
needed. Graduates of many of the training programs
are required to take licensure exam(s) to determine
their competence in the field before they are allowed
to become practitioners in the field. The agencies performing the testing keep records of the pass rates of
each school. Cypress College has performed well above
the state average in many areas.
Advisory committees are required for all vocational
programs and identify specific competencies that are
desired or required by industries and licensure regulations.
Results of licensure examinations, employment statistics, and basic skills improvement assessments also
provide a means of evaluating the effectiveness of student learning. For example, within the Dental Assistant Program at Cypress College, Dental Assisting has
a national examination in order to receive the Certified Dental Assistant CDA Certificate as well as a state
examination for the Registered Dental Assistant RDA
License. Students are eligible to take the examinations
after they have earned a Certificate of Completion for
the Dental Assisting Program (3.61).
Self Evaluation
Table 6 lists representative licensure pass rates for Cypress College graduates by program (3.62).
Cypress College
Program
Nursing (RN)
Licensure Exam
Pass Rate
NCLEX-RN, Board of Registered Nursing
2007/08: 97% (89 students)
2008/09: 94% (100 students)
2009/10: 95% (83 students)
Health Information
Technology Program
Registered Health Information Technician
2006: 86%
(through the American Information Management
2007: 100%
Association)
2008: 75%
2009: 80%
Psychiatric Technician
Program
Board of Vocational Nurses and Psychiatric
Technicians
2010: 85%
Mortuary Science
National Board Examination (for graduation)
California State Embalmer Licensing Exam
2009/10: 88% for first-time test takers
Radiologic Technology
Program
American Registry of Radiologic Technologists
2006: 97%
2007: 91%
2008: 100%
2009: 100%
Diagnostic Medical
Sonography Program
American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonography
2006: Abdomen - 100%; OB/GYN - 100%;
Physics - 67%
2007: Abdomen - 67%; OB/GYN - 100%;
Physics - 100%
2009: Abdomen - 75%; OB/GYN - 100%;
Physics - 89%
Registered Dental Assisting Program
RDA Licensure
Practical: 80% first time takers
California Registered
Dental Assisting Certification Examination
Not a Licensure; it is a certification. CDA-Certified Dental Assistant
2009: 100%
Dental Hygiene
Dental hygiene National Board Exam
2009: 100%
Court Reporting
Certified Shorthand Reporter’s Exam (CSR).
100%
This is a three-part test given three times a year.
The machine portion is at 200 wpm. The academic portion covers English and Professional
Practice.
Written: 92% first time takers
Table 6
In addition, the job placement rate of students graduating from the Career Technical Education was above
80% (3.36). The high pass rates in licensure examinations and high job placement rates indicate that the
programs prepare students for successful employment.
The involvement of local industries such as Toyota and
Dental Clinics indicate that local employers are satisfied with the students of Cypress College.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Planning Agenda
None.
6. The institution assures that students and
prospective students receive clear and accurate information about educational courses
and programs and transfer policies. The institution describes its degrees and certificates
in terms of their purpose, content, course re125
quirements, and expected student learning
outcomes. In every class section students receive a course syllabus that specifies learning
objectives consistent with those in the institution’s officially approves course outlines.
Descriptive Summary
The College assures that students and prospective students receive clear and accurate information about
educational courses and programs and transfer policies through the College Catalog. The print version is
published yearly for July 1st distribution. The College
Catalog is available in hardcopy format and on the
College website (3.9).
The College Catalog provides a clear and accurate description of degrees and certificate programs. Degree
and program information is reviewed yearly before
publication in order to verify the accuracy of content
and requirements. This review process is campus wide
and includes matriculation and articulation officers, division deans, program directors, managers, department
chairs, and faculty. The online version of the College
Catalog is updated if an addendum is needed in order
to maintain updated accuracy if changes in program
and degree requirements occur after the yearly print
publication. Students, prospective students, and the
general public can access program and certificate descriptions and requirements through the College website via the online College Catalog, as well as links to
specific academic and certificate programs.
PLOs are included in the 2010-2011 Catalog. As of
October 2010, 26 out of 31 programs, including the
GE & Basic Skills Program, have defined their PLOs,
and the projected completion date for the remaining
five programs is Spring 2011. A login name is required
to review course outlines and completed SLOs. As of
October 2010, faculty members have defined SLOs for
85% of courses, defined assessment methods for 82%,
and closed the loop on 48% of all courses. The projected completion date of all individual course SLOs is
Spring 2011 (3.64).
All full-time faculty and adjunct faculty must create
a syllabus for each course section being taught. This
course syllabus must be distributed to students at the
first class meeting. Orientations for new faculty and for
adjunct faculty are given in order to ensure that the
required elements of the syllabus are adhered to. All
126
course syllabi include SLOs, attendance and grading
policies, prerequisites, course materials, course objectives, academic honesty policy, and information about
student services. All faculty members were notified
that SLOs became a requirement on all syllabi starting Spring 2010. The Curriculum Committee revised
the syllabus guidelines during Spring 2010 to include
SLOs, distance education elements, and other necessary information. The revised Syllabus Guidelines
document as well as a Checklist were approved by the
Academic Senate in Spring 2010. The Curriculum
chair emailed the document to all full-time and adjunct
faculty and deans. They have replaced the old syllabus
guidelines on the College J: drive (3.65, 3.66).
In order to ensure that individual course sections follow established learning objectives, all instructors are
required to submit a copy of their course syllabi to
their respective division deans. This is required at the
beginning of each semester for each class taught. Contractually mandated evaluations of both full-time faculty and adjunct faculty include a review of individual
course syllabi in order to ensure that each document
includes specified course requirements and SLOs as of
Spring 2010.
Self Evaluation
The College assures that all students and all prospective students receive clear and accurate information
about educational courses and programs and transfer
policies. The College Catalog makes this information
available in both print version and on the College website. Students also receive individual course syllabi that
contain prerequisite information, course objectives,
and expected learning outcomes. As of Spring 2010,
all instructors are required to include approved student
learning outcomes in each of their course syllabi (3.66).
Full-time faculty and adjunct faculty are required to
submit a copy of each course syllabi to their respective dean for review. In addition, the mandated faculty
evaluations also ensure that course syllabi adhere to the
requirements and provide clear, accurate, and reliable
information (3.93).
Planning Agenda
None.
6.a. The institution makes available to its students clearly stated transfer-of-credit policies
Cypress College
in order to facilitate the mobility of students
without penalty. In accepting transfer credits
to fulfill degree requirements, the institution
certifies that the expected learning outcomes
for transferred courses are comparable to the
learning outcomes of its own courses. Where
patterns of student enrollment between institutions are identified, the institution develops
articulation agreements as appropriate to it
mission.
Descriptive Summary
The College accepts transfer coursework from accredited institutions based on information from the American Council on Education: Postsecondary Education.
Articulation agreements with the CSUs and the UCs
are kept current and renewed annually by the College
Articulation Officer.
Transfer information is available to students and the
general public in the College Catalog (3.9), Schedule
of Classes (3.10), through ASSIST.org, and through
printed information available in both the Transfer
Center and the Counseling Center (3.67).
Admissions and Records evaluators and Counselors
are trained to work together in order to ensure that students receive consistently accurate information that reflects the official policies stated in the Catalog. Monthly
workgroup meetings also coordinate current and up-todate communication of policies and procedures to students. In 2008 and 2009, the College conducted a pilot
program of mandatory orientation for new students.
It began with a cohort of students from the College’s
eleven top feeder high schools. The pilot required students to attend an on campus or online orientation in
order to receive information about degrees, programs,
transfer programs, and vocational programs. They also
received an earlier Fall registration date as an incentive
to attend the orientation in June or July prior to Fall
registration (3.94, 3.95, 3.96).
The College Transfer Center also offers specialized
transfer information to students through Trip Tic, a
personalized booklet created for individual students
based on a specific major. The Trip Tic booklet describes transfer information and guidelines for a selected university. Information about Trip Tic is available in the Transfer Center and on the College website
Transfer Center link (3.68, 3.69).
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Courses completed at another college or university
outside of the U.S. are evaluated by an off-campus
evaluation service: http://www.naces.org/. Evaluations need to be course-by-course with grades and
units. This information is available to students in the
College Catalog and on the College website (3.9, 3.1).
The College follows the statewide guidelines of acceptance of Advance Placement (AP) credit. This information is available in the print Catalog and the online
Catalog, and it is reviewed annually by the College Articulation Officer. A College policy is also in place for
specific certificate programs and occupational degrees.
The military credit policy was updated in the 2009
Catalog, which ensures alignment with the new CSU
policies (3.67).
Self Evaluation
The College provides clearly stated transfer-of-credit
policies in order to facilitate consistent student mobility. Articulation agreements with public institutions are
kept current, and the process ensures that expected
learning outcomes are comparable between institutions. Articulation agreements with private institutions
are also maintained based on current data. The College provides many ways in which students, prospective
students, and the general public can access articulation
information. This information is available in the print
and online versions of the College Catalog and Schedule of Classes, the Counseling and Transfer center web
pages on the College website, and through direct materials, classes, and workshops provided by the Transfer
Center and the Counseling Center.
Planning Agenda
None.
6.b. When programs are eliminated or program requirements are significantly changed,
the institution makes appropriate arrangements so that enrolled students may complete
their education in a timely manner with a minimum of disruption.
Descriptive Summary
The issues of program elimination (discontinuance)
and significant change to program requirements are
addressed in different venues. The elimination of pro127
grams is a matter subject to provisions of Board Policy (BP 2510) and Administrative Procedures (AP 2510)
(3.15). In accord with provisions of California Assembly Bill 1725 (Vasconcellos,1985) (3.79), Program Discontinuance is a matter subject to agreement between
the academic senates of the District and the Board of
Trustees. Specifically, this is a matter upon which the
Trustees must reach mutual agreement with the senates.
Significant changes to program requirements are addressed through the regular campus process of curriculum review. Following approval of proposed changes
by the College Curriculum Committee, the changes
are reviewed by the District Curriculum Coordinating
Committee (DCCC). Subsequently, such changes are
agendized and presented for consideration to the Board
of Trustees at regularly scheduled Board meetings. Significant changes in program requirements rarely occur.
In the event that significant changes should occur, students are advised of the options that are available to
them through modifications in the Catalog and Schedule of Classes, information distributed by program
directors and program instructors, by counselors at
the Counseling Center, and by representatives of the
College at the Transfer Center. In addition, students
who maintain continuous enrollment retain their catalog rights and are thus protected against undue impact
of program changes.
Self Evaluation
Significant changes to programs occur upon the initiation by program faculty of the curriculum process of
the College. Initiating faculty are expected to engage
in program/department-level conversations prior to
advancement to the division level. Once recommendations for needed changes are finalized at the division
level, the required curriculum is input into the curriculum process (CurricUNET) for technical review, review
by cross-District programs that may be impacted, and
sign-off by Curriculum Committee representatives, the
Executive Vice President of the College, and the President of the College (3.24). Once approved, the changes
are submitted for review to DCCC. If the proposed
curriculum receives DCCC approval, it is next presented to the Board of Trustees for review and adoption.
The College’s processes are effective in maintaining
the integrity of its curriculum. The mechanisms utilized to assure communication to students of signifi128
cant program changes assure that the information students need to engage in effective academic planning is
readily available in a variety of locales.
The program elimination (discontinuance) process is
fundamentally a District-level responsibility. The issue
has been taken up at Chancellor’s Cabinet, the body
responsible for the maintenance and revision of District Policy and Procedures, for the last four years. Representatives of the academic senate have been active
participants in those discussions. Efforts to develop and
adopt a policy to address the need for effective program monitoring and elimination when necessary have
come up against significant institutional inertia.
Planning Agenda
None.
6.c. The institution represents itself clearly,
accurately, and consistently to prospective and
current students, the public, and its personnel
through its catalogs, statements, and publications, including those presented in electronic
formats. It regularly reviews institutional policies, procedures, and publications to assure
integrity in all representations about its mission, programs, and services.
Descriptive Summary
The College Schedule of Classes, Catalog, specific
program information, and other printed publications
provide consistent, clear, and accurate information to
current students, prospective students, the public, and
District personnel. This information is also easily accessible through the College website. In addition, previous Catalogs and Schedules of Classes are also available through the College website (3.9, 3.10).
Each Catalog and Schedule of Classes is reviewed by
the matriculation officer, the articulation officer, curriculum representatives, program directors, deans,
managers, department chairs, and faculty. A second
review process is always conducted before printing occurs. The Schedule of Classes is printed three times a
year for fall, spring, and summer course offerings. The
Catalog is printed yearly.
The College website has comprehensive program descriptions and contact information that are available to
both students and the general public.
Cypress College
The Cypress College Public Information Office is responsible for internal and external communications,
as well as the areas of public relations and marketing.
For the past decade, the office has published the @Cypress newsletter on behalf of the President (3.70). The
newsletter is produced each week during the Fall and
Spring semesters. The @Cypress newsletter is distributed to all campus employees, posted to the College
website, shared on Facebook and Twitter, and emailed
to a group of recipients that includes retirees, District
employees, members of the media, Foundation Board
members, and other constituents. In addition to the
production of @Cypress in the Public Information Office, the document is reviewed for accuracy and currency by the President and the President’s executive assistant. @Cypress regularly contains stories on student
achievement. In addition to @Cypress, information
about student achievement can be found in the College’s annual End of the Year Report. Along with print
distribution, this document is also shared on the College website (3.47, 3.72).
and alumni.
In the mid-2000s, the Public Information Office initiated a comprehensive communications program focused on connecting with students via email. While the
primary purpose was to foster enrollment, these personalized direct email newsletters also have contained
messages related to student awards.
None.
Another method of providing information comes
through the myGateway portal where students can receive both email and “personal message channel” notifications (3.85).
Finally, select stories about student achievement are
also shared with members of the media via news releases (3.72).
Self Evaluation
In recent years, Cypress College has taken a proactive
and leading role in the use of social media to
communicate about the College’s success, including
the success of its students, faculty, and alumni. During
the period between accreditation visits, the College
has utilized a variety of social media methods,
including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, iTunes
Podcasts, and MySpace. The focus of these endeavors
has primarily been in conveying information that
fosters student success and student participation as
well as highlighting the success of students, faculty,
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
The Public Information Office initiated a blog in Fall
2010. While the technology itself is not revolutionary
at this point, the philosophical change it represents
is. The @Cypress newsletter had been the driving
force for communicating information about the
college — including its students, employees, and
achievements. The implementation of the blog
shifts news dissemination to an information-sharingcentric model that takes place on a daily time scale
(or even up-to-the-minute, if events warrant). The
blog will eventually become a central repository for
information, which is currently scattered in various
locations, including Facebook, Twitter, and even
alluser email. In turn, the best of the blog then
becomes the content for the @Cypress newsletter. In
short, the news itself becomes the driver, rather than
the production of the newsletter.
Planning Agenda
7. In order to assure the academic integrity
of the teaching-learning process, the institution uses and makes public governing boardadopted policies on academic freedom and
responsibility, student academic honesty, and
specific institutional beliefs or worldviews.
These policies make clear the institution’s
commitment to the free pursuit and dissemination of knowledge.
Descriptive Summary
The North Orange County Community College District has recently implemented a Board policy BP/AP
4030 outlining broad freedoms for classroom instructors regarding in-class speech and discussion (3.15).
The faculty at Cypress College have engaged in extended dialogue related to the distinction between personal
conviction and appropriate topics within a particular
discipline. Discussions district-wide have led to the
adoption of a policy on academic freedom in February
2008. BP/AP 4030 is currently in agreement with both
the full-time and adjunct faculty labor unions (3.73).
Cypress College Academic Senate has had discussions
with the Chancellor’s office to design a draft to ensure
129
the right of faculty and students to teach and learn in
a supportive environment (3.15). The goal is to balance
academic freedom with exploration of difficult questions that could be disquieting to some students. BP/
AP 4030 makes it clear that the instructor can introduce and discuss controversial topics, as long as the
presentation of this material involves objective reasoning, rational discussion, and pertains to course content
(3.15).
Self Evaluation
The Board Policy makes reference to the issue of faculty speaking as private citizens. The Board Policy makes
it clear that the faculty member can speak and write
freely as a citizen and should be free from institutional
censorship or discipline but should state that personal
comments in no way reflect the opinions of NOCCCD.
BP/AP 4030 clearly states that there is an appropriate
time, place, and manner for expressing personal convictions as private citizens (3.15).
Planning Agenda
None.
7.b. The institution establishes and publishes
clear expectations concerning students academic honesty and consequences for dishonesty.
demic honesty as it relates to online instruction as new
technologies become available.
Course syllabi, distributed at the beginning of every semester, are the primary method of informing students
regarding the expectations the instructor has for them
for the successful completion of their course. Academic
honesty policies are expected to follow existing District
policies found in the College Catalog, Deans’ offices,
Student Services’ office and the District office. Finally,
the policies and procedures for disciplining any student
who has violated the policy on academic honesty are
clearly set out in both Administrative Procedures and
in the College Catalog (3.15, 3.9).
Self Evaluation
Information regarding student academic honesty policy is clearly delineated in the College Catalog and other campus publications (3.9). Cypress College has not
recently surveyed student or faculty positions on matters of accessible information regarding the policy of
student academic honesty and related consequences if
the student is found to have violated that policy. While
Cypress College has made its position clear to the faculty and its students on the matter of academic honesty, there are some concerns of how to implement these
policies as students’ rights evolve in the coming years.
Planning Agenda
Descriptive Summary
None.
The Cypress College Administrative Procedures handbook clearly delineates the policies and guidelines
concerning student academic honesty and related outcomes (3.15). The policy is also available in the College
Catalog (both print and online versions), instructors’
course syllabi, the College and District web sites, and
the Student Handbook (3.9, 3.15, 3.75). The College
has a set of web and print pages dedicated to informing students about existing academic standards and
student conduct policies. This page was created to give
students clear definitions of plagiarism and academic
dishonesty and outlines consequences for these transgressions (3.75).
7.c. Institutions that require conformity to
specific codes of conduct of staff, faculty, administrators, or students, or that seek to instill specific beliefs or world views, give clear
prior notice of such policies, including statements in the catalog and/or appropriate faculty or student handbooks.
Faculty members use online programs such as Turnitin.com as a method of monitoring and discouraging
plagiarized essay or term-paper assignments. The College plans to continue to address concerns about aca130
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College is a public institution; all of its agreed
upon policies and ethical codes of conduct are a reflection of its Mission, Vision, and Philosophy Statements (3.9). Unlike private institutions or colleges that
are funded by the donations of religious or political
organizations, Cypress College does not seek to instill
specific beliefs or world views in its students nor require
them of faculty and staff.
Cypress College
All Board policies, including those that delineate institutional standards and professional conduct expectations, are made available to faculty and students via the
District website (3.15). Updates or changes to Board
policies are made available campus-wide through email
notification from the Chancellor’s Office. As part of
Cypress College’s extensive offerings or division/flex
workshops, there is a consistent emphasis placed on
the proper understanding and adherence to the various provisions of the code of conduct (3.91). Students
are made aware of the existing Student Conduct Code
through its publication in the Cypress College Catalog, Schedules of Classes, and Student Handbook and
Academic Procedures Manual. Selective provisions of
the Student Conduct Code are incorporated into the
faculty course syllabi (3.75, 3.15, 3.9).
3.2
It is the responsibility of the Instructional and Student
Services Deans or those from Student Services to provide any student who is alleged to have violated the
Student Conduct Code with a copy of the District approved code of conduct. Faculty members are also informed of the College policies and procedures through
the above publications, as well as workshops, campus
communiqués, regular Academic Senate meetings, and
the NOCCCD collective bargaining agreement (3.78).
3.8Interview with Dennis Davino, Educational Interpreter Training Program Director
Self Evaluation
The expectations of adhering to codes of conduct are
printed in the various College publications. Cypress
College makes every effort to make all aware of the
standards of conduct expected of its faculty, staff, and
students.
Planning Agenda
None.
8. Institutions offering curricula in foreign locations to students other than U.S. nationals
operate in conformity with standards and applicable Commission policies.
Cypress College does not offer any curriculum in foreign locations to non-U.S. citizens.
Reference Documents
3.1Cypress College website — www.cypresscollege.
edu
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Distance Education: — J:\Distance Education\DE
3.3IRP Research – Counseling 140 — www.cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Research/SE/
COUN140.pdf
3.4Cypress College Mission and Vision Statements
www.cypresscollege.edu/about/atAGlance/missionVision.aspx
3.5IRP Research – Supplemental Instruction — www.
cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Research/SE/
SIperformance_Sp09.pdf
3.6College Catalog, Special Programs — www.
cypresscollege.edu/Media/Website%20Resources/
PDFs/catalog/2010-11_CypressCollege_catalog.pdf
3.7Distance Education Plan — J:\Distance Education\
DE Plan 2008- 2011
3.9Cypress College Catalog — www.cypresscollege.
edu/academics/CollegeCatalog.aspx
3.10Schedule of Classes — www.cypresscollege.edu/
academics/ScheduleofClasses.aspx
3.12Email from Michael Brydges, Learning Community
Coordinator
3.13Email from Nancy Deutsch, Staff Development Coordinator
3.14Section 55206 of the Guidelines also NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 66700 and 70901, Education
Code. Reference: Sections of Distance Education
Plan — J:\Distance Education\DE Plan 2008- 2011
3.15North Orange County Community College Board
Policies and Administrative Procedures —www.
nocccd.edu/Policies/PoliciesAndProcedures.
htm#BoardPolicies
3.16Email from Curriculum Committee Chair, Cherie
Dickey, posted on Blackboard course site
3.17Distance Education Report approved by the Curriculum Committee Spring 2009 — J:\Curriculum
minutes & Other Info and posted on the login page
at www.curricunet.com/cypress/?CFID=78439&CFT
OKEN=95943849
3.18Planning and Budget Minutes, March 4, 2010 — J:\
Planning & Budget Committee\PBC Minutes for
2010-11
3.19Chancellor’s Office California Community Colleges
Academic Affairs Division Instructional Programs
and Services (2008). Distance Education Guidelines
(2008 Omnibus Version). Chancellor’s Office Califor-
131
nia Community Colleges Website
responses to several questions. On Blackboard
3.20Academic Senate Minutes 2007 — J:\Academic
Senate\Senate Minutes 07-08
3.42 Steve Donley, Dean of Career Technical Education,
email 12/07/2009
3.21SLO Committee Minutes — www.cypresscollege.
edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/SLO/Instruction/
Course.aspx
3.43SLOs — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/SLO
3.22Academic Senate and Curriculum Minutes — J:\Academic Senate Minutes and J:\Curriculum minutes
& other info
3.23
TracDat
3.24CurricUNET website — www.curricunet.com/cypress/
3.25
Curriculum Committee Handbook
3.26Student Satisfaction Survey — www.cypresscollege.
edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/rsurveys.aspx
3.27Staff Development flyer and email re. Michael Flores’
presentation
3.28Distance Education Course Quality Rubric — J:\Distance Education\DE Course Quality Rubric
3.44 Program Review Cycle — www.cypresscollege.edu/
IRP/Resources/Research/PROGRAM_REVIEW_ROTATION_SCHEDULE.pdf
3.45 ARCC — www.cccco.edu/ OurAgency/
TechResearchInfo/ResearchandPlanning/ARCC/
tabid/292/Default.aspx
3.46 Stacy Howard, Articulation, ASSIST Status Report
— Fall 2009 document on Blackboard site.
3.47 Cypress College End of the Year Report — www.
cypresscollege.edu/newsEvents/Publications
3.48 Emails from Division Deans: Dave Wassenaar and
Steven Donley
3.49Opening Day agendas on Blackboard for last several years.
3.29Valentina Purtell, Director, SCE ESL, email 1/15/10
3.50GE SLO’s — www.cypresscollege.edu/academics/
CollegeCatalog.aspx
3.30Instructional Quality Assessment Validation Guidelines — J:\Program Review and Department Planning\Department Planning and Program Review
3.51 Blackboard documents regarding validating cutscores, placement, and enrollment patterns
3.31Lynn Mitts, M.A., R.T. (R), RDMS, Program Director,
Radiology & DMS, email dated 2/24/2010
3.32
Cherie Dickey (Curriculum Chair), Email 1/27/10
3.33
Ben Izadi, SLO Coordinator, Email 11/12/09
3.34
Cherie Dickey, Curriculum Chair, Email 2/18/10
3.35Institutional Effectiveness Plan — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/rreports.aspx
3.36Institutional Effectiveness Report — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/ResearchandEvaluation /rsurveys.aspx
3.37Alison Robertson, SLO Committee member, email
2/18/2010
3.38Lynn Mitts, M.A., R.T. (R), RDMS, Program Director,
Radiology & DMS, email dated 2/24/2010
3.52
Donna Landis email 10/21/2009
3.53DSPS website — www.cypresscollege.edu/services/dsps
3.54 CSFI — www.cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/
Research/SE/CSFIStudentSurveyF08Sp09Findings_Summary.pdf
3.55Faculty Readiness and Training, Distance Education
Plan, page 21 – J:\Distance Education
3.56BSI Action Plan — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/
InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspx
3.57Director of Institutional Research and Planning, Santanu Bandyopadhyay, interviewed on 11/2/2010
3.58VP, Administrative Services Office, email from Barbara Woolner, 4/26/2010
3.39 Interview with Curriculum Committee Chair, Cherie
Dickey
3.59Three-year Follow-up of Cypress College Students,
also known as Student Right to Know (SRTK) —
www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/rreports.aspx
3.40 Cherie Dickey, Curriculum Committee Chair, email
12/09/2009
3.60Nancy Deutsch, GE SLO Committee member, email
4/16/2010
3.41 Dr. Robert Simpson, Executive Vice-President,
3.61Elizabeth Pacheco, Dental Assisting Program, email
132
Cypress College
2/25/2010
3.62
Table 2 of this Report
loginf
3.86
Study Abroad literature
3.63Cypress College Catalog — www.cypresscollege.
edu/academics/CollegeCatalog.aspx
3.87Noel-Levitz Survey — www.cypresscollege.edu/
about/InstitutionalResearch/rsurveys.aspx
3.64
3.88
Interview with Ben Izadi, SLO Coordinator
3.65Interview with Cherie Dickey, Curriculum
Chair 3.66Syllabus Guidelines and Checklist — J:\Curriculum
minutes & Other Info
3.67
Interview with Stacy Howard, Articulation Officer
3.68Transfer Center — www.cypresscollege.edu/services/transfer
Interview with Ben Izadi, SLO Coordinator
3.892010 - 2011 Proposed Budget & Financial Report
(p. 11) — www.nocccd.edu/Departments/FandF/
documents/201011ProposedBudget.pdf
3.90Student Right to Know Data — www.cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Research/SE/srtk2002cypress.pdf
3.91
MyGateway Staff Development Calendar
3.69Trip Tic — www.cypresscollege.edu/services/transfer/resources
3.70@Cypress — www.cypresscollege.edu/newsEvents/
news/atcypress.aspx
3.72Marc Posner, Public Information Officer, email, 5-710
3.73Email/Interview Fola Odebunmi, President United
Faculty
3.75
Student Handbook
3.76Program Review — www.cypresscollege.edu/IRP/
Resources/Planning/CypressCollegeCycleofQualityReview_revised.pdfc
3.77Special Programs Review for Service Learning and
Study Abroad — J:\Quality Review/Special Programs
3.78
Collective Bargaining Agreement
3.79
California Assembly Bill 1725 (Vasconcellos,1985)
3.80SLO Workshops Status Worksheets — J:\SLO
Team\Workshops\SLO_Workshop_participation_
April22_09
3.81Research Bulletins — www.cypresscollege.edu/
about/InstitutionalResearch/irbulletins.aspx
3.82Institutional Planning and Research website —
www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch
3.832008 Annual Performance Report for Title V Grant
— J:\Title V Grant 2003-2008
3.84Educational Master Plan — www.cypresscollege.
edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspx
3.85myGateway — mygateway.nocccd.edu/cp/home/
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
133
Standard IIB: Student Support
Services
Services Division, the College has seen improvements
in measures of monitoring, enhancing, and fostering
student success.
The institution recruits and admits diverse
students who are able to benefit from its programs, consistent with its mission. Student
support services address the identified needs
of students and enhance a supportive learning environment. The entire student pathway
through the institutional experience is characterized by a concern for student access, progress, learning, and success. The institution
systematically assesses student support services using student learning outcomes, faculty
and staff input, and other appropriate measures in order to improve the effectiveness of
these services.
The Fall 2009 Student Services Satisfaction Inventory
(SSI) reveals improvements in many areas of student
services and the campus environment at Cypress College since the previous self-study was completed (4.1).
Since 2006, the College has implemented an aggressive outreach program to K-12 feeder schools and the
greater community. Under the direction of the Dean
of Student Support Services, a Student Ambassador
program was created to utilize Cypress College students in outreach activities. Student Support Services
staff conduct trainings with Student Ambassadors and
attend outreach events and activities to recruit and assist prospective Cypress College students.
Descriptive Summary
The Student Services Division (consisting of Counseling & Student Development and Student Support Services) supports the framework of the College’s Mission
and goals by providing support services that maximize
the potential of prospective and current students to
achieve academic and career success.
Since the College’s previous self study, the Division has
reported significant achievements in completing student learning outcomes and increasing the availability
of services. The College’s online services in Admissions allow students to access their records, search the
Schedule of Classes, and register, all without leaving
their homes. Facilities have expanded and allowed the
Division to more efficiently meet the needs of students.
The majority of the Counseling & Student Development Division is now centrally located in the Student
Center along with the Assessment Center, Admissions
& Records Office, and Bursar’s Office. Student Support Services, including Financial Aid, Extended Opportunity Programs & Services (EOPS), CARE, CalWORKS, and Disabled Students Program & Services
(DSPS) are centrally located on the first two floors of
the Cypress College Complex building.
Evidence detailed below demonstrates the dramatic increases in financial aid awards and services provided
to students participating in the Counseling, EOPS,
CARE, CalWORKs, and DSPS programs. Through
the combined efforts of the programs in the Student
134
The Dean of Student Support Services is responsible
for outreach efforts. He works closely with the Dean of
Counseling and Student Development to adequately
staff college fairs and share campus information with
high school personnel, students, and parents. Student
Services staff are also responsible for making presentations at high schools to discuss such topics as the admissions application process, programs, and services
offered by the College as well as university transfer
requirements. Both instructional and student services
areas maintain publications and marketing materials
that are used for events and activities. Entering freshmen arrive at Cypress College informed about the
matriculation process, financial aid programs, EOPS
requirements, academic support programs, career services, technology, and counseling courses that promote
success.
Cypress College’s admissions procedures are open and
accessible since the College website was redesigned in
2007. Application functions, as well as other website
features, are available 24/7 as a result of myGateway’s
online student portal (4.91).
Any individual 18 years of age or older or a high
school graduate who can benefit from instruction is
welcome to attend Cypress College. In accord with the
North Orange County Community College District
(NOCCCD) Board policy, high school students may
also be admitted after meeting specific requirements,
which are outlined in the College Catalog, Schedule of
Classes, and on the College’s Website (4.2).
Open access to higher education is a key component of
Cypress College
the mission of California’s community colleges. State
law requires that all who can benefit from instruction
be admitted to the institution. While maintaining the
requirements related to application information, the
Admissions & Records Department assists students
with first-rate service to ensure an easy transition. The
staff are well-trained, speak multiple languages, and
are accessible on site or via the telephone and Internet. The Student Satisfaction Inventory conducted by
Noel-Levitz in Fall 2009 showed improved ratings for
Admissions & Records from the 2007 survey level.
The Student Equity Plan was updated in 2009 to ensure equity in access to the College for various ethnic
groups and students with disabilities. The Student
Equity Committee consists of representatives from
faculty, management, classified, and student constituencies. The group has identified many of the factors
that might account for the observed achievement gaps
among the various ethnic, gender, and disability groups
on campus, and has developed action plans to address
them (4.3).
Student Services staff and instructional faculty encourage students to take advantage of the academic assistance services on campus. In addition to the Learning
Resource Center (LRC) and computer labs in specific
instructional divisions, the College has a variety of student service components to address students’ learning
needs. Below is a brief overview of the services provided by many of the student service and campus support areas:
• Admissions & Records, in the College’s Student
Center, is the first destination on campus for most
students. Staff oversee admissions, registration, records, and online services.
• Associated Students of Cypress College dedicate
themselves to promoting higher education, representing and supporting the students, and advocating for their needs and concerns with passion, trust,
and teamwork.
• Athletics provides a range of intercollegiate sports
for both men and women that compete in the Orange Empire Conference. Sports instruction and
performance courses are taught year round. A
workout facility is available for all students to use.
• Bursar’s Office provides all students with financial
services related to their educational experience and
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
other support services for campus programs and
clubs.
• CalWORKs assists students to become self sufficient, gain independence from public assistance,
obtain a job, and continue life-long learning.
• Campus Safety provides and maintains a safe and
secure instructional environment while respecting
the rights and dignity of individuals utilizing programs and facilities of the College.
• CARE assists single parents receiving Temporary
Aid to Needy Families (TANF) to increase their
education skills, become more confident and selfsufficient, and move from welfare to independence.
• Career Planning Center (CPC) provides resources
and support services designed to assist students and
the general public in the cultivation and enhancement of aptitudes to explore and research career
and major options, define goals and decisions,
enhance employability, and prepare for life-long
learning.
• Counseling Center is committed to promoting student learning and success by providing academic,
career, and personal counseling, along with classes
and support services to maximize student potential
for achieving educational and life success.
• Disabled Students Program & Services (DSPS) provides accommodations to students with disabilities
that ensure their equal access to College programs
and facilities and maximize their potential for success in achieving their individual educational and
career goals.
• Extended Opportunity Programs & Services
(EOPS) assists students with economic, linguistic,
and educational challenges to enroll and succeed in
higher education and successfully prepare for careers.
• Financial Aid strives to maintain a professional, respectful, and peaceful environment and promote
accountability of students by providing financial
aid services to students who show demonstrated financial need.
• Health Center strives to reduce the need for students to seek off-site health services by providing
quality health care, education, and information.
• International Students Program (ISP) strives to in135
ternationalize the campus and its community by recruiting, integrating, and supporting international
students (F-1 visa holders) of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
• Library and Learning Resources Center (LLRC)
supports the campus and community by encouraging life-long learning, including the abilities to locate, evaluate, and apply information to daily living.
• Matriculation works to ensure that all students who
are admitted to the College are properly assessed,
persist to the next academic term, and achieve their
educational objectives.
• Student Activities Center creates and provides students with a safe and welcoming environment away
from the academic demands that they face on campus, supports all active campus clubs — including
the Associated Students Council — and provides
a variety of programs and activities that enhance
student life.
• Transfer Center provides a variety of services to
facilitate the preparation and transfer of students,
especially those who are historically and currently
underrepresented in the transfer process.
• TRAC program assists single parents pursuing vocational majors and students pursuing nontraditional trade/career majors in attaining the life skills
needed to become economically, psychologically,
and socially self sufficient.
• Veterans Affairs Office provides information and
customer service to veterans on available educational benefits in accordance with federal and state
regulations.
Under the leadership of the Dean of Student Support
Services, student learning outcomes (SLOs) development began in 18 student services areas in November
2006. At the institutional level, the College measures
a student’s success by course completion, final grade,
program persistence, degrees, and certificates awarded.
Student Services areas measure student learning outcomes by a variety of actions as identified in Bloom’s
Taxonomy.
Student Services are currently in their fourth year of
SLO development. All Student Services areas have
identified and assessed at least three SLOs. The development began in 2006 with a series of training ef136
forts. On November 16, 2006, the division adopted the
Nichols and Nichols model for the development and
assessment of SLOs (4.95). Each department has completed at least three full cycles of assessment and most
are well on their way through the fourth cycle of assessment (4.4). The division engages in regular dialogue
regarding SLOs and is regarded as a model program
for the development of SLOs. The CCC System Office provided a commendation in the February 2009
program review, and the Chief Student Services Officers Association highlighted Cypress College Student
Services’ efforts in 2009 at a Regional Training as an
exemplary program (4.92).
In Summer 2009, the campus successfully configured
TracDat for the monitoring and reporting of SLOs
as well as campus planning documents. The Dean of
Student Support Services as well as the Matriculation
Manager are members of the College-wide SLO Committee, which provides information, guidance, and support to faculty and staff involved in the development
and assessment of SLOs.
Student Services SLOs are determined by the members of the department or service unit. Typically, the
manager or program coordinator is responsible for
reporting SLOs. However, depending on the types of
assessment activities and objectives, a wide variety of
staff and faculty may participate in the process.
Managers, faculty, and classified staff in the Student
Services Division participate on shared-governance
committees to help shape the dialogue about student
access, progress, learning, and student success.
Self Evaluation
Student success remains a central topic of discussion
and key focus for the College. Campus leadership and
shared governance committees address student success
through committees and planning teams. Standard IV
of this self-study will detail the campus organization
and governance; however, the following groups engage
in frequent dialogues about student success:
• Instructional divisions
• Individual instructional programs
• Individual instructional departments
• Student Services Council
• President’s Advisory Cabinet
Cypress College
• Planning and Budget Committee
• Institutional Effectiveness Taskforce
• Deans and Directors Team
• Leadership Team
• Management Team
• Enrollment Master Planning Group
• District Educational Master Plan Committee
• Banner Steering Team
• College Technology Committee
• Student Learning Outcomes Leadership
Group
• Diversity Committee
• Curriculum Committee
• Academic Senate
• Petition Committee
• Associated Students
• Safety Committee
• Staff Development
• LinkME to College Planning Group
• Foundation Board
• Learning Communities
• Opening Day Activities lead by the College
President and SLO leaders
• Web Redesign Team (2007-current)
• Basic Skills Initiative Committee
• Curriculum Committee
• Student Equity Committee
In Student Services, the recent Categorical Program
Review conducted by the California Community College System Office (CCCSO) helped identify recommendations and commendations for efforts in key Student Services areas (4.5).
While Student Services staff members regularly convene monthly Student Services Council meetings and
engage in reflective conversations regarding access
and success, such topics are also featured throughout
the College community (4.6). The best examples are
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
the Deans and Directors Team (DDT) and Planning
and Budget groups where student success is a regular
agenda item in the planning and implementation of
programs and services. For example, on February 23,
2010, the Deans and Directors Team discussed the opportunity to create a Veterans Resource Center. As the
number of veterans has increased, appropriate discussions and planning began for the development and execution of a one-stop Veterans Resource Center coordinating support services. Effective Summer 2010, the
Veterans Resource Center houses staff and a counselor
who spend a portion of their workload dedicated to the
success of this special student population.
Counseling and Student Development Division meetings along with Student Support Services Division
meetings also engage in discussions of student success
and have the input of staff, faculty, and students where
applicable (4.7).
In terms of student access and ability-to-benefit, the
College’s admissions criteria can be accessed in numerous ways at a variety of locations to meet the needs of
the diverse population the College serves. Print materials are available online via the College website, and primarily in the A&R area. The Dean of Admissions &
Records collaborates regularly with the Matriculation
Manager and Dean of Counseling and Student Development to ensure that the admission process allows
students admitted to the College to matriculate, enroll
in classes, and successfully follow “steps to success” as
described in orientation activities.
The application for admission has been placed online
since the last accreditation, and the majority of students apply to the College via the web, as evidenced
by the first SLO assessed by the Admissions & Records
office (4.4). The online version of the application has
been designed to trigger immediate instructive emails
informing students of the steps needed in order to become a Cypress College student.
The College’s website also provides admissions and financial aid information and showcases all the College’s
programs, procedures, and support services (4.28). In
2008, Datatel nominated the Cypress College website
for “outstanding and innovative web design for higher
education environments.” The website redesign team,
led by the Dean of Student Support Services, spent
approximately two years revamping and updating the
campus website to be more accessible and informative
137
to the campus and its constituents.
Recent results of the Student Satisfaction Inventory
suggest that campus orientations and “steps to success”
are guiding students through the appropriate pathways to accessing educational programs at Cypress
(4.1). Orientation data collected as part of the Counseling and Student Development SLOs provide strong
evidence and support of student learning in terms of
measures for access and educational planning. Instructional SLOs developed by courses, departments, and
divisions also suggest learning and success are being
achieved and modified where applicable (4.4).
Student Services Quality Reviews are a key source of
information for individual department success. Student satisfaction is measured on these quality reviews,
and departments have tailored specific plans tied to
SLOs and department goals and objectives (4.8). All
student services are reviewed on a four-year cycle, with
one-fourth of the programs coming up for review every
fall semester. The review begins with surveying the students. The survey results are discussed internally and
compared with previous results. A self analysis for any
improvement/deterioration is conducted, achievement
of previous goals are summarized, and new goals are
established. Finally, the resources required to achieve
goals as well as strategies to provide services if all resources are not immediately available are analyzed.
The reviews are submitted to the Executive Vice President prior to finalization and archived in the shared
drive. The reviews are also reported in the Institutional
Effectiveness Report.
In summary, the College has upheld its Student Services mission by providing support services that maximize the potential of prospective and current students
to achieve academic and career success. More than
just a mission, collective efforts are continually evaluated through quality reviews, SLO development, and
dialogue with shared-governance committees as well as
the general College community. Student Services areas
share a collaborative spirit among the managers, staff,
faculty, and students.
Planning Agenda
None.
1. The institution assures the quality of student support services and demonstrates that
138
these services, regardless of location or means
of delivery, support student learning and enhance achievement of the mission of the institution.
Descriptive Summary
The Student Services Division’s staff, faculty, and managers engage in ongoing and robust dialog about the
quality of services offered. As evidenced by Student
Services SLO development since 2006 and the Student
Services Quality Review process, regular discussions,
program reviews, and related goals and objectives supporting the College strategic plan have been implemented (4.8).
All 18 student services areas are currently engaged in
their fourth year of SLO development and assessment.
In April 2009, Cypress College’s Student Services was
the “exemplary program” as selected by the College
President to be featured during the District Board of
Trustees meeting. On April 14, 2008, The Dean of
Student Support Services and Dean of Counseling &
Student Development gave a presentation describing
the context and methodology of SLO development as
well as how this process is integrated with the planning
process at Cypress College (4.94).
The categorical programs in the division consist of
DSPS, EOPS, CARE, CalWORKs, and Matriculation. In 2009, these programs underwent an intensive
internal review culminating with a site visit from a California Community College System Office (CCCSO)
visitation team. The full internal assessment can be
found in the Categorical Programs Self Evaluation for
Cypress College (4.5).
The Student Services Council meets monthly to review, analyze, collaborate, and implement improved
service plans for students. Members maintain regular
dialogue about existing enrollment processes and explore ways in which they can be streamlined. When
needed, recommendations made from this group are
taken forward for discussion and approval, to committees such as the Campus Technology Committee, Planning and Budget, and President’s Advisory Cabinet .
The Council was instrumental in helping develop and
ultimately approve the first Student Services Master
Plan in 2007 (4.9).
Methods of serving students and monitoring their sucCypress College
cess are evolving at the College as the College utilizes
myGateway and various enhanced technological tools.
Plans to place degree audit and educational plans
online for students, create a “New Student Welcome
Night” college preview activity, and retool Early Alert
to decrease the referral time to appropriate support
services are underway. The goal is to be proactive and
identify challenges to student access and success early.
New Student Welcome Night orients students to college
life and the College’s programs/services. Early Alert
allows counseling to develop interventions for students
who are not making satisfactory academic progress.
The 2009 Categorical Program Review Committee
commended Cypress College for its (1) campus and
facilities, (2) campus climate, (3) student services programs and staff, and (4) SLO identification, assessment, evaluation and follow-up. As noted by the review
team and evidenced by the College’s internal Student
Services Quality Review Process for non-categorical
programs, Cypress College Student Services regularly
monitors the quality of services provided and aggressively identifies ways to improve student learning (4.4,
4.8).
Self Evaluation
This standard is partially met at Cypress College
through the submission of Student Services Quality
Reviews that are an effective means for monitoring the
quality of Student Services programs and for setting
new goals to improve services. Each of the programs
is committed to student success and regularly looks for
ways to improve services and the support of student
learning. Faculty/staff in services such as Counseling
and Assessment demonstrate through quantitative data
the links between their professional functions and student success. Additionally, each department has submitted SLOs that assist the division with routine identification, assessment, and responsiveness of learning
needs. The development of SLOs has yielded an effective assessment and measurement tool for Student
Services offices. Planning is underway to identify additional SLOs to assist the division with effectively managing student support needs.
One of the most important ways in which the College
determines the quality of student support services is
to ask the recipients of those services. The Fall 2009
Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) yielded several sigInstitutional Self Study — Spring 2011
nificant improvements in student services areas. The
methodology of the survey ensures that there is a representative cross section of students responding. The
number of respondents was adequate to create statistically significant findings. Categories of questions included demographic data, satisfaction with instruction
and services, interest in using services more if hours
were extended, reasons for attending the College, barriers to college, and campus life (4.1).
For Cypress College, of the 14,701 surveys distributed,
1,847 students completed the surveys for a 13% percent response rate. Specifically, the survey indicates the
degree to which students report being satisfied or very
satisfied with College services. Overall, respondents
indicated satisfaction with College services. The areas
with the highest satisfaction ratings were Academic
Services, Registration Effectiveness, and Instructional
Effectiveness. Areas receiving the lowest satisfaction
ratings were Campus Support Services and Admissions
and Financial Aid. In each case, however, rankings were
above the national average of all two-year institutions
surveyed by Noel-Levitz. Further, a comparison of the
2009 and 2007 Noel Levitz survey results demonstrates
increased satisfaction in the areas of Academic Advising, Admissions and Financial Aid, and Service (4.1).
The College is well aware that continued monitoring
of services is required to assure both quality and the
appropriateness of services, so the Noel Levitz Student
Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) is administered every two
years. Prior to administering the survey, various campus groups discuss the questions, style, method, and
specific areas of concern.
Students’ satisfaction with College services is assessed
not only in the student survey discussed above but during department quality reviews as well. Service departments conduct individual surveys to complete their
Student Services Quality Reviews (SSQR). Some programs, such as categorical programs, rely upon standardized data elements to measure the effectiveness
of services. Qualitative research is completed through
advisory committees and informal meetings with students.
SSQRs from 2009-2010 indicate an extremely high
satisfaction rate for the Transfer Center and Health
Center, both of which earned “Good” or “Excellent”
student satisfaction ratings from 92 percent or more respondents in every area, with the Health Center earn139
ing 100% “Good/Excellent” ratings in four of the seven areas rated. Likewise, Disabled Students Program
and Services earned high marks in every category, with
every area but one evaluated as “Excellent” or “Good”
by a minimum of 93 percent of students. In addition,
Admissions & Records exceeded the College standard
for student satisfaction in every area, a significant improvement over 2005 indicators (4.8).
Both the internal evaluation documents and the annual survey of students reveal that students are generally
satisfied with the services they receive at the College.
The students’ perception is backed up by quantitative
data collected through the College’s Office of Institutional Research and Planning.
Several measures concerning students who participate
in the Student Services programs reveal that program
participants actually succeed at higher rates than the
general student population. In a study conducted by
the Office of Institutional Research and Planning on
the impact of Supplementary Instruction (SI) and Tutoring services, it was found that those who attend these
services improve their GPA compared to their peers,
after controlling for the student background and preparation. The study also demonstrated how frequency
of attending SI sessions impact GPA. Based on the
findings of the pilot study, there is a plan to broadbase
the data collection. The campus has collaborated with
the Basic Skills Committee and Academic Computing to procure hand-held scanners to collect data that
would be analyzed regularly. Plans are also underway
to determine the funding levels based on impact of the
special programs on student success. Such research is
valuable when planning and designing programs.
◊
Educational Mission (4.11).
◊
Course, Program and Degree Offerings
(4.11).
◊
Academic Calendar and Program
Length (4.12).
◊
Academic Freedom Statement (4.13).
◊
Available Student Financial Aid (4.14).
◊
Available Learning Resources (4.15).
◊
Names and Degrees of Administrators
and Faculty (4.16).
◊
Names of Governing Board Members
(4.17).
2.b. Requirements
◊
The Cypress College 2009-2010 Catalog
provides information regarding admission policies, which include eligibility requirements, procedures for new and returning students, residency requirements,
and open enrollment. Prospective students can apply for admission by visiting
the College website, www.cypresscollege.
edu, and accessing the online application system, CCCApply. Applicants may
submit their applications for the Fall and
Summer semesters at the beginning of
March. For Spring semester, applications
are accepted at the start of October. Admission to Cypress College is governed
by the laws of the State of California
and District policies BP 5010, AP 5010,
and AP 5011, which can also be accessed
via the North Orange County Community College District website (4.18).
◊
Student fees and other financial obligations are presented under the “Fees” section in the Cypress College 2009-2010
Catalog. This section offers information regarding the Associated Students
benefits program, campus identification
card, enrollment fees, health fee, nonresident tuition, parking, refunds, refund
processing fee, and student representation fee. Fee policies BP 5030 and AP
5030 are also explained in details on the
North Orange County Community Col-
Planning Agenda
None.
2. The institution provides a catalog for its
constituencies with precise, accurate, and current information concerning the following:
Descriptive Summary
2.a. General Information
The Cypress College 2009-2010 Catalog addresses the
following areas:
140
◊
Official Name, Addresses, Telephone
Number, and Website (4.10).
Cypress College
lege District website (4.18).
◊
The “Program of Study” section in the
Cypress College 2009-2010 Catalog provides information germane to the three
basic program types: associate degrees,
certificate programs, and transfer programs. The “Graduation/Educational
Options” section provides guidelines for
students on earning an associate degree
as well as describes the three associate
degree options offered at the College,
which include the following: Option I—
Liberal Arts, Option II—Occupational,
and Option III—General Studies. Policies BP 4100 and AP 4100 for Program
of Study and Graduation/Educational
Options are also explained in detail on
the North Orange County Community
College District website (4.18).
2.c. Major Policies Affecting Students
◊
◊
The “Academic Policies” section in the
Cypress College 2009-2010 Catalog
offers information on academic honesty,
academic honors, the academic renewal
policy, advanced placement credit, attendance, course repetition, auditing,
grading, grade change, examinations,
petitions and appeals, probation and dismissal policies, transcripts, Title IX and
civil rights grievances, and withdrawal.
The College’s academic policies are
also listed and explained in detail under
“Academic Affairs” on the North Orange
County Community College District
website (4.19).
The nondiscrimination statement appears under the section “North Orange
County Community College District
Non-Discrimination Statement” in the
Cypress College 2009-2010 Catalog.
The College’s nondiscrimination policies
reflect Section 59328 of Title 5 of the
California Code of Regulations, Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1992. The
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
College’s nondiscrimination statement
is also available on the North Orange
County Community College District
website (4.19).
◊
Information regarding acceptance of
transfer credits is provided under the
“Programs of Study” section in the
Cypress College 2009-2010 Catalog.
The Catalog lists the baccalaureate-level
classes deemed transferable to any university in the California State University
system for credit toward a baccalaureate degree, which include the following:
business and computer information systems, counseling and guidance, fine arts,
health science, language arts, physical
education, science/engineering/mathematics, social science, and vocational
technical education (4.20).
◊
The Cypress College 2009-2010 Catalog delineates the guidelines germane to
grievance and complaint procedures in
the section, “Campus Life.” The guidelines for student grievances include procedures on how to file for petitions and
appeals, such as academic appeals and
admissions and records appeals (4.21).
◊
The sexual harassment policy is addressed under the section “North
Orange County Community District
Non-Discrimination Statement” in the
Cypress College 2009-2010 Catalog. The
District categorizes sexual harassment as
unlawful discrimination under policies
BP 3430 and AP 3430. The College’s
unlawful discrimination policies are also
explained in detail on the North Orange
County Community College District
website (4.18).
◊
The “Fees” section in the Cypress College 2009-2010 Catalog provides information regarding refund of fees. Refund
policy AP 5030 is also listed on the
North Orange County Community College District website (4.18).
2.d. Locations or Publications Where Other
Policies May be Found
141
The Schedule of Classes is available to students in
printed format for a nominal fee and in digital format for free (4.22, 4.23). The campus also publishes a
Student Handbook, which is available in the Student
Activities Center and Counseling Center (4.24). The
Schedule of Classes and the Student Handbook are
used in conjunction with the College Catalog in Counseling classes offered by the Counseling & Student Development Division (4.25).
Self Evaluation
Every other year the Catalog is updated by a committee comprised of the Catalog and Schedule Coordinator, students, faculty, and representatives from the
Admissions & Records office. The Catalog is reviewed
for continuity in layout, ease of use, inclusiveness and
currency of information, standardization of terminology, and accessibility. Additional feedback is garnered
from the annual reviews done by the divisions, departments, and programs responsible for the Catalog content. Curriculum representatives, including those from
distance education classes, are in regular communication with the Catalog and Schedule Coordinator to
upgrade catalog information. Revisions are made as
needed. This process ensures that changes in policy,
procedures, and curriculum are reflected in the catalog. This revised catalog is then published in print and
posted online in July each year (4.25, 4.26). Particularly
important sections are also excerpted in the Schedule
of Classes, which is updated each semester. Any changes made in policy or procedures are communicated to
students via an addendum in the printed Catalog, in
the Schedule of Classes, and online.
Because it is evaluated and updated on a bi-yearly basis by a diversity of individuals, departments, divisions
and programs, the Cypress College Catalog is current,
complete, clear, easy to understand, easy to use, and
well-structured.
Currently the Catalog Committee is discussing the inclusion of a Glossary of Terms in the Catalog to enhance clarity and accessibility. In addition, the committee will review the District’s shared drive for any
policies, such as college liability policies for field trips,
which are not published in the catalog and consequently remain virtually inaccessible to the public (4.27). To
address this oversight, the committee is looking into
creating links from the campus website to the District
142
website.
Planning Agenda
None.
3. The institution researches and identifies the
learning support needs of its student population and provides appropriate services and
programs to address those needs.
Every semester, the Office of Institutional Research
and Planning conducts a demographic analysis of incoming students (I://Demographics/Census). Additionally, the assessment test scores of students are analyzed by ethnicity and gender. The research findings
indicate a growing number of Hispanic students are
enrolling in Cypress College. Existing research indicates that Hispanic students and students from ethnic
minorities are academically less prepared and require
special services to be successful in college (4.93). Both
academic and student services programs are geared to
attend to the needs of these students. Programs such as
Puente and LinkME help integrate Hispanic students
into College; using STEM Grant funds, several initiatives are taken to serve the under-prepared Hispanic
students.
3.a. The institution assures equitable access
to all of its students by providing appropriate,
comprehensive, and reliable services to students regardless of service location or delivery method.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College emphasizes education for the individual student by providing equal access to all student support services. Each student support division serves the
educational needs of the entire student population by
adhering to the divisional student learning outcomes.
Within the Cypress College Student Services Division,
co-curricular student learning has been central in the
design and implementation of various programming
efforts and learning interventions. These along with
departmental mission statements and individual unit
goals were evaluated and assessed to determine the
progress of the stated outcomes. During each of these
SLO cycles, individual units developed outcomes, designed activities, completed assessments, and created
improvement plans based on independent dialogue
Cypress College
and feedback and subsequently developed a framework that would create a collaborative effort between
units (4.4).
Departments provide access to services by several
means of delivery in order to accommodate the needs
of their own student population. With the implementation of myGateway/Webstar and CCCapply, Cypress
College students have access to online services such
as admissions, registration, adding/dropping classes,
transcripts, grade retrieval, class schedules, campus
catalogs, and new student orientations. These services
can also be accessed in person at the appropriate departments on campus for special needs populations.
With the voter approval of Measure X, NOCCCD
was provided $239 million for facility expansion and
improvement at Cypress College, Fullerton College,
and the School of Continuing Education. Cypress
College’s new Student Center, which opened in Spring
2008, houses the Admissions & Records, Bursars, Assessment, Counseling, Career Planning, Transfer Centers, and Food Services.
The Counseling and Student Development Division
maintains complete guidance service, including:
◊
Orientation of new students to a successful college experience both in-person and
online.
◊
Counseling by telephone, in-person, or
online to provide assistance in the selection of courses of study, and individual
guidance in matters of aptitude and
personal adjustment.
◊
Tracking the number of appointments
made, attended, or canceled by students
with the College’s SARS Software product.
◊
Retrieving outside academic transcripts
online through the Singularity Hershey
System.
All of the Student Services areas provide useful online
information and resources for students on the College
website. For instance, the Transfer Center includes access to ASSIST, an online student-transfer information
system showing how credits from one institution apply to another. Also available are Major Preparation
Sheets and CSU and IGETC checklists. The Career
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Center offers a wide variety of online programs to assess career interests and strengths, provide information
for specific careers, and assist in resume building and
interview skill development. The EOPS site houses
specific forms, calendars of opportunities, and links to
valuable resources. EOPS is a categorical program that
provides support services including counseling, book
service, and tutoring for students who are traditionally
underrepresented and place into remedial math and
English courses (4.28).
Self Evaluation
Financial aid services have been greatly improved with
the availability of online services such as the FAFSA,
Fee Waiver, Award Letters, and the ability of students
to view their academic status on myGateway. The Financial Aid Office has also purchased the Singularity
Hershey System, which provides the ability to scan all
documents to create a paperless office.
Online services for Admissions & Records were judged
to be “Excellent” or “Good” at a level exceeding the
College standard of 75 percent. Of students surveyed,
52.9 percent rated their satisfaction with WebStar,
the online course registration system, as “Excellent,”
and another 37.7 percent rated their satisfaction as
“Good,” for a total of 90.6 percent. The “Excellent/
Good” satisfaction level for myGateway was at 88.7
percent. Satisfaction with the National Student Loan
Clearinghouse earned a “Good or Excellent” rating
from 76.8 percent of students (4.8).
With the hiring of the Dean of Student Support Services in Summer 2006, Cypress has improved its in-reach
and outreach efforts as well as community presence.
Upon his arrival, the Dean created a Student Ambassador Program, which enabled the campus to double
its outreach efforts by hiring current students to assist
in campus tours, campus events, community fairs, and
high school career days. The College also holds two
annual events - Senior Day and Parent Night. During
these events, local feeder high schools are invited to
attend a day of workshops and information sharing.
Last year, over 1,700 high school students and parents
were in attendance. The College uses these events as
tools to attract potential high school seniors by providing information about the campus and services. Before
the events, students fill out contact cards, which allows
staff to follow up to answer questions about attending
143
the institution as well as to gather information about
the areas of service. Student and parent responses were
used to gauge how well the events went and what could
be improved on. The College also used the contact
cards to determine how many students ended up enrolling at Cypress College and to see if the College’s
marketing goals were met.
Planning Agenda
None.
3.b. The institution provides an environment
that encourages personal and civic responsibility, as well as intellectual, aesthetic, and
personal development for all of its students.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College is committed to promoting the Core
Values of Excellence, Integrity, Collegiality and Inclusiveness, all of which contribute to personal and civic
responsibility of its students. The College fosters a climate that emphasizes teamwork, collaboration, communication, and respect both on campus and with the
surrounding community. Cypress College embraces diversity, provides an accessible, supportive climate, and
emphasizes honesty, fairness, accountability, and trust
through its high standards in instruction and student
services (4.29).
The College helps students to actualize these values by
offering a range of activities and opportunities for student involvement outside the classroom and provides a
learning environment that promotes these personal attributes. The College makes student rights and responsibilities very clear through several publications and the
College website. Policies related to academic standards
and student conduct are included in the Catalog, Student Handbook, and Schedule of Classes (4.30).
One key to student success is raising students’ awareness of the services and opportunities available to them.
New students are encouraged to attend a New Student
Orientation that provides important information about
getting started at the College as well as highlighting the
wealth of opportunities available to connect them with
the College. Students are encouraged to join campus
clubs and become involved in student government and
other extracurricular campus activities (4.31).
Student Success Week, which is offered at the start of
144
each semester, offers a variety of informational workshops on financial aid, stress management, undecided
majors, and study skills. Students learn about grants,
fee waivers, transfer, and the EOPS, CARE and CalWORKs programs. Workshop participants earn a ticket for a drawing and a chance to enter contests and win
prizes (4.32).
The Associated Students (AS) of Cypress College is
an elected and appointed group of students that are
given the opportunity to represent the students of the
College and advocate for their issues and concerns. AS
offers students the opportunity to share in College governance, interact with professionals, and to participate
in social and cultural activities. Furthermore, students
are encouraged to create and administer their own
programs and support systems that reflect diversity and
instill self reliance, ethical leadership, and responsible
action (4.33).
Students are encouraged and given the opportunity
to serve on many campus committees to provide their
own input to decisions that affect all students. AS students participate in the following campus committees
(4.34):
◊
Academic Senate
◊
Campus Technology Committee (CTC)
◊
Chancellor’s Cabinet/District Planning
Council (DPC)
◊
Curriculum Committee
◊
Campus Diversity Committee
◊
Graduation
◊
KinderCaminata
◊
Matriculation Advisory Committee
◊
President’s Advisory Cabinet (PAC)
◊
Petitions
◊
Planning and Budget Committee (PBC)
◊
Senior Day
◊
Staff Development Committee
◊
Student Equity Committee
◊
Safety
◊
Accreditation
◊
Strategic Plan
Cypress College
◊
Student Learning Outcomes (SLO)
◊
Distance Education
◊
Catalog, Scheduling, Registration
◊
District Employee Equal Opportunity
Advisory Committee
◊
District Technology Advisory Committee
◊
Title V Grant Steering Committee
◊
Various hiring committees
Student life on campus is a reflection of student interests and talents. Cypress is home to over 25 different
clubs with a wide variety of purposes. Groups are focused on public service, ethnic and religious identification, sexual orientation, purely social pursuits, and
campus involvement, to name a few. Student groups
are involved with Club Rush, Blood Drives, Thanksgiving Food Drive, and World Fest. New clubs form to
meet the changing needs of the student body. Membership in a club is a great way for students to become
connected to the campus and to enjoy the benefits that
the College has to offer. A portion of the proceeds from
the purchase of the Associated Student Benefits Card
enriches the College’s academic, athletic, and artistic
community by helping to fund extracurricular programs and events (4.35).
Students are exposed to life skills and social responsibility through events such as Financial Aid workshops
on credit card and money management. Extended
Opportunity Programs and Services (EOPS) offers
workshops on self esteem, parenting, study skills, and
time management. The Transfer Center provides the
opportunity to meet with representatives from 4-year
colleges and universities and participate in university
tours, workshops, and transfer fairs. The STEM Science Lecture Series offers presentation and Q & A sessions on current topics in the world of science, which
are open to all students. One recent topic focused on
stabilizing the greenhouse problem (4.36).
The Career Planning Center regularly presents both
employability enhancement and student success workshops on topics such as job search strategies, resume
writing, interview skills, problem solving/critical thinking, goal setting/decision making, concentration/
memory techniques, and procrastination. These “soft
skills” not only help students achieve academic success
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
but also meet career and life success needs. Comprehensive handouts are available at the Career Center for
those who are unable to attend the workshops (4.37).
Intellectual, aesthetic, and personal development opportunities are easily found at the College. The Cypress
College Art Gallery makes annual presentations of student work created during the school year. The works
are juried, and awards are presented. The Photography
Department offers regular exhibitions presented in the
Eduard de Merlier Photography Gallery with a focus
on outstanding contemporary photography. Students
and faculty in the Journalism Department are currently
working in partnership with Lutsk Liberal Arts University, Ukraine, and with the University of Warsaw. The
Study Abroad Program allows students the opportunity to gain a global perspective for effective living and
working in an international environment, providing an
opportunity to develop a broader perspective on life
and personal values and goals. Employers recognize
that applicants who have an international experience
can bring knowledge, skills, and cultural awareness that
are tremendous workplace assets (4.38).
The International Students Program (ISP) strives to
internationalize the campus by recruiting, integrating,
and supporting international students of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Students participate in
various clubs and work as tutors and student workers
on campus. The presence of these international students contributes to not only making the College more
ethnically and culturally diverse, but also to promoting
personal growth and development of all of its students
both in and outside the classroom. Many personal, intellectual, and cultural interactions and exchanges take
place between American and international students.
The ISP offers a number of events and activities for
its students such as potluck dinners, holiday luncheons,
and end-of-year recognition and graduation receptions
(4.39).
Many campus Learning Communities — including
Puente, Legacy, Honors and UTAP — provide the opportunity for students to attend lectures given by guest
speakers, cultural events, conferences and field trips
to theaters, museums and universities which enhance
the learning experience. UTAP students attend extracurricular activities, typically instruction-related, including a Bolsa Chica bonfire, a stage play, a university
tour, Monologue Night, Senior Day, KinderCaminata,
145
and the L.A. Festival of Books (4.40).
The Disabled Students Program and Services (DSPS)
celebrates Disabilities Awareness Month in October.
For Fall 2009, DSPS created a display in the Library
and emailed FAQ’s about disability topics to the faculty
and staff to share with students (4.41).
Many of the College’s programs offer opportunities
for student leadership, mentorship, and community
involvement, which are critical components to student
success. Puente and UTAP students become mentors for succeeding generations. Puente, Legacy, and
UTAP students have all created clubs to support their
programs and reach out to other students on campus.
The Educational Ambassadors Program is called upon
to assist in Teacher Preparation Program (TPP) events
at local schools and participate in KinderCaminata as
both readers and tour guides. Additionally, the TPP
students work with Book Buddies and First Book to
acquire donations of new reading books that are then
distributed to local schools during events with Educational Ambassadors.
Self Evaluation
Cypress College provides a variety of academic and
non-academic activities, events, programs, workshops,
and services that support an environment where students can exercise civic and social responsibility as well
as develop intellectually, aesthetically, and personally.
The wide array of activities exposes students to and
provides perspectives on issues presented in academic
and non-academic settings. These events and opportunities enhance their total educational experiences and
personal growth.
The College has many avenues for evaluating its efforts
in this area including Student Services Master Plan
(SSMP), Student Services Quality Reviews (SSQR),
Student Learning Outcomes (SLO), the Campus and
District Strategic Plans, Institutional Effectiveness,
Education Master Plan (EMP), Student Equity Plan
(SEP), Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory
(SSI), and Program Reviews (4.42).
Planning Agenda
None.
3.c. The institution designs, maintains and
evaluates counseling and/or academic advis146
ing programs to support student development
and success and prepares faculty and other
personnel responsible for the advising function.
Descriptive Summary
The mission of the Counseling Department is to promote student learning and success by providing academic, career, and personal counseling, and classes
and support services to maximize student potential for
achieving educational and life success. The department
is unique in that it is engaged in both instruction and
support services. All members of the Counseling faculty teach student development courses that are designed
to promote academic and life success and include academic and transfer planning, career development, and
personal/life management. Counselors also meet with
students individually and in groups to assist them in
reaching their short- and long-term goals (4.43, 4.44,
4.45).
Counselors are located in several academic buildings/
divisions and are specialists in working with specific
majors. They are assigned to the following divisions:
Business & CIS, Career/Technical Education, Fine
Arts, Health Sciences, Language Arts, Physical Education/Athletics, Science, Engineering & Math, Social
Sciences, and Student Support Services. Close proximity to the academic divisions facilitates the working
relationship between counselors and teaching faculty
for the benefit of students.
In addition, counseling services are provided by the
following departments on campus: California Work
Opportunity Responsibility for Kids (CalWORKs),
Career Planning Center (CPC), Cooperative Agencies
Resources for Education (CARE), Disabled Students
Program and Services (DSPS), Extended Opportunity
Programs and Services (EOPS), International Students
Program (ISP), Transfer Center, and Veterans Affairs.
Counseling services are also provided by various special programs/projects such as University Transfer
Achievement Program (UTAP), Puente, Legacy (formerly Black Studies), and Teacher Preparation. Finally,
counseling services are provided by grant funded initiatives such as Science, Technology, Engineering and
Math (STEM), Perkins, and Basic Skills (BSI). These
counseling units offer services to assist students in making effective academic, personal, and career decisions.
Cypress College
A variety of counseling options are offered to students:
appointment, walk-in, telephone, and web-based email
communication via onlinecounselor@cypresscollege.
edu (4.46).
The Counseling Center provides services to all students
in a centralized location on the second floor of the Student Center. It is open twelve months of the year, and
its operational hours are M-TH 8:00 am - 6:00 pm; F
8:00 am - 12:00 pm. It is the initial point of counseling
contact for new students on campus and allows other
departments to direct students to a central location.
Its primary function is to answer quick questions for
students related to courses, degree requirements, and
general college information. All counseling services in
the Center are provided on a walk-in basis while limited appointments are available M-TH 3:00 pm - 6:00
pm. Counselors address the immediate concern of the
student and then make referrals to meet with other
counselors by major as appropriate. Because of the
walk-in nature of the Center, some counseling services
are better provided in a half-hour appointment; all appointments are made through the support staff in the
Center.
The Counseling & Student Development Division
staff includes a Dean of Counseling/Student Development, one Counseling Department Coordinator with
20% reassigned time, 18 full-time counselors and four
full-time classified. The counseling staff in the Student
Support Services Division includes one full-time EOPS
counselor, two adjunct EOPS counselors, and one CalWORKs counselor (4.47). Additional adjunct faculty,
part-time classified staff, and work-study students are
hired throughout both divisions as needed and as funds
permit.
Counselors conduct outreach to feeder high schools
and the local community by participating in college
nights and various outreach events. Each counselor
is assigned at least one local feeder high school from
the College’s service area to maintain constant communication, provide College workshops, and attend
college nights/fairs hosted by the high schools (4.48).
Counselors are required to contact their high school
counterparts via email, phone call, or visits at their
assigned high school at least once every two months.
The Counseling & Student Development Division also
hosts an annual High School Counselors Breakfast to
increase communication and continue to strengthen
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
partnerships with local feeder high schools. Counselors
are involved in the planning and coordination of the
College’s annual Senior Day, Parent Night, Kindercaminata activities, and a new pilot program called,
“LinkME to College,” which was created in response
to the Strategic Plan Action item of developing and
implementing a summer readiness program (4.49).
Due to the state budget crisis, procedures to provide
better service to students were implemented by the
Dean of Counseling & Student Development based on
recommendations from faculty and staff during division meetings (4.50) and from members of the Deans
Advisory Council (DAC), which is a taskforce of three
full-time counselors who provide input with respect to
the operations of the Counseling & Student Development Department (4.51). An increasing number of students were seeking counseling services approximately
six weeks before the fall term. Previous deans of counseling used counselors not currently on contract work
during the summer and paid them overload (4.52), resulting in a significant deficit in the Counseling budget.
Through the work of the DAC, the Dean of Counseling & Student Development was able to move some
of the counselors’ part-of-load hours during non-peak
periods to peak periods and thus not impact the Counseling budget by paying excessive overload costs. In addition, managers offered to assist with presenting the
90-minute overview during the three-hour new student
orientations while the counselor stayed in the Counseling Center to assist students. The counselor then
proceeds to advise and counsel students immediately
following the manager’s overview of general college information (4.53).
Along with their work to provide services to students,
the counselors represent the division on many campus
committees. Specifically, they serve on the Curriculum Committee, Academic Senate, Basic Skills, Student Learning Outcomes, General Education Student
Learning Outcomes, Student Services Council, Extended Opportunity Programs and Services, and Disabled Students Program and Services Advisory Committees, Diversity, Online Student Educational Plan
Software Taskforce, and Pass Along Appeals Committee.
Counselors are trained through a variety of methods.
A new counselor shadows the Counseling Department
Coordinator. Counseling related paperwork and stu147
dent information systems in SCT Banner are covered
as part of training and can be found in the Counselors Handbook (4.59).Other methods include regional
or Systems Office training, conferences and workshops
such as Ensuring Transfer Success, UC and CSU conferences, private university conferences, Learning Disabilities Eligibility Training, Coordinators training for
new Matriculation, EOPS/CARE, DSPS, and Transfer Directors monthly counseling in-service meetings
chaired by the Counseling Department Coordinator,
District-wide Banner/Argos/Groupwise training, nonviolent crisis intervention training, SARS training, and
new faculty orientation conducted by the Staff Development Office, Dean of Counseling & Student Development, and Dean of Student Support Services (4.54).
Self Evaluation
Counselors are evaluated according to the evaluation
guidelines, which are defined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the United Faculty (4.55).
The intent of faculty evaluations is to concentrate on
improved performance and to acknowledge effective
counseling service. The North Orange County Community College District (NOCCCD) uses a variety of
methods to evaluate counseling. For temporary parttime counselors, the immediate supervisor performs an
evaluation with consultation from the Counseling Department Coordinator (4.56), while tenure track counselors are evaluated by a review committee consisting
of faculty peers and administrators, and tenured faculty are evaluated by the Counseling administrator with
the Counseling faculty given the option for a peer to
participate in the evaluation process as well. Counselors have an opportunity to address and make necessary
adjustments based on the recommendations as detailed
in their evaluations prior to the next evaluation period.
Counseling services are evaluated by the following:
◊
Program Review/Student Services Quality Review (4.5, 4.8)
◊
Student Satisfaction Inventory by Noel
Levitz (4.1)
◊
Categorical Programs Site Visit (4.4)
◊
Student Services Master Plan (4.9)
◊
Student Learning Outcomes (4.4)
The results from the Student Satisfaction Inventory
148
(SSI) indicated that students wanted a more focused
counseling service to help them succeed. The Dean of
Counseling & Student Development met with Institutional Research and Planning to develop an appropriate intervention to help improve services to students.
Counseling services are offered at a centralized location as well as in respective departments. In order to
identify where the students are expecting improved services, a survey has been designed and will be forwarded
to all students after they see a counselor. This process
will begin in Fall 2010. Based on the findings, further
action plans will be formulated.
Staffing adequacy within the Counseling Department
and other support services providing counseling services are regularly evaluated by the Dean of Counseling
& Student Development and Dean of Student Support Services. If the need is deemed critical to replace
full-time counseling positions as a result of retirements,
then faculty replacement requests are submitted during
the normal faculty prioritization request cycle.
Planning Agenda
None.
3.d. The institution designs and maintains appropriate programs, practices, and services
that support and enhance student understanding and appreciation of diversity.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College has a strong commitment to diversity
as evidenced by curriculum, campus events, outreach
efforts, programs, and services. The College has a diversity course requirement that must be met in order to
obtain an Associate Degree. A variety of courses that
reflect many levels of diversity are available throughout the curriculum to enable students to meet this requirement (4.57).
The College also supports learning communities
whose objectives are to serve under-represented minority populations. The Legacy Program (4.58), which is
comprised mainly of African-American students, and
the Puente Program (4.59), which serves mostly Hispanic students, both promote an understanding and
appreciation of diversity through course work and extracurricular activities.
Student services further enhance an understanding
Cypress College
of diversity. Programs such as DSPS, EOPS, and the
International Students Program serve students from a
variety of backgrounds. Many of the staff members in
these programs also have diverse backgrounds. Their
efforts further enhance an understanding of diversity
and enrich the college experience for all students.
The Student Equity Plan (SEP) serves as a tool to help
the College gauge its progress in improving access and
success rates for all students and in particular underrepresented groups. Updated in Fall 2009, the SEP
outlines activities that the College will engage in to improve rates of course completion, degree and certificate completion, and transfer among its diverse student
population (4.42).
The College’s Diversity Committee plays a major role
in promoting diversity. As a shared-governance committee, it meets monthly to discuss issues related to diversity. The committee sets aside funding to support
diversity events on campus such as speakers, films, and
performances, as well as to purchase diversity-themed
DVD’s for the Library (4.60).
The Diversity Committee also maintains a monthly
multicultural calendar of campus events and activities
(4.61). Among the events that have been held over the
past five years are:
◊
Disabilities Awareness Month – Library
Display, Disability Jeopardy
◊
Kwanzaa celebration with Speaker Dr.
Amen Rahh
◊
Black Colleges Fair - Speaker Kareem
Abdul-Jabbar
◊
Author James D. Houston on California’s Crossroads Culture
◊
Speaker Marco Firebaugh – Hispanic
Heritage Celebration
◊
Performance of Taiko Drum Duo
◊
Black History Month – Speakers Jihad
Saafir and May May Ali; Gospel Concert
◊
World Fest
◊
Speaker James Sakatani on WWII Japanese Internment Camp
◊
The Gay Marriage Debate: Legal and
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Religious Issues
◊
Speaker Dr. Terrance Roberts – Celebrating Diversity Forum
◊
Women’s Day of Expression
In addition to these activities, students have the opportunity to develop an understanding of diversity
through participation in campus clubs. Of the 27 active clubs on campus in 2009-2010, eleven clubs have
a diversity-related focus. Among them are the Japanese
Club, the Muslim Students Association, the Puente
Club, the Black Student Union, and GALA (Gay and
Lesbian Acceptance) (4.62).
Self Evaluation
The Office of Institutional Research and Planning
conducts the Campus Climate Survey every two years
to measure employee satisfaction in a number of areas.
Included are questions related to diversity. The NoelLevitz Survey, which also measures satisfaction in a
number of areas including diversity, is administered to
students on a biannual basis as well. Both surveys have
shown increased satisfaction in the area of diversity
over the past four years (4.63, 4.1).
The Climate Survey conducted in Fall 2009 indicates
that the employee ratings regarding the general College atmosphere has improved since the last survey conducted in Spring 2008. Compared to the 2008 study,
more employees felt that the College has a strong commitment to supporting diversity activities that address
issues relevant to gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender
employees and students. A substantial portion of the
survey focused on employees’ perceptions of how re-
Figure 1
149
sponsive the College is to its diverse students and staff.
Figure 1 shows the ratings given by the respondents in
relation to questions on diversity.
counseling/ orientations), and how to register (4.65).
Definitions are provided for what constitutes a continuing, new, or returning student.
Overall, the campus atmosphere related to diversity
has improved since the last survey. Although agreement levels vary among different groups several times,
the gap is not much. Also, none of the areas were perceived overwhelmingly negatively (below 60% score on
Agree/Strongly Agree) by any of the groups. While the
campus has improved the perception towards diversity,
the good work needs to continue to strengthen the position.
The Admissions & Records Office provides students
with current information about registering for classes.
The “Six Steps to Registration” handout is available at
the Admissions & Records Office, in the Schedule of
Classes, and on the College website (4.66). This summary also provides contact information for Admissions
& Records, Assessment, and Counseling Centers as
well as information regarding applying for admissions,
taking assessments, attending an orientation, meeting
with a counselor, applying for financial aid, and registering for classes.
In summary, the efforts of the College to support diversity have been varied and extensive. The work of
the Student Equity Plan Committee and the Diversity Committee has demonstrated the College’s commitment to a diverse campus community. Finally, the
infusion of diversity issues into the curriculum, campus events, and support services has contributed to an
enhanced understanding and appreciation of diversity
among students and staff.
Planning Agenda
None.
3.e. The institution regularly evaluates admissions and placement instruments and practices to validate their effectiveness while minimizing biases.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College maintains an open enrollment policy,
following the eligibility requirements outlined in the
College Catalog and California Education Code (4.64)
and the North Orange County Community College
District Board Policy, Chapter 5 BP 5055 referenced
from Title V, Sections 51006, 58106, 58108 (4.18).
Open enrollment is guided by the North Orange County Community College District Board Policy regarding
Enrollment Priorities, Chapter 5 AP 5055 referenced
from Title V, Section 58106, which outlines the terms
under which enrollment may be limited (4.18). The
College Catalog and online website provide admissions
information regarding who is eligible to enroll at Cypress College, what the process and deadlines are for
applications, what determines residency, what the procedures are for admissions (including assessment and
150
Another document, “Registration Q & A,” provides
answers for commonly asked questions and directs students to additional online resources (4.67). The Admissions & Records Office has representatives who speak
Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese to assist students
who may encounter language barriers. Students enrolled in DSPS and EOPS as well as eligible veterans
are given early registration dates (4.68). Other students
are assigned registration dates based on the number of
units completed.
The College provides both online and paper applications; CCC Apply applications online are available in
both English and Spanish (4.69). Since data is submitted directly by applicants, the information is protected
from tampering. This data is stored for purposes of
federal and state mandated MIS tracking.
Matriculation utilizes Mathematics Diagnostic Testing Project (MDTP) (4.70), Combined English Language Skills Assessment (CELSA) (4.71), and College
Tests for English Placement (CTEP) (4.72) assessment
tests to place students in appropriate math, ESL, and
English classes. These placement tests are on the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office list of
approved assessment tools. Additionally, faculty evaluations of student performance and counselor evaluations of academic transcripts can be used to validate
the assessment test placements. Students with disabilities go through the Disabled Students Program and
Services office, where they are administered the same
tests but allowed to use adaptive tools and other appropriate accommodations to complete these tests.
Cypress College
Self Evaluation
Cypress College Admissions & Records Office works in
conjunction with the Banner Steering Committee, the
Banner Student Team, and Fullerton College Admissions & Records Office to test systems and run pilot
programs. This continued assessment, experimentation, and evaluation has lead to improvements in the
ease of use in the registration process. In the survey administered for the last Program Review for Admissions
& Records, the registration process was given a 90%
satisfaction rate by students (4.73). Currently, 99% of
students use the online application. Use of this application is part of the student learning outcome assessment
for Admissions & Records.
Each year the Cypress College Admissions & Records
administrators collaborate with Fullerton College and
School of Continuing Education administrators to
maintain the integrity of the College application. In
addition, assessment vendors have conducted their
own validation studies for cultural and linguistic biases.
The Office of Institutional Research and Planning follows a Matriculation Research Calendar of their own
creation, which outlines when local validation efforts
are conducted (4.74). The campus has spent the past
year and a half extensively analyzing MDTP for mathematics course placements. The Office of Institutional
Research and Planning meets quarterly with appropriate deans, department chairs, and the Matriculation
Advisory Committee to review research studies prior
to publishing these studies on the campus J: drive. The
College has maintained compliance with the state
mandate to conduct validation studies every six years.
However, due to statewide Matriculation budget cuts,
the campus is waiting to hear from each vendor for research updates.
The Admissions & Records Office also works in conjunction with the Student Grievance Campus Petitions
Committee to assist students who wish to file a grievance (4.75). Student petitioners are referred to the Student Grievance Campus Petitions Committee Chair
who provides petitioners with an overview of the grievance process as well as an understanding of their rights.
The chair makes sure that the student has followed the
grievance protocol in seeking resolution to this problem. Petitioners who wish to proceed with their grievance are given the Campus Petitions Committee Form
and assisted in any way necessary to complete this form
(4.76). After the Campus Petitions Committee Form
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
has been completed and submitted, a nine-member
Campus Petitions Committee compromised of an administrator, faculty, and student representatives meet
to review the evidence provided. A recommendation
is then made. If the faculty member agrees with the
grade change recommendation, then the Admissions
& Records Office would become involved to facilitate
the grade change.
Planning Agenda
None.
3.f. The institution maintains student records
permanently, securely, and confidentially,
with provision for secure backup of all files,
regardless of the form in which those files are
maintained. The institution publishes and follows established policies for release of student
records.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College maintains student records permanently, securely, and confidentially. BANNER, implemented in Fall 2001, is a secure data base system requiring
a validated username and password to log in to the
system and access confidential records (4.77). Students
can obtain unofficial transcripts, individual class schedules, and add or drop a class through myGateway, a
portal system to obtain real-time data from BANNER.
A confidentiality statement appears prior to logging in
to BANNER (4.78), which is in accordance with Administrative Procedure, AP 3720 (4.79) and with local,
state, and federal laws, as well as the procedures of the
North Orange County Community College District.
Secure access to student records is in accordance with
North Orange County Community College District’s
Administrative and Board Policies (4.80, 4.81), State
Law (4.82, p. 20), and Federal Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (4.83, p. 20, 45). Students have access to records through myGateway or
in person at the Admissions & Records Office by presenting a photo form of identification upon request of
any documents (4.84, p. 45). Students can request transcripts, duplicate diplomas, and/or certificates in person at the Admissions & Records Office (4.85, p. 45).
The Admissions & Records Office at Cypress College
houses all student records mostly as Banner electronic files as well as some paper documents in the form
151
of old hard copy transcripts, instructor grade rosters,
completed student Petitions for Exceptions, instructor
grade changes, Academic Renewals, residency documentation, subpoenas, graduation certificate program
information, transcript requests, and verification requests (4.86). All Cypress College transcripts can now
be retrieved electronically through either the Singularity Imaging System or BANNER. The transcript
storage system is much more efficient for processing
and retrieval as well as safety from damage or loss. All
electronic transcripts are backed up off site for security
purposes. Individual categorical programs maintain
their own records, and access to these student records
is through BANNER and is the same as through the
Admissions & Records Office. Some paper records and
forms are still maintained.
Board and Administrative Policies of Cypress College
and the North Orange County Community College
District assure the governance of the maintenance and
release of student records under BP 5040 and AP 5040
(4.18). The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
also ensure student records are secure as stated in the
Cypress College Catalog 2009-2010 (4.87, p. 20 & p.
45). Cypress College utilizes an electronic record security-software system in which access to student records
is password protected. Each student and employee has
an individual security protected password, and security
is granted according to the level of work expertise. The
BANNER log-in process allows security down to the
screen and individual user level (4.88).
Cypress College provides provisions for securely backing up all student records (4.89). The District backs up
all student records on a daily basis through BANNER,
where these records are kept indefinitely. Student records are never altered or deleted during the back-up
process. In addition to the daily back-up process on
BANNER, the District stores back-up tapes offsite for
approximately 30 calendar days in case there is a problem with the BANNER daily back-up process.
Self Evaluation
Cypress College has provisions for securely backing
up all student records, regardless of the form in which
those files are maintained. Since 2001, the College has
utilized the BANNER database system, which backs up
all electronic file entries nightly. As a second means of
reliance, tapes of student records are kept at an off-site
152
location for approximately 30 days in the event there is
a loss of information with the BANNER system. Paper
format documents are securely kept in the Admissions
& Records Office. Student demographic information is
collected electronically through the online application
process, CCC Apply. Prior to 2001, these records were
collected through paper application forms and kept by
the Cypress College Research Department and kept
securely by the Cypress College Researcher. Course
grades have been recorded and kept on BANNER
since 2001. Archived state-reported records for active
students, the MIS Report (Management Information
Systems-enrollment census) and the 320 Report (enrolled for quarterly positive attendance and funding) is
currently being electronically sent to the State. Cypress
College recently developed a Records Retention/Destruction Schedule, which was submitted to the Executive Vice President of Cypress College for review.
Planning Agenda
None.
4. The institution evaluates student support
services to assure their adequacy in meeting
identified student needs. Evaluation of these
services provides evidence that they contribute to the achievement of student learning outcomes. The institution uses the results of these
evaluations as the basis for improvement.
Descriptive Summary
Student Services Quality Review is the primary process
used for the examination and evaluation of Student
Services programs on a regular and ongoing basis. All
support services within the Student Services Division
go through quality review in accord with the schedule
issued by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning (4.90). However, to keep the evaluation of services
current, all support services have completed three full
cycles of SLO development.
Aspects of every Student Services Program Review
and SLO development include:
◊
Each department’s Mission and Vision
Statement
◊
Executive Summary of report
◊
Program Description
Cypress College
◊
Program Data Collected
◊
Instructional Component (if available)
◊
Program Evaluation Component
◊
Analysis
◊
Goals and Objectives
◊
Signatures and individual comment
◊
Appendices, Instruments, or Action
Plans
Aspects of every Student Services Quality Review Report include:
◊
A progress report on the status of current goals and a statement of new goals
for the upcoming year.
◊
A plan for achieving the new goals.
◊
A review of the Mission and Vision
statements for the department.
◊
Results of the satisfaction surveys administered by the department for Program
Review (if available). Those groups who
are surveyed include students who use
the service.
◊
An analysis of staffing for the department.
◊
An analysis of student usage trends/access to programs and services.
◊
An Action Plan identifying departmental needs (what the department needs to
be able to do, but cannot for whatever
reason) and the creation of a strategy to
deal with that need.
◊
A departmental budget and explanation
of need, which itemizes budgetary needs
for additional staff, technology, supplies,
and other resources that are not included
in the department’s current annual budget. These would typically be those items
that have been identified as needs from
the Program Goals and Action Plan.
Findings associated with the Quality Review are used
to measure progress toward the achievement of established departmental goals, identify student needs,
establish solutions to challenges, redefine the departInstitutional Self Study — Spring 2011
ment’s mission or vision, if needed, and set new departmental goals.
The College uses SLO’s for program improvement.
As student learning outcomes are defined institutionally, Student Services will create and expand SLOs to
maximize student learning. On November 16, 2006,
the Student Services Council adopted the Nichols and
Nichols Model for the development of their Student
Services Student Learning Outcomes over a five year
period (4.95). Using this model, known on campus as
the Five Column Model, each office has specified: 1)
its mission and goals, 2) intended outcomes, 3) means
of assessment, 4) data summary, and 5) how results will
be used in the future. Entering 2010-2011, Student
Services will develop their fifth cycle of SLOs and assessment and revisit this model in November 2011 to
determine if the approach will be modified.
When services are evaluated, program strengths and
weaknesses are clarified and student needs are identified. Each Student Services program strives to utilize
the findings of Quality Review to improve the services
it provides for students by including the improvements
in its program goals and annual manager goals and objectives.
Self Evaluation
The Quality Review format used for all Student Services Division departments is thorough and effective. The
division has seen numerous improvements throughout
its programs in the last two years, and more goals for
improvement have been set. The program review process was customized by Student Services managers and
Student Services Council and will be improved upon as
necessary. The Quality Review and SLO development
model for the Student Services Division has evolved to
best accommodate the needs and functions of the division.
Cypress College has a commitment to student learning
outcomes in Instruction and Student Services. Due to
various conferences and training opportunities, student
support services personnel are aware of student learning outcomes and are ready to integrate them into the
Quality Review and SLO development process. The
College’s divisions will need to cooperate/collaborate
with each other in order to support students in their
achievement of learning outcomes.
153
Planning Agenda
College 2009-2010 Catalog
None.
4.21“Campus Life” section in the Cypress College 20092010 Catalog
Reference Documents
4.22
4.1
4.23Schedule of Classes online — www.cypresscollege.
edu/academics/ScheduleofClasses.aspx
Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory 2009
4.2Board Policy on Admissions — www.nocccd.edu/
Policies/PoliciesAndProcedures.htm#TheDistrict
4.3Student Equity Plan — www.cypresscollege.edu/
about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspx
4.4Student Services SLO documents
4.5Categorical Program Review — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/ProgramReview
4.6
Student Services Council Meeting Minutes
4.7
Counseling Division Meeting Minutes
4.8Student Services Quality Review Reports — J:\
Quality Review\Student Support Services Quality
Review
4.9Student Services Master Plan — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.
aspx
4.10College Catalog, Official Name, Addresses, Telephone, Number, and Website of the Institution
4.11College Catalog, Educational Mission. Course, Program, and Degree Offerings
4.12College Catalog, Academic Calendar and Program
Length
4.13College Catalog, Academic Freedom Statement
4.14
College Catalog, Available Student Financial Aid
4.15
College Catalog, Available Learning Resources
4.16College Catalog, Names and Degrees of Administrators and Faculty
4.17College Catalog, Names of Governing Board Members
4.18North Orange County Community College District Board Policies and Procedures — www.
nocccd.edu/Policies/PoliciesAndProcedures.
htm#TheDistrict
4.19North Orange County Community College website –
www.nocccd.edu
4.20“Programs of Study” can be found in the Cypress-
154
Schedule of Classes
4.24
Student Handbook
4.25
College Catalog
4.26College Catalog online – www.cypresscollege.edu/
academics/CollegeCatalog.aspx
4.27
Campus J:drive
4.28Cypress College website — www.cypresscollege.
edu/services
4.29Core Values — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/
atAGlance/coreValues.aspx
Cypress College Catalog 2009-10, pg. 4
Cypress College 2009-10 Student Handbook, pg. 3
4.30Policies related to Student Rights, Responsibilities,
Academic Standards and Student Conduct:
Cypress College Catalog 2009-10, pgs. 8-9, 12-14,
37-46, Cypress College Spring 2010 Class Scheule, .
pgs. 131-133
Cypress College 2009-10 Student Handbook, pgs. .
56-66
4.31New Student Orientation — www.cypresscollege.
edu/admissions/gettingStarted/orientation
Cypress College Spring 2010 Class Schedule, pg. 1
4.32
Spring 2010 Student Success Week flyer
4.33Associated Students — www.cypresscollege.edu/
studentLife/assiciatedStudents
4.34
Campus committees with AS participation
A. Cypress College Shared Governance Process
Committees and Task Forces, 02/01/07
B. Academic Senate Approved Minutes, 02/11/10
C. Campus Technology Committee (CTC) Guidelines
D. District Planning Council (DPC) Purpose and
Operational Guidelines
E. Campus Curriculum Committee Composition,
2007-08
Cypress College
F. Campus Diversity Committee Guidelines
• Financial Aid – 11/14/2008
G. Matriculation Advisory Committee Guidelines
H. President’s Advisory Cabinet (PAC) Description,
Purpose & Guidelines
C. Annual Report Update on Student Learning
Outcomes 2007-2008
D. 2008-2011 Cypress College Strategic Plan
I. Planning and Budget Committee Guidelines
J. Staff Development Committee Guidelines
E. North Orange County Community College District Strategic Plant Framework
K. Student Equity Committee Membership
F. Institutional Effectiveness: How well is Cypress
College doing? 3/25/09
4.35Campus Life, Cypress College Catalog 2009-10,
pgs. 35-37
G. Educational Master Plan 2006-2010, pgs. 145154
4.36
Workshops:
H. Student Equity Plan 2004
A. Financial Aid Office Assistance Request Form
B. EOPS Newsletter, March/April 2010
I. Fall 2009 Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory
C. Transfer Center flyers — www.cypressvollege.
edu/services/transfer/calendar.aspx
J. New Program Review Proposed for Special Programs.
D. STEM Science Lecture Series email
4.37Career Planning Center Workshop Series Flyers, Sp
2010 and Sp 2009
4.38Concrete Walls Project at Cypress College, Oct 14 –
Nov 12, 2009
4.39International Students Program (ISP) 2008-09 International Focus Brochure, ISP calendar, and flyers
4.40
Learning Community Activities:
A. UTAP Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 Calendar
B. Honors Program Requirements – www.cypresscollege.edu/academics/specialPrograms/
Honors
C. Legacy Program/Black Studies Learning Community flyer
D. Fall 2009 Puente Program Report
4.41Disabled Students Program & Services Disabilities
Awareness Month emails
4.42
Evaluating our efforts
A. Student Services Master Plan 2007-2014 Key
Findings, pgs. 78-79
B. Student Services Quality Review Report Template.
Examples:
• Counseling – 11/17/2008
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Examples:
• Special Programs Quality Review Report
Service Learning – 12/19/2007
• Special Programs Quality Review Report,
Honors Program – 12/17-2007
• Special Programs Quality Review Report,
Teacher Preparation, Educational Interpreter
Training, and Paraprofessional Certificates
Program – 12/04/2007
4.43
Mission of the Counseling Department I
4.44
Mission of the Counseling Department II
4.45
Mission of the Counseling Department III
4.46Counseling Services — www.cypresscollegecounselor.edu
4.47Counseling & Student Development Division Staff
4.48
Counselor Outreach
4.49
“LinkME to College”
4.50Counseling & Student Development Division Meeting Minutes
4.51
Deans Advisory Council (DAC)
4.52
Counseling budget
4.53
Counselors Handbook
4.54Counselor Training provided by the Offices of the
Executive Vice President, Dean of Counseling & Student Development , and Dean of Student Support
155
Services
4.55Collective Bargaining Agreement with the United
Faculty
dures – www.nocccd.edu/Policies/PoliciesAndProcedures.htm#TheDistrict
4.82
State Law
4.56
Counseling Department Coordinator consultation
4.57
College Catalog
4.58
The Legacy Program brochure
4.84MyGateway and/or Admissions and Records website
4.59
The Puente Program brochure
4.85
Admissions and Records
4.86
Admissions and Records Services
4.60The College’s Diversity Committee in promotingdiversity minutes
4.61The Diversity Committee’s monthly multiculturalcalendar
4.62Eleven clubs on campus have a diversity-relatedfocus
4.63The Campus Climate Survey — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/rsurveys.aspx
4.64
California Education Code of regulations
4.65Admissions and Records Office webpage — www.
cypresscollege.edu/admissions/admissionsAndRecords
4.66
“Six Steps to Registration” handout
4.67
“Registration Q & A”
4.68
Vice Chancellor Memo on Priority Registration
4.69
CCCApply.org — www.cccapply.org/
4.70
MDTP test
4.71
CELSA test
4.72
CTEP test
4.83Federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
of 1974
4.87The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act can
be found in the 2009-10 College Catalog
4.88
BANNER
4.89
Cypress College provisions
4.90
SSQR Schedule
4.91myGateway: mygateway.nocccd.edu/cp/home/loginf
4.92
Rick Rams email to Cherie Dickey 7/6/10
4.93Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation —
www.mdrc.org/
4.94NOCCCD Board Minutes — www.nocccd.edu/
Trustees/MtgMinutesArchive2009.htm
4.95Nichols and Nichols http://books.google.com/
books?hl=en&lr=&id=ocxqaZ0mvDUC&oi=fnd&pg=
PA7&dq=nichols+five+column+model&ots=vfoD-rW
rM8&sig=pnszk7Npn8dvdp9T9PDJaIeq6T0#v=one
page&q&f=false
4.73Student Services Quality Review Report for Admissions and Records
4.74
Matriculation Research Calendar
4.75Student Grievances Campus Petitions Committee
procedures
4.76
Campus Petitions Committee form
4.77
BANNER Login and Authentication Screen
4.78
BANNER Confidentiality Statement
4.79
BANNER Usage agreement in accord with AP 3720
4.80
Administrative Procedure AP 3720
4.81NOCCCD Board Policies and Administrative Proce-
156
Cypress College
Standard IIC: Library and
Learning Support Services
Library and other learning support services
for students are sufficient to support the institution’s instructional programs and intellectual, aesthetic, and cultural activities in whatever format and wherever they are offered.
Such services include library services and collections, tutoring, learning centers, computer
laboratories, and learning technology development and training. The institution provides
access and training to students so that library
and other learning support services may be
used effectively and efficiently. The institution
systematically assesses these services using
student learning outcomes, faculty input, and
other appropriate measures in order to improve the effectiveness of the services.
1. The institution supports the quality of its instructional programs by providing library and
other learning support services that are sufficient in quantity, currency, depth, and variety
to facilitate educational offerings, regardless
of location or means of delivery.
1.a. Relying on appropriate expertise of faculty, including librarians and other learning
support services professionals, the institution
selects and maintains educational equipment
and materials to support student learning and
enhance the achievement of the mission of the
institution.
Descriptive Summary
The Cypress College Library and Learning Resource
Center (LLRC) opened January 2006 to accolades for
its high tech, environmentally friendly design, coupled
with a creative convergence of academic resources.
The LLRC, a 62,500 sq. ft. facility, consists of two
floors connected by a circular stairway and a central
elevator.
On the first floor, the Learning Resource Center (LRC)
brings together a number of learning support services that, prior to 2006, were offered in different places
across campus. In the new LRC, the Learning Center,
Writing Center, Math Learning Center, Foreign Language Lab, and the Supplemental Instruction (SI) ProInstitutional Self Study — Spring 2011
gram have been consolidated in order to address multiple student learning needs in one convenient location.
The LRC features 159 computers where students have
access to Internet, word processing (Microsoft Office),
and printing. Two flatbed scanners with accompanying photo editing software are also available. Students
may obtain a broad variety of academic support media
placed in the LRC by instructors. Typically, students
are using computers to complete instructional software
programs, but the LRC also provides 48 CD and cassette tape players, 4 TV/VCR combos and 2 DVD
players plus headphones for use with older instructional
media. Tutors help students with a variety of subjects,
including math, English, ESL, biology, chemistry, statistics, anatomy, physiology, geology, accounting, and
Spanish. In addition to computer access, an array of
solutions manuals, science models, texts, and handouts
are available to students during their tutoring sessions.
Supplemental Instruction Leaders prepare lessons for
students in an office dedicated to their use; they also
consult with their mentors and their coordinator. Finally, the LRC has a testing center where students can
make up exams they have missed, ADA stations, and
a computerized classroom that instructors can reserve
for their classes.
Faculty members determine what instructional materials and software programs are purchased for the LRC.
They also influence what tutoring services are made
available as well as which classes are supported by Supplemental Instruction. LRC staff include a learning
center coordinator, an instructional assistant, three instructional aides, an SI coordinator, a tutorial services
coordinator, two hourly employees, twenty-six tutors,
and forty-five SI leaders. The LLRC dean oversees the
personnel and activities of both floors.
The second floor of the building is devoted to Library
collections and services. According to their 2008-2009
Annual Report, (5.1) the Library owns 61,472 print
volumes plus another 7,781 e-books, 1,307 CDs and
cassettes, 3,268 videos and DVDs, 87 print periodical
subscriptions, 3,444 reels of microfilm and 12 database
subscriptions comprising approximately 7,910 full-text
magazine/journal titles plus indexing and abstracting
for many more. In addition to circulating and reference
materials, the Library currently has 1,954 textbooks associated with current courses as well as materials put
on reserve by instructors for supplemental reading or
157
viewing. Twenty-six computers (including one ADA
station) are available in an open lab setting where students have access to Internet, library databases, Microsoft Office Word Viewer, and pay-for-print services,
including three photocopiers and a microfilm reader/
printer. Another 35 computers are available for “hands
on” instruction in the Library orientation classroom.
Students can also use their own laptops as the building has wireless capability in addition to data ports and
electrical availability throughout. Although most of the
Library’s media collection can be checked out and taken home, many students, staff, and community members choose to use one of the eight combination VCR/
DVD players available in the Library. Current staff
within the Library include three full-time librarians (a
fourth has been hired to fill an open position beginning
with the Fall 2010 semester), seven adjunct librarians
(for a total of .7 FTEF), a Library Services Coordinator, four full-time Library Assistants, and three student
assistants.
Library materials are selected in accordance with the
Library’s Collection Development Guidelines (5.2).
The primary objective of the collection
development program is to provide materials and equipment to support and
meet the instructional, institutional,
and individual needs of students, faculty, and staff. The selection process is
a cooperative one involving both teaching and Library faculty and, as explicitly stated in the guidelines, “[f]aculty
requests for the purchase of materials
pertinent to their courses are given first
consideration.” Librarians solicit input
from faculty informally through emails
Image 1
and personal conversations at the reference desk. They also accept donations
for circulating and reserve materials directly from faculty, discuss the content instructor’s class assignments
prior to Library orientation sessions, and visit department and division meetings as necessary. Librarians periodically offer a “Weed and Feed” event that provides
lunch and flex credit to faculty from any discipline who
are interested in spending two hours with a librarian
reviewing holdings in their subject area, discarding
out-of-date material, and discussing the replacement
or purchase of new materials in print or other formats.
Collection development in the health sciences occurs
158
more formally in the regular review of Library holdings during the accreditation process for individual
programs. In addition, each year the campus Diversity
Committee provides input into the selection of media
addressing diversity issues along with $500 from their
own budget towards those purchases. Finally, the campus Curriculum Committee’s review and approval
process includes a requirement that faculty consult a
librarian to determine whether Library materials need
to be purchased to support a new or revised course (see
Image 1 of CurricUNET screen shot). As a permanent
member of the committee, the librarian has ample opportunity to review outlines and assignments related to
any new courses or programs being submitted and to
work with faculty to ensure appropriate and necessary
materials are acquired to support these courses or programs.
A number of Student Support Services covered in
Standard IIB of this document also provide collections, computer labs, and services designed to support
particular educational or occupational programs and
goals. Since these resources must meet very specific
needs, materials and equipment are most often selected based on faculty input, student need, and discussions between front-line classified staff and supervising
faculty within the division or department. The Career
Planning and Adult Re-entry Center, Transfer Center,
EOPS, DSPS, and a number of discipline-specific labs
or libraries complement the materials and services provided by the LLRC and offer students various points of
entry to learning resources across the campus.
The Career Planning Center, located on the second
floor of the Student Center, offers an extensive colCypress College
lection of occupational, labor market, and job search
information to assist individuals with their career research. Students have in-house access to books, videos
and career files plus 25 computer workstations offering
licensed software programs and databases related to
all aspects of career planning and job hunting. Many
of these programs are also available remotely with a
user id and password via a link from the Career Center
website (5.21).
The Transfer Center houses a transfer resource library
including college catalogs, articulation agreements, reference books, college videos, and computer programs
for student use. They share the 25 computer workstations with the Career Planning Center so that students
can access web resources from the center or remotely
via a link from their website (5.22).
The Extended Opportunity Programs and Services
(EOPS) and Disabled Students Program and Services
(DSPS) programs are open to all students who qualify. Both programs are located in the Cypress College
Complex, and both programs provide small labs with
Internet access and word processing for their students.
EOPS offers an inventory of used textbooks available
on reserve, 13 computers, educational supplies such as
flash drives, and tutoring through the LRC. The DSPS
lab is equipped with 12 computers and specialized software such as screen readers for visual impairment plus
limited free printing.
The main purpose of the Business CIS Computer Lab
is to provide hands-on practice for students enrolled
in computer applications, networking, programming,
web page design, and computer information systems
classes, flexible time with extended hours for Business
and CIS student use, and proctored testing for face to
face and online CIS classes. A minimum of one faculty
member is present at all times when the lab is open
to students. Also, three instructional lab assistants are
scheduled to support students and instructors. Overall,
there are 81 computers and 3 high-speed networked
printers available in the adjacent classroom, lab, and
Testing Center. The computers have a broad range of
software available for student usage.
Three additional learning support resources deserve
mention because of the unique way they meet the
needs of students in specific programs. The Music Department maintains a music library with 5 computers
and site licenses for Microsoft Finale music notation
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
software, 5 listening stations with tape and CD capability, 2 TV/VCR combos, headphones, periodicals,
and a variety of music literature. The Nursing Department provides an open skills lab with five computers,
various online resources, clinical equipment to support
almost all patient care simulation activities plus books,
software, and videos that support the nursing curriculum. The Dental Assisting and Dental Hygiene programs utilize a Perkins IV Grant to provide mentoring
or tutoring for dental students who have low test scores,
poor clinical performance, anxiety and/or difficulty
with math. These students can spend additional time
with a faculty member practicing clinical skills in the
fully operational dental facility, review material from
the small library of dental textbooks available in the
department, or receive a referral to student services for
study skills, including activities in the LLRC.
Library and learning resources are developed and
maintained in accordance with the Student Services
Master Plan (SSMP) (5.3) and Direction Two of the
Cypress College Strategic Plan (5.4). The LLRC participates along with all the student support services in
a regular cycle of program review. The review process
includes the distribution of point-of-service surveys designed to measure student satisfaction with the quality
of library materials as well as with the number of databases, sufficiency of the print collection for research,
and the number of textbooks on reserve for student
use. The LRC and its Math Learning Center distribute similar surveys soliciting feedback regarding the
quality of their materials as well as satisfaction with the
number of computer stations, software programs, and
availability of tutors. Library and LRC Student Services Quality Review Reports were completed in Spring
2007 (5.5, 5.6) and Fall 2009 (5.7, 5.8). Results from
the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (5.9)
(administered every two years) also help the institution
gauge satisfaction with collections and services in the
Library as well as the various computer labs, tutoring,
and study areas mentioned earlier in this section.
Librarians adhere to the evaluation criteria delineated
in the Library’s Collection Development Plan (5.2) to
ensure the relevance, quality, depth, and diversity of
the collection. In addition to consulting professional review publications such as Library Journal and
Choice, they actively solicit donations and requests for
purchase from faculty subject experts. Through the librarian representative on the Curriculum Committee,
159
they review proposals for new courses and programs
to identify needs for additional library resources. Currently, the Library also subscribes to WorldCat Collection Analysis (WCA), a software program from the
Online Computer Library Center, Inc., that allows users to determine their library’s subject-matter strengths
and weaknesses as well as make comparisons to the collections of other institutions.
Self Evaluation
Although the primary goal of student services programs
other than the LLRC is not necessarily the provision of
materials, student surveys administered during the program review process indicate at least a 90% satisfaction
rate with the quality of materials these programs and
services offer. On the other hand, in the LLRC, the
provision of equipment and materials is top priority.
Therefore, the LLRC does identify a single SLO in the
Student Services Master Plan, which student satisfaction surveys are designed to measure: “students will experience satisfaction with the support received in the
LLRC in terms of physical facilities, skilled and caring staff, services and tools that enhance academic advancement, and access to information required to meet
their educational needs” (5.3). Previously, the College
standard was met whenever 75% or more of responses
fell in the “good” or “excellent’ categories. Beginning
Spring 2010, the new standard compares the trend of
responses in the “good” and “excellent” categories and
analyzes the reasons for the change.
In a comparative analysis of current results with the
previous program review cycle, the LRC reports — in
the combined “good/excellent” ratings — the overall
quality of service is 94.6%, an improvement of 6.7%
from Spring 2007. Quality of materials rates 92.3%,
an increase of 7.6%. There is a significant decrease
in satisfaction with the number of student computers (19.5%). This can be attributed to the significant
increase in student use of the LRC: in the first three
weeks of September in 2006, students visited the LRC
12,231 times: in 2009, they visited 15,395 times – an
increase of 3,164 students. However, the number of
available computers has not increased since the last
program review (5.6, 5.8).
Library program review shows — in the combined
“good/excellent” ratings — the overall quality of service rates 95.4%, which is an improvement of 3.6%
160
from Spring 2007. Satisfaction with the quality of materials is up 6.6% to 93.5%. Combined “good/excellent” ratings for the number of databases and the print
collection are 97.1% and 98%, respectively. Satisfaction with the number of textbooks on reserve is 88.8%.
There was a significant decrease in satisfaction in the
number of computer stations (14.4%); it is now 66.3%,
which is below the College standard. This can be attributed to a significant increase in Library patronage:
the turnstile count in September 2006 was 20,490; in
September 2009 it was 34,297, an increase of 67%.
Meanwhile, the number of computer stations has not
changed (5.5, 5.7).
Results of the Fall 2009 Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory indicate library resources and services
as one of the areas of high importance and satisfaction
that should be highlighted in the College’s promotional
materials (5.9). In a somewhat contradictory finding
compared to the LLRC program review, the adequacy and accessibility of computer labs are also listed as
an area of high importance and satisfaction. Perhaps
the high satisfaction applies specifically to labs such as
Business/CIS that are available to students enrolled in
specific programs only as compared to the open computer areas in the LLRC.
Planning Agenda
None.
1.b. The institution provides ongoing instruction for users of library and other learning
support services so that students are able to
develop skills in information competency.
Descriptive Summary
The mission of the Library and Learning Resource
Center is to support the campus and community by encouraging life-long learning, including the abilities to
locate, evaluate, and apply information to daily living
(5.3). Library instruction occurs one-on-one at the reference desk, in 50-minute orientation sessions scheduled by faculty for their classes engaged in research assignments, via the Library’s online information literacy
tutorial (TILT) available as a link from the Library’s
website, and through the Library’s one-unit Library
100: Introduction to Research course (5.13). Many of
the handouts and instructions used in teaching sessions
are also available from the Library’s web page (5.23).
Cypress College
A full-time, tenure track instruction librarian was hired
in 2007 specifically to meet increased demand for research skills. The instruction program continues to
grow. In Spring 2010, the Library offered four sections
of LIB 100: two hybrid sections open to all students
and two sections devoted to the Puente and the University Transfer Achievement Program (UTAP) learning communities. In addition, the instruction librarian
has held training sessions for LRC tutors regarding
Library resources. Under the guidance of the instruction librarian and using the American Library Association’s Information Literacy Competency Standards
for Higher Education (5.10), the Library has defined
and assessed student learning outcomes for both the
orientation program (5.11, 5.12) and its one-unit Library 100 course (5.13). Details of the assessments can
be found on the College’s Tracdat database. Library
SLOs will link to GE & Basic Skills PLOs, which in
turn are related to the institutional learning outcomes.
SLO is defined for the typical Library orientation lasting 50 minutes:
♦
During the research process, differentiate
between the types of sources obtained,
evaluate the quality and relevance of
these sources to the research question,
and revise the search strategy, if necessary, to obtain more relevant results to
the research assignment criteria. Assessment includes in-class exercises and an
annotated bibliography.
♦
When producing a research paper,
correctly synthesize source material in
a bibliography or a list of references according to a specified style manual, such
as MLA or APA. Assessment includes
in-class exercises, an annotated bibliography, and practical exams.
Self Evaluation
Assessment includes an in-class post-test given during
the last five minutes of the session. Students must give
the correct answer to at least 2 out of 3 questions, with
an acceptable rate of 75% of students completing the
task with a score of 2/3 or better.
Figures from the Library’s last three annual reports
(2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009) (5.1, 5.14, 5.15)
show reference librarians, on average, answer 22,000
questions and provide Library orientations for over
2,500 students each year. According to the LLRC’s
2009 program review, 97% of the users surveyed rated
the responsiveness of librarians to research questions
in the “good/excellent” category (5.7). SLOs for the
Library’s orientation program were assessed in Fall
2007 and again in Spring 2008 (5.11, 5.12). A total of
368 students were assessed in 2007, and 325 students
were assessed in 2008. Rates of students achieving
an acceptable score were 80% and 86%, respectively.
The first SLO cycle for Library 100 was completed in
Spring 2009 (5.13). Three SLOs were assessed. In the
case of the first two SLOs, 87% and 75% of students
achieved the desired outcome. Only 72% of students
achieved the desired outcome for the third SLO.
The one-unit Library 100 course specifies three student learning outcomes:
Planning Agenda
♦
Develop and implement an effective
search strategy appropriate for an information need by
◊differentiating among various types
of information resources (specialized encyclopedias, article databases,
library catalogs, search engines)
◊understanding the purpose of each
of the above resources
♦
After articulating a research need, construct and implement a search strategy
using appropriate key concepts and
terms in order to locate and retrieve
books, articles, and authoritative web
sites using a variety of library and Internet search tools. Assessment includes
in-class exercises and an annotated bibliography.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
None.
1.c. The institution provides students and personnel responsible for student learning programs and services adequate access to the
library and other learning support services,
regardless of their location or means of delivery.
161
Descriptive Summary
The Library is open from 8:00 am – 9:00 pm, Monday through Thursday and 8:00 am – 1:00 pm on Fridays during Fall and Spring semesters. Summer hours
are generally 11:00 am – 7:00 pm, Monday through
Thursday when Summer School is in session.
LRC (first floor) is open from 8:00 am – 9:00 pm, Monday through Thursday and 8:00 am – 5:00 pm on Fridays during Fall and Spring semesters. Summer hours
are 8:00 am – 7:00 pm, Monday through Thursday
when Summer School is in session.
The Career Planning Center and Transfer Center
are open from 8:00 am – 6:00 pm, Monday through
Thursday and 8:00 am – noon on Friday.
EOPS is open 8:00 am – 6:00 pm, Monday through
Thursday and 8:00 am – noon on Friday.
DSPS is open 8:00 am – 5:00 pm, Monday, Tuesday,
Thursday, 8:00 am – 6:00 pm on Wednesday, and 8:00
am – noon on Friday.
The Music Department Library is open 8:30 am – 1:30
pm, Monday through Thursday, 3:30 pm – 6:30 pm on
Wednesday, and 3:30 pm – 4:30 pm on Thursday.
The Business CIS Computer Lab is currently open
9:00 am – 9:00 pm, Monday through Thursday. Due
to budget constraints and decreases, the hours of the
lab are subject to change from one semester to another.
Hours of the various health science labs vary by semester and mentoring activities.
All registered students, faculty, and staff have 24/7 access to the Library’s catalog and full-text databases plus
various instructional handouts and guides available
from the Library’s website (5.23). The following databases are available anywhere on campus with Internet
access or remotely with a simple login via the Library’s
proxy server:
162
◊EBSCOhost – includes general full-text
databases, Business Source, Cumulative
Index to Nursing and Allied Health,
Medline and other subject specific databases
◊
NewsBank – America’s Newspapers,
including New York Times, Orange
County Register, and other papers
throughout the United States
◊
Proquest – Los Angeles Times and the
historical New York Times from 1851
◊
CQ Researcher – In-depth reports on
controversial and hot topics
◊
Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center
– Pro & con on hot topics with full-text
articles
◊
Gale Virtual Reference Library – full
text articles from subject specific, scholarly encyclopedias
◊
Literature Resource Center – Biographies, literary criticism, and full-text
periodical articles
◊
CountryWatch – Economic, political,
and social data for every country in the
world
◊
NetLibrary ebook Collection – Thousands of digital books available full-text
and included in the Library’s catalog
◊
NoodleBib – Software program for
creating bibliographies in MLA, APA, or
Chicago/Turabian styles
Distance Education students and other remote users
can find extensive help from the Library’s web page by
clicking on the HOW DO I…? links or completing the
Texas Information Literacy Tutorial (TILT) program
which has been customized for the Cypress College Library. They can also contact a librarian by email, and
a librarian will respond within 24 hours of the next
business day, not including weekends and holidays. In
a continuing effort to improve services to remote users, the Library recently purchased a subscription to
LibGuides, a content management system that allows
libraries to create and publish ADA/Section 508 compliant online research guides that are subject specific.
According to a recent review posted on the Community College Library Consortium website (5.24), “Starting at the school’s LibGuides home page, students can
find guides through a system search box or a subject
directory. Students can also access guides via widgets
that can be embedded into course management systems, blogs, other web sites and an application that can
be added to their Facebook profiles.”
Cypress College
Self Evaluation
Self Evaluation
The Noel-Levitz Survey indicates students are satisfied
with Library resources and services and the adequacy
and accessibility of campus computer labs (5.9). In
contrast, the Student Services Quality Review Reports generated by the LLRC show only 71% satisfaction rate with the Library’s hours of operation and a
63.7% satisfaction rate with the hours of operation in
the Math Learning Center (part of the LRC) (5.8). Due
to budget constraints, the Library closes at 1:00pm on
Fridays; it is also closed on Saturdays. Librarians and
LRC staff are acutely aware that access to learning resources and services is greatly enhanced by the use of
current technology. As members of the Campus Computer Technology Committee, the Systems Librarian
and the LRC instructional assistant ensure that librarians and LLRC staff stay informed about technological issues and activities on campus. They also bring
the particular technological needs and concerns of the
LLRC to the campus committee. The Library recently
updated its own technology plan for 2009-2012 (5.16)
and presented it to the Campus Computer Technology
Committee, knowing that implementation of innovations in technology will require collaboration with the
campus as a whole.
According to the Noel-Levitz Survey, students rated the
safety of the campus and the adequacy of Library resources and computer labs as areas of high importance
and high satisfaction (5.9). In addition, the Library’s recent program review indicates student satisfaction with
pay-for-print and copier services exceeds the campus
standard (5.7).
Planning Agenda
Descriptive Summary
None.
In an effort to provide students, faculty, and staff with
maximum access to resources and materials for research,
the Library provides reciprocal borrowing privileges
with California State University Long Beach (5.17) and
the CalWest Consortium of Cypress, Fullerton, Golden West, and Orange Coast Colleges (5.18). The four
CalWest Consortium libraries contract, through North
Orange County Community College District, with ExLibris for Voyager (5.19), the integrated library system.
Interlibrary loan services, cataloging, and WorldCat
Collection Analysis are provided through the Online
Computer Library Center (OCLC) (5.20). Database
purchases are made through the Community College
League of California. As mentioned above, a 3M security system was installed when the LLRC was built.
Xerox agreements cover pay-for-print and photocopier
maintenance and services on both floors. The LRC also
has subscriptions to Red Rock Software (Tutor-Trac),
Plato, Ellis, and foreign language publishers. District
Purchasing keeps copies of any relevant contracts or
licenses related to these purchases.
1.d. The institution provides effective maintenance and security for its library and other
learning support services.
Descriptive Summary
Library and LRC material is protected by a 3-M book
detection system. Photocopiers and the computer payfor-print system are maintained by Xerox. All learning resource areas are supported by Academic Computing and Media Services for overall upkeep and
maintenance. Hardware upgrades, computer replacement, software licenses, and Internet access are supported centrally by Academic Computing. DSPS staff
keep other learning resource staff apprised of ADA
requirements. Learning resources faculty, staff, and
instructional lab assistants ensure that the equipment
functions properly and collaborate with the Academic
Computing staff to provide timely technical support.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Planning Agenda
None.
1.e. When the institution relies on or collaborates with other institutions or other sources
for library and other learning support services for its instructional programs, it documents that formal agreements exist and that
such resources and services are adequate for
the institution’s intended purposes, are easily
accessible, and utilized. The performance of
these services is evaluated on a regular basis.
The institution takes responsibility for and assures the reliability of all services provided either directly or through contractual arrangement.
163
Self Evaluation
No significant problems exist with the current contracts. Librarians review database usage statistics annually to inform decisions to renew databases or add new
ones the following year. As discussed earlier, program
review results indicate high levels of student satisfaction with Library materials as well as pay-for-print and
photocopier services.
Planning Agenda
None.
2. The institution evaluates library and other
learning support services to assure their adequacy in meeting identified student needs.
Evaluation of these services provides evidence
that they contribute to the achievement of student learning outcomes. The institution uses
the results of these evaluations as the basis for
improvement.
Descriptive Summary
Guided by the Educational Master Plan (EMP) (5.25),
the LLRC as well as other learning support services are
part of the Student Services Master Plan (5.3). Particular goals and objectives for both plans are articulated
under Direction Two of the College’s Strategic Plan —
Student Academic Support Services: “Developing and
providing comprehensive student and academic support services to foster a positive and effective learning
environment” (5.4). Every support service’s program
review report (5.26) includes the results of a student
satisfaction survey of the particular services provided,
a summary of changes since the last review, a summary
of student learning outcomes for the department, a description of the involvement of faculty/staff in the review process, a discussion of the standards that were or
were not met, and whether or not the program’s goals
and objectives were met in the previous review cycle. In
addition, all learning support services identify the measurable objectives the areas plan to achieve within the
next three years. Goals for the next year that require
fiscal resources must also be submitted to the Planning
and Budget Committee. The Library and the LRC
have been through the cycle of program review twice.
The Library functions as an area of instruction as well
as a learning support service in conjunction with the
164
LRC. In 2006, the following SLO was developed for
the combined LLRC: “Students will experience satisfaction with support received in the LLRC in terms of
physical facilities, skilled and caring staff, services and
tools that enhance academic advancement, and access to information required to meet their educational
needs” (5.3). Results of the two program reviews demonstrate levels of student satisfaction in each of these
areas (5.7, 5.8) while SLO assessments gauge levels of
competency (5.12, 5.13).
Two tools for scheduling and attendance logging analysis are being used to determine the impact of different LRC services on student academic success. A data
gathering system called the Enterprise-Wide Positive
Attendance Tracking and Accounting System (EWPATAS) has already been used to compare the success
rates for students receiving supplemental instruction
(SI) as opposed to those who have not. With funding
from the Basic Skills Initiative and the STEM Grant,
portable scanners have been purchased to expedite further tracking of SI’s impact on student success and to
pilot what will ultimately be accomplished for tutoring
and Library workshops. This will be the culmination of
partnership between the LRC, the Library, Academic
Computing, and the Office of Institutional Research
and Planning.
As an area of Instruction, the Library has also defined
and assessed student learning outcomes for both the
orientation program and its one-unit Library 100: Introduction to Research course. These SLOs are detailed in section IIC:1b of this document as well as the
results from each assessment cycle.
Self Evaluation
In its latest report on the effects of SI on 2005 students’
academic performance in Spring 2009, the Office of
Institutional Research and Planning found that “students who attended an SI session had higher success
rates than students in the same sections who did not
attend an SI session”; “students who attended 12 or
more hours of SI had higher success rates than those
who attended SI for fewer than 12 hours and those who
did not attend any SI”; and “students who attended
more hours of SI were more likely to be successful than
students who attended fewer hours of SI.” The success
rate of students who did not attend SI was 42%; the
success rate of students who attended more than 12
Cypress College
hours was 83%.
Results of LLRC program reviews indicate a high level
of student satisfaction in almost every area related to
student learning outcomes. For example, overall quality of service in the LLRC exceeded 94 %. In the area
of research, 93.5 % of students rated the quality of
materials “good” or “excellent,” and an extremely
high percentage of students find databases (97.1 %)
and print collections (98 %) sufficient for research. In
fact, apart from computer stations and hours of operation, the LLRC ratings exceeded the College standard
(75%) in every area (5.7, 5.8).
Evaluation of the Library’s instructional SLOs reveal
that of the 693 students assessed over the course of
2007 and 2008 orientation sessions, an average of 83%
met the assessment criteria, answering 2 out 3 questions correctly. For the Library 100: Introduction to
Research course, three SLOs were assessed, with 87%
and 75% of students achieving the desired outcome
for the first two SLOs. For the third SLO, only 72%
achieved the desired outcome.
Planning Agenda
None.
vices Quality Review Report, 2009 — J:\Quality
Review\Student Support Services Quality Review\2009-10
5.9Results of Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory
— www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/rsurveys.aspx
5.10American Library Association’s Information Literacy
Competency Standards for Higher Education
5.11 SLOs for the Library’s orientation program: assessed Fall 2007
5.12SLOs for the Library’s orientation program: assessed Spring 2008
5.13 SLO cycle for Library 100: Introduction to Research
was completed spring 2009
5.14
Library 2006-2007 Annual Report
5.15
Library 2007-2008 Annual Report
5.16
Library Technology Plan for 2009-2012
5.17California State University Long Beach Reciprocal
Borrowing Agreement
5.18CalWest Consortium of Cypress, Fullerton, Golden
West and Orange Coast Colleges
5.19Contract, through North Orange County Community
College District, with ExLibris (formerly Endeavor) for
Voyager
Reference Documents
5.1
Library 2008-2009 Annual Report
5.2
Collection Development Guidelines
5.3Student Services Master Plan — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.
aspx
5.4Cypress College Strategic Plan — www.cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/Planning/StrategicPlan2008-2011Final.pdf
5.5Library Student Support Services Quality Review
Report, 2007 — J:\Quality Review\Student Support
Services Quality Review\2006-2007
5.6Learning Resource Center Student Support Services Quality Review Report, 2007 — J:\Quality
Review\Student Support Services Quality Review\2006-2007
5.20Interlibrary loan services, cataloging, and WorldCat
Collection Analysis are provided through the Online
Computer Library Center (OCLC)
5.21Career Center website — www.cypresscollege.
edu/services/cpc/computerizedInformation.aspx
5.22Transfer Center website — www.cypresscollege.
edu/services/transfer/resources
5.23Cypress College Library website — www.cypresscollege.edu/library
5.24Community College Library Consortium website
www.cclibraries.org/reviews/
5.25 Educational Master Planwww.cypresscollege.edu/
about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspx
5.26 Program Review Reports http://www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/ProgramReview
5.7 Library Student Support Services Quality Review
Report, 2009 — J:\Quality Review\Student Support
Services Quality Review\2009-10
5.8Learning Resource Center Student Support Ser-
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
165
Standard III
Resources
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
167
Standard IIIA: Human
Resources
The Institution employs qualified personnel to
support student learning programs and services wherever offered and by whatever means
delivered, and to improve institutional effectiveness. Personnel are treated equitably, are
evaluated regularly and systematically, and
are provided opportunities for professional
development. Consistent with its mission,
the institution demonstrates its commitment
to the significant educational role played by
persons of diverse backgrounds by making
positive efforts to encourage such diversity.
Human resource planning is integrated with
institutional planning.
People are the most important asset to any successful
organization. Cypress College is no different. In order
to meet its core value of excellence, job descriptions
appropriately reflect the duties and responsibilities of
each position. There is a diligence to assure that prospective employees have the necessary qualifications
for the position. This is accomplished through planning, a wide range of recruitment activities, trained
hiring committees, and teaching demonstrations for
faculty positions. Ongoing training assures that faculty
and staff have current skills to meet the demands of
their positions and to meet the needs of students. Periodic surveys are completed to assess the needs of the
faculty and staff. This information is used to help improve the campus climate and achieve the mission of
the College.
1. The institution assures the integrity and
quality of its programs and services by employing personnel who are qualified by appropriate education, training, and experience to
provide and support these programs and services.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College is committed to its core value of excellence; therefore, one of its top priorities is to assure that
its personnel are fully qualified for the positions. Qualified personnel are necessary to ensure excellence and
integrity of all programs and services that the College
provides to its students.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
In all positions, the hiring committee is responsible for
reviewing the job descriptions and desirable qualifications. If any additional desirable qualifications are added, they first need to be approved by the District Office
of Human Resources. This process is designed to verify
that both the duties and qualifications match each position. All hiring committee members are required to
attend training from District Human Resources staff
before serving on a hiring committee.
For classified and management positions, job descriptions are approved per Board policies AP 71203 Classified Employee Hiring (6.5) and AP 7120-4
Management Employee Hiring (6.5). All duties and
qualifications of the job are carefully designed to set
the standards for hiring the best qualified applicants.
In 2003, the District assessed all classified positions
throughout the District to determine if job classifications and duties were proper for the positions. All reclassification results were presented to the Board on
June 24, 2003 (6.16).
To be eligible for employment in a full-time or an adjunct faculty position with the District, including substitute, the minimum qualifications established by the
Board of Governors of the California Community
Colleges for the academic discipline must be satisfied.
The equivalency requirements can be determined according to the District’s equivalency requirements and
procedure AP 7210-1 Equivalency (6.5).
Complying with these policies ensures that Cypress
College hires qualified personnel for its programs and
services.
Self Evaluation
The College develops the personnel positions based on
its program needs, duties, and qualifications required.
The procedures for hiring faculty are established and
implemented in accordance with Board policies and
procedures. The procedures for hiring classified employees and management employees are established
per the procedures outlined in Board Policies 7120-3
and 7120-4 (6.5).
Planning Agenda
None.
1.a. Criteria, qualifications, and procedures
for selection of personnel are clearly and pub169
licly stated. Job descriptions are directly related to institutional mission and goals and accurately reflect position duties, responsibilities,
and authority. Criteria for selection of faculty
include knowledge of the subject matter or
service to be performed (as determined by individuals with discipline expertise), effective
teaching, scholarly, and potential to contribute
to the mission of the institution. Institutional faculty plays a significant role in selection
of new faculty. Degrees held by faculty and
administrators are from institutions accredited by recognized U.S. accrediting agencies.
Degrees from non-U.S. institutions are recognized only if equivalence has been established.
Descriptive Summary
All job descriptions reflect the duties and responsibilities of the position. Classified and management position descriptions are approved by the District Office
of Human Resources. Faculty job descriptions may be
modified to suit current needs in the field.
When departments identify needs to fill vacant or to
add new faculty positions, the requests are submitted
to the College Faculty Prioritization Committee, which
is made up of the division deans, the Executive Vice
President, and three representatives from Academic
Senate. The requests are prioritized and sent to the
Planning and Budget Committee, which, subsequent
to presentation and discussion, makes its recommendation to the President’s Advisory Cabinet. In accord
with the priorities established in this collaborative
process, when a position from the list is approved to
be filled, a hiring committee is established. Per Board
Policy AP 7120-1 Tenure Track Faculty Hiring (6.5)
and AP 7120-2 Adjunct Faculty Hiring (6.5), all hiring
committees for faculty include faculty members.
Before the position is advertised, the hiring committee develops the paper screening criteria and interview
questions based on the approved job description. Job
openings are advertised through the use of mailing lists,
advertising in journals, general circulation, and posting
on internal and external websites. The goal is to attract
applicants from diverse backgrounds including, but not
limited to, listings with the California Community College Faculty and Staff Diversity Registry organization.
When all applications are received, the hiring commit170
tee paper screens the applications and decides which
candidates to interview. Effective teaching is judged as
part of the interview process. The finalists are required
to perform a teaching demonstration in the subject of
their discipline. They should be accurate and clear in
explaining the material as well as demonstrate clear
communication skills. Usually, both the application
and resume provide insights to the candidate’s scholarly orientation. This is also evaluated during the hiring
process. The committee may also ask questions regarding the candidate’s scholarship in the interview process.
However, these are secondary considerations because
the priority is to select faculty based on the candidate’s
teaching skills and knowledge.
After the interview and evaluation, the hiring committee makes recommendations to the Executive Vice
President and the President, who interview the final
candidates. The candidate who will be offered the position is determined between the hiring committee and
the administrators.
In order to qualify for employment in a faculty position,
minimum qualifications for the academic discipline
must be satisfied or the equivalency requirement must
be met according to the District’s equivalency procedure AP 7210-1 (6.5). All course work and degrees used
to meet the minimum qualifications must be from accredited institutions. Equivalency of foreign degrees
are determined according to the District’s equivalency
requirements and procedure. The District Equivalency
Committee, which consists of management and faculty
from all three institutions of the District, determine the
documentation submitted by the candidates. In addition to the minimum qualifications mentioned, applicants must include a current, valid certificate to work, a
license to practice in California, or other qualifications
that are essential for effective instruction.
In the hiring process, the District asks applicants to
submit official or unofficial academic transcripts of undergraduate and graduate courses. Any licenses or certificates that are required for the employment must also
be submitted. Candidates who are selected for employment must provide official transcripts and documentation of licenses or certificates.
The District verifies the degree from non-U.S. institutions in the American Council on Educations’ Directory of Accredited Institutions of Postsecondary
Education. If the degrees are not listed in that direcCypress College
tory, they are then referred to the District Equivalency
Committee for evaluation in accordance with the District equivalency procedures. If necessary, transcripts
are submitted to a foreign credential evaluation service
for assessment.
The success of the College’s hiring processes can be assessed by the outcome of the performance evaluation
of its employees. Tenure review is a four-year process,
which is outlined in Article 17 of the United Faculty
Collective Bargaining Agreement (6.15). This allows
adequate time for tenured faculty to evaluate the performance reviews on their new colleagues and for recently hired faculty to improve their skills.
All employees who are selected to serve on the hiring
committees must have Equal Opportunity Employment
Training that is provided by District Human Resources
Department staff. They are then eligible to serve on
hiring committees for two years. After the two-year period, the employees must receive additional training to
serve on a subsequent hiring committee. This training
includes diversity and required EEO training, federal/
state laws, District policies, the hiring process.
Self Evaluation
The District has built a strong and effective selection
process in hiring highly qualified employees. The District has four different hiring procedures: AP 7120-1
Tenure Track Faculty Hiring Procedure, AP 7120-2
Adjunct Faculty Hiring Procedure, AP 7120-3 Classified Employee Hiring, and AP 7120-4 Management
Employee Hiring (6.5). Each of the procedures is well
defined and available to all employees.
Planning Agenda
None.
1.b. The institution assures the effectiveness
of its human resources by evaluating all personnel systematically and at stated intervals.
The institution establishes written criteria
for evaluating all personnel, including performance of assigned duties and participation in
institutional responsibilities and other activities appropriate to their expertise. Evaluation
processes seek to assess effectiveness of personnel and encourage improvement. Actions
taken following evaluations are formal, timeInstitutional Self Study — Spring 2011
ly, and documented.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College follows Board Policy and Collective
Bargaining Agreements (CBAs), where applicable, to
ensure the effectiveness of its human resources by employing established evaluation procedures. Appropriate institutional responsibilities have been developed
in accord with Policy and CBAs based on established
Human Resources practices. In April 2003, the District completed and implemented a classification study
that assessed the job titles, duties, and relative compensation of all classified bargaining unit positions
within the District (6.16). Also, in 2006, the District
conducted a study of all management classifications,
which included a market analysis of salaries for comparable duties. The study and new salary schedule
were approved at the June 13, 2006, Board meeting
with a retroactive implementation date of July 1, 2005
(6.47). In 2009, the Vice Chancellor of Human Resources convened a District Management Association
committee to evaluate and rewrite the Management
Evaluation instrument. The committee met for over
a year and submitted a final Management Evaluation
instrument for consideration; however, this instrument
has not yet been adopted by the District’s governance
committees. The new instrument will be submitted for
approval to Chancellor’s Staff, Chancellor’s Cabinet,
and subsequently to the Board by the Vice Chancellor of Human Resources. Implementation is expected
in July 2011 (6.48). Members of all employee groups
are provided copies of job descriptions and evaluation
forms in advance of the evaluation process so that they
know what criteria will be used to determine their effectiveness.
As detailed in Board Policies and Collective Bargaining Agreements, all employees are evaluated periodically for the purposes of acknowledging satisfactory
and excellent job performance, identifying areas where
improvement is needed, and developing a timeframe
and criteria for establishing that job performance has
improved where needed. Administrators are evaluated every year by their immediate manager, including
a comprehensive evaluation every three years per AP
7210-7 (6.5). Each Fall, deans are required to submit
goals and objectives for their division to the Executive
Vice President. These are to be written in consideration of student success and College planning docu171
ments, including the Education Master Plan, Strategic
Plan, and Program Reviews, and are also evaluated
by the Executive Vice President. Newly-hired probationary full-time faculty members are evaluated by
a Tenure Review Committee in each year of their
four-year probationary period commencing with the
first semester of service. The Tenure Review Committee composition, requirements, and expectations
are detailed in section 17.6 of the Agreement between
United Faculty and the NOCCCD (6.15). In the first
year of service, probationary faculty are evaluated in
the Fall and Spring semesters. Student evaluations are
conducted for all classes taught as part of the faculty’s
regular load. In the second and subsequent years of
probationary service, faculty members are evaluated
in the Fall semesters only, with student evaluations administered in not less than 40% of their assigned sections (6.15). Regular full-time faculty are evaluated every three years subsequent to receiving tenure. Adjunct
faculty members are evaluated once in their first two
semesters of employment and then once every three
years thereafter (6.19). Classified employees are evaluated during their probationary period (at the end of
four months, eight months, and two weeks prior to the
end of the 12-month probationary period) and then
every two years thereafter (6.20). These evaluations are
intended to “strengthen communication between the
Unit Member and the Immediate Management Supervisor,” to provide “a useful and substantive assessment
of performance,” to document and provide “recognition and acknowledgment of good performance,” and
to provide for “enhancement of performance by identification of areas needing improvement” (6.20) (CBA,
Article 19, Section 19.1.1.1) The process of classified
evaluation is coordinated by the District Office of Human Resources and administered at each of the District sites with provisions of the CBA. The Office of
Human Resources routinely holds training sessions for
all managers charged with conducting employee evaluations. The training sessions occur with the release of
a newly negotiated collective bargaining agreement or
in accord with current evaluation cycles.
Written evaluation forms have been developed utilizing shared-governance processes and have been Board
approved and/or agreed to as part of the collective
bargaining process in the case of all groups except for
administration (6.5, 6.15, 6.19, and 6.20).
With each new fiscal year, at the beginning of the Fall
172
semester, the Executive Vice President’s office sends
the deans a Faculty Evaluation Schedule that shows all
full-time faculty to be evaluated in that fiscal year and
whether each faculty member is in the probationary
faculty evaluation process or the regular faculty evaluation proces (6.49). The Cypress College Personnel Assistant receives all completed faculty evaluations and
forwards them to the Executive Vice President for review and signature. The Executive Vice President then
sends them to District Human Resources for review.
College deans and District Office of Human Resources personnel monitor and track timelines for adjunct
faculty evaluations. The Executive Vice President’s office and District HR monitor and track timelines for
successful completion of the evaluations for probationary faculty, regular faculty, classified employees, and
managers (6.25, 6.26, 6.27, 6.28).
Employee evaluation procedures are in place to recognize, document, and encourage excellence in job
performance. Evaluation instruments are also used
to communicate when performance does not meet acceptable standards. If an employee receives a “needs
improvement” or “unsatisfactory” rating, s/he will
be re-evaluated in accord with timelines established
in the appropriate CBA or District Policy evaluation
procedures. The employee is also provided with an improvement plan. Monitoring of progress toward the
established improvement goals occurs in accord with
CBA and/or District Policy evaluation requirements.
In cases where improvement is not forthcoming, College managers coordinate appropriate responses with
the District Office of Human Resources. Subsequent
to an evaluation and articulation of an improvement
plan, specific areas of deficiency are noted, criteria for
improvement are stated, and a timeline for improvement is implemented.
Self Evaluation
Evaluations for all groups — classified staff, adjunct
faculty, tenure-track probationary faculty, tenured faculty, and management — are conducted in a timely
and professional manner. At the beginning of the Fall
semester, the Executive Vice President’s office sends
notices to all deans indicating which probationary
and tenured faculty are to be evaluated during the fiscal year. It is the responsibility of the deans to track
when adjunct faculty are due for a three-year evaluation. The District Office of Human Resources sends
Cypress College
out a yearly notice to all managers indicating which
classified staff are to be evaluated during the current
fiscal year. At Cypress College, all completed evaluations are sent to the Personnel Assistant, who forwards
them to the office of the Executive Vice President for
review before forwarding them to the District Office of
Human Resources.
Administrators receive training in personnel evaluations each year. The training is conducted by the Director of Human Resources or his designee. Adjunct
faculty evaluations are conducted by deans or department coordinators who have also received training
and instruction from the deans. Peer evaluations are a
component of regular faculty evaluations and are coordinated by the faculty members involved. The deans
are available to offer assistance and answer questions
regarding the correct forms and processes when consulted in this instance.
The District Office of Human Resources routinely
notifies administrators when evaluation forms have
been updated. Evaluation forms for adjunct faculty,
probationary faculty, and regular faculty have been
updated to include issues specific to online instruction.
Although processes have not been formally negotiated
for the evaluation of online classes contained in faculty
assignments, Cypress College approved the Distance
Education Plan (6.50), which includes information on
the evaluation of online courses and also includes a
process for conducting student evaluations online. For
regular faculty evaluations, in accord with the CBA
provisions, student evaluations and comments are not
included in the management evaluation report. The
Distance Education Coordinator administers student
evaluations in order to maintain instructor confidentiality of student evaluations of online courses. The
deans have requested that the evaluation of online
courses be negotiated since it is currently possible for
tenured faculty to teach online without ever having instruction of an online course evaluated. Deans have
also requested that they would like to have review of
student evaluations and comments as a component for
all tenured faculty evaluations.
Administrators are the only District employee group
evaluated every year. One of the reasons that the Vice
Chancellor of Human Resources convened the committee to revise the management evaluation form was
to rectify this inequity. As he goes forward with this iniInstitutional Self Study — Spring 2011
tiative, it is recommended by the District Management
Association that the evaluation of managers who have
completed a probationary period will be conducted at
three-year intervals in accord with procedures in place
for regular faculty. However, before revised processes
and forms go into effect, they must first be evaluated by
the District Management Association and the college
presidents/provost. Changes in administrative evaluation procedures would also require formal approval of
the governing board.
Cypress College utilizes employee evaluation processes
as a significant component of continuous improvement
of performance and services. The College recognizes
its human resources as the most valuable of its commodities.
Planning Agenda
None.
1.c. Faculty and others directly responsible for
student progress toward achieving stated student learning outcomes have, as a component
of their evaluation, effectiveness in producing
those learning outcomes.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College Focused Mid-Term Report of 2008
included the following planning agenda item: “The
College will recommend that the District negotiate
changes with the two faculty unions so that effectiveness
in achieving Student Learning Outcomes becomes a
component of faculty evaluation” (6.29). Subsequently,
the College forwarded a request to the District for consideration at the collective bargaining table.
A critical examination of language used to describe
SLOs in ACCJC’s Guide to Evaluating Institutions
(6.30) indicates that institutional self-analysis that leads
to improvement of all activities pertaining to teaching
and learning is the underlying theme. Cypress College
has consistently emphasized its commitment to the
SLO process over the last eight years. The College has
articulated institutional learning outcomes, appointed
an SLO Coordinator, established a core team to guide
the SLO development process, formed an Expanded
SLO Committee to facilitate dialogue on SLOs on the
campus, purchased centralized assessment management software (TracDat), and trained full-time faculty
173
on using TracDat to manage SLOs. In addition, faculty members within each department collaborate to
develop SLOs and PLOs. A college-wide committee
comprised of faculty from different divisions developed
General Education & Basic Skills PLOs, which were
approved by the Academic Senate in Spring 2010. As
of October of 2010, 85% of all College courses have
defined SLOs. The dialogue regarding SLOs took
place in several College forums and Leadership Team
meetings (6.51). The discussion on SLOs is featured in
the Student Services area as well. All of the student
services units have defined SLOs for their respective
areas and are engaged in measuring the effectiveness
of SLOs.
Self Evaluation
Cypress College has identified methods to evaluate
programs based on their effectiveness in achieving student learning outcomes. The development of SLOs
and PLOs and implementation of the SLO process
are faculty responsibilities. Most of the process has
occurred at the individual, team and/or department
level, where faculty have identified course SLOs and
assessment methods, analyzed data, and completed
reports. Each department is responsible for developing assessment methodology, timelines, and evaluation
processes. Since articulation of this planning agenda,
Cypress College faculty have been engaged in activities, including departmental planning and program review and development and assessment of General Education and Basic Skills Program Learning Outcomes
to evaluate the effectiveness of established SLOs to
improve learning and teaching. These ongoing initiatives demonstrate the strong commitment of Cypress
College to put SLOs at the center of the institution’s
key processes.
Planning Agenda
None.
1.d. The institution upholds a written code of
professional ethics for all of its personnel.
Descriptive Summary
The College currently has an Administrative Guide for
Code of Ethics for Faculty, which was adapted from
the Board Policies and Administrative Procedures for174
mat. Also, Administrative Procedure 7210-5 Faculty
Code of Ethics (6.5) is currently under construction. In
Spring 2010, the Board adopted Institutional Code of
Ethics BP/AP 3050, which states that the North Orange County Community College District upholds a
written code of professional ethics for all of its personnel. The comprehensive language of this Boardapproved policy establishes standards of ethical conduct that apply to and encompass all District employee
groups.
Self Evaluation
In Fall 2009, the College conducted its bi-annual Climate Survey. It was conducted in Fall instead of the
usual Spring timeframe so that the results could be
used for the accreditation self study. Total responses of
441 were received, which was up by nearly 30% compared to the previous survey. The electronic survey was
sent to all employees of Cypress College. Overall, the
College atmosphere and diversity-related areas were
ranked more positively compared to the previous survey.
Campus climate surveys are conducted regularly on
campuses across the nation. Fall 2009 marked the fifth
time that such a study was conducted at Cypress College. Like the earlier studies, its purpose was to gain
a better understanding of employees’ satisfaction with
the general working environment at the College.
More employees reported a positive feeling related to
the general College atmosphere compared to the previous study. Similarly, more employees also felt that the
College has a strong commitment to supporting diversity activities that address issues relevant to gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender employees and students than
in the 2008 study. Responses with the highest agreement ratings demonstrate strengths of the College, as
the employees see them, suggesting a respectful campus in which minority status does not factor into career
decisions. Comparisons between employee groups
provide a much more thorough understanding of the
survey results. There were differences on the ratings,
primarily related to employee groups (administrators/
managers had differing agreement levels than faculty
or staff) and disability status.
Administrators/managers, full-time faculty, and those
who participate in at least one shared-governance
committee were more likely to agree to almost all quesCypress College
tions related to decision-making, job satisfaction, and
planning than, respectively, faculty or staff, part-time
faculty, or those who are not a shared-governance committee member.
A source of pride for Cypress College is that the majority of employees believe that diversity and the College’s
atmosphere have improved, and employees believe that
Cypress College is truly an equal-opportunity institution.
Planning Agenda
None.
2. The institution maintains a sufficient number of qualified faculty with full-time responsibility to the institution. The institution has a
sufficient number of staff and administrators
with appropriate preparation and experience
to provide the administrative services necessary to support the institution’s mission and
purposes.
Descriptive Summary
Staffing needs are determined by a variety of factors
that incorporate data, surveys, and plans such as the
Department Planning and Program Review (6.3) and
the Educational Master Plan (6.1), using standard procedures developed and practiced by each academic
division or service area. The Office of Institutional Research and Planning maintains databases of information collected from various campus climate surveys and
keeps track of the numbers and types of faculty and
staff employed at the College.
At the time of this writing, Cypress College has 208
full-time faculty and 428 part-time faculty (6.14). Several Cypress College departments participating in Program Review for 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 (6.3) indicated that the hiring of additional full-time, tenure
track faculty was among their goals for the next three
years (6.14). Program Reviews also frequently list the
need for more clerical, hourly, and other support staff.
The faculty and directors of these programs are concerned with achieving and maintaining sufficient fulltime faculty and support staff. In the current difficult financial situation, only the most direly needed positions
are being filled, and some administrative positions are
being combined (e.g. Dean of Language Arts taking
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
over L/LRC instead of hiring new L/LRC Dean) and
staff are filling vacant positions on a temporary basis
(e.g. Social Science DOM retired, SS Administrative
Assistant become temporary DOM, while temporary
Administrative Assistant funded with “back-fill” money replaced her).
The qualifications for administrators and support staff
are developed by NOCCCD Human Resources in
collaboration with other appropriate personnel. The
hiring procedures are described in NOCCCD Administrative Procedures AP 7120 and Board Policies BP
7120 (6.5). Normative evaluation procedures described
in AP 7130-7 and AP 7110-7 (6.5) and appropriate negotiated contracts (e.g. United Faculty, CSEA, and AdFac) outline evaluation procedures designed to ensure
the continued qualifications of staff, management, and
faculty over time.
Working within the normal practices and procedures
for each academic division or service area, administrators develop hiring recommendations. Justifications
for personnel increases come from the need to replace
retirees, enrollment data (FTES, 5 year trends, etc.),
dialogue among existing personnel, Program Review
action plans, the Educational Master Plan, Student
Services Master Plan, Department Planning, externally imposed load limitations, whether it will enhance
student transfer and/or occupational opportunities,
and the general availability of qualified adjunct faculty.
Recommendations are sent to the Planning and Budget Committee, and then forwarded to the President’s
Advisory Cabinet for final approval (6.8).
Self Evaluation
According to the California Community College
Chancellor’s Office June 2005 report from the “Workgroup on 75/25 Issues” (6.21), the most current comment on the issue, the California Community Colleges
have a very difficult time obtaining and maintaining
compliance with the 75/25 obligation (AB 1725). The
Chancellor’s Office recommends that districts continue
to work toward the goal, but recognizes that lack of
funding is generally the impediment.
The Chancellor’s Office developed the Faculty Obligation Number (FON) for each district in California,
based on the number of faculty each district had in
1988, when AB 1725 was passed and signed into law.
The NOCCCD felt that this number was unfairly high.
175
Several years ago, the District in collaboration with the
academic senates at both campuses, worked with the
Chancellor’s Office to renegotiate the FON (6.17).
The organization and hierarchy of administration and
staff is generally decided based upon need and what
makes logical sense. The College strives to maintain
the same number of faculty and staff, making efforts to
fill vacancies. However, changes are made based upon
growth or decline of a program or service area, and
added requirements based upon accreditation recommendations or changes in the Education Code. Budget
and other financial issues also influence organizational
changes. Every few years, departments submit clerical
requests to a shared-governance committee, which prioritizes them for hiring, if money is available (6.18).
The 2008 Campus Climate Survey (6.7) indicates
31.6% of employees in all categories feel considerable
pressure to accomplish too many objectives and priorities. This might be interpreted to mean that these employees would like to have additional staff to help get
their work accomplished or that the way the work is organized/assigned is inefficient. The 2007 Noel-Levitz
Student Satisfaction Inventory (6.6) found that on the
whole, Cypress College students are very satisfied with
how the College is organized and staffed by reporting
extremely high satisfaction ratings on things such as:
Academic Advising/Counseling, Instructional Effectiveness, Academic Services, Admissions and Financial
Aid, and Campus Support Services.
The Institutional Effectiveness Report (IER) (6.14) discusses the results of the Student Services Quality Review. The 2006-2007 IER reported high student satisfaction for CalWORKS, CARE, DSPS, EOPS, and
Library/Learning Resource Center. The IER results
of the Student Services Quality Review reported that
campus employees were very satisfied (at least 75%)
with all of the following: Academic Computing and
Media Services, Bookstore, Bursar, Campus Safety, Institutional Research, and Production Center.
In 2008-2009, Student Support Services in Admissions
and Records, Assessment, and Financial Aid met or exceeded the 75% student satisfaction benchmark.
Planning Agenda
None.
3. The institution systematically develops per176
sonnel policies and procedures that are available for information and review. Such policies
and procedures are equitably and consistently
administered.
Descriptive Summary
In furtherance of its core value of excellence and to
fulfill the College’s vision — “A premier learning community recognized for supporting student success and
enriching society” — Cypress College employs diverse
faculty, staff, and administrators who are qualified by
appropriate education, training, and experience to
support the College’s student learning programs and
services.
The District systematically develops and updates personnel policies and procedures that are reviewed by the
Chancellor’s Cabinet (which consists of representatives
from all constituency groups) prior to submission to the
Board of Trustees for adoption. The District’s personnel policies and administrative procedures are posted
on the District’s website (Board Policies and Administrative Procedures, Section 7, Human Resources).
Additional personnel procedures are contained in the
negotiated collective bargaining agreements between
the District and the exclusive representatives of its fulltime faculty, adjunct faculty, and classified employees.
The collective bargaining agreements between the District and United Faculty (6.15), Adjunct Faculty United
(6.19), and the California School Employees Association (6.20) are provided to employees and are also posted on the District’s website.
The District Office of Human Resources and the Office of Equity and Diversity monitor District personnel
policies and procedures and the collective bargaining
agreements to ensure consistent and equitable application. Managers and other personnel are provided with
appropriate training regarding the District’s personnel policies and procedures and collective bargaining
agreements.
Self Evaluation
The District has established appropriate written personnel policies and procedures, which have been reviewed by the Chancellor’s Cabinet and approved by
the Board of Trustees. These policies and procedures
are reviewed and revised as necessary in response to
environmental changes. The District provides approCypress College
priate training and monitoring to ensure consistent and
equitable application.
Planning Agenda
None.
3.a. The institution establishes and adheres to
written policies ensuring fairness in employment procedures.
Descriptive Summary
Board Policy 3410 (6.5) articulates the District’s commitment to equal opportunity in educational programs,
employment, and all access to institutional programs
and activities. Administrative Procedure 3410 (6.5)
states the District’s commitment to provide equal employment opportunities to all applicants and employees regardless of race, religious creed, color, national
origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, medical
condition, marital status, gender, age, sexual orientation, or military status. The provisions of AP 3410
(6.5) also provide that all employment decisions shall
be based on job-related criteria that are responsive to
the District’s needs.
The District adheres to its established written procedures for the employment of full-time faculty (AP
7120-1), adjunct faculty (AP 7120-2), classified employees (AP 7120-3), and management employees (AP
7120-4) (6.5).
The District Office of Human Resources and the Office of Equity and Diversity provide training to hiring
committees and monitor all hiring processes from recruitment to selection to ensure consistent applications.
HR has an extensive list of diversity-related organizations and communication groups that open position
announcements are sent to.
Self Evaluation
The District has established written employment policies and procedures, which support equal opportunity
in employment and fairness in employment procedures.
Hiring committees are provided with training regarding employment procedures, and hiring processes are
monitored by the District Office of Human Resources
and the Office of Equity and Diversity to ensure fairness and consistent application of procedures.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Planning Agenda
None.
3.b. The institution makes provisions for the
security and confidentiality of personnel records in accordance with the law.
Descriptive Summary
Employee personnel records are maintained in a secured area of the District Office of Human Resources
in locked cabinets. Employee personnel files are maintained in confidence in accordance with law and are
accessible only to the employees themselves or to authorized personnel, when necessary, in the proper administration of the District’s affairs.
Employee personnel records are categorized as Class
1 records as provided in AP 3310 (6.5) and are permanently retained by the District.
Self Evaluation
Personnel records are properly secured and confidentially maintained by the District Office of Human Resources in accordance with law.
Planning Agenda
None.
4. The institution demonstrates through policies and practices an appropriate understanding of and concern for issues of equity and diversity.
Descriptive Summary
The College’s Mission Statement is explicit: “the College is committed to…embracing diversity” (6.35).
Two of the most relevant values listed in the District’s
Strategic Plan (6.34) are “respect” and “inclusiveness.”
The Educational Master Plan 2006-2016 (6.1) states as
one of its core values: “Inclusiveness – a community
that embraces diverse individuals; provides an accessible, supportive climate; and encourages a variety of
perspectives and opinions.”
The College has a shared-governance committee
chaired by the President that meets regularly to discuss
the College environment with respect to diversity and
exploration of avenues to improve it. The commit177
tee members represent different constituencies on the
campus.
The College sponsors a variety of speakers and activities related to diversity throughout the academic year
(6.31). Over the past several years, engaging speakers
have addressed a packed theater: James Houston, coauthor of Farewell to Manzanar; Bacon Sakatani on
WWII Japanese internment camps; and author and
columnist, Gustavo Arellano. Staff Development also
offers workshops related to diversity. Recent events
have included programs on Learning Disabilities;
Brain Research and Its Impact on Learning; Generational Differences in the Workplace; and Learning
Styles. In addition, the District Office of Equity and
Diversity sponsored the visit of an anti-racist speaker,
Tim Wise, and Sultan Sharrief, writer/director of the
film Bilal’s Stand (6.36).
The North Orange County Community College District (NOCCCD) recently hosted the first-ever collaborative conference of the Western Region Council on
Black Affairs and the African American Male Education Network & Development in November 2009, hosting administrators, faculty, staff, and students from as
many as fifteen community college districts in eleven
western states (6.36).
The Curriculum Committee encourages faculty to include multicultural components in their course outlines
if they are warranted within a specific course. The
committee does look closely at course outlines that are
submitted to meet the Cultural Diversity requirement.
In order to meet the Cultural Diversity criteria, the
majority of the course must focus on multicultural issues in America or issues dealing with race, ethnicity, or
culture in America (6.52).
Self Evaluation
Cypress College encourages enrollment that represents
the diversity of its community. Approximately 63% of
the College’s students are from traditionally underrepresented groups. According to the 2000 U.S. Census,
the percentages of Asians and African Americans are
higher at the College than the percentages of Orange
County residents. In the Student Satisfaction Survey
conducted in Fall 2009, the general opinion of students
indicated that they felt welcomed on the campus, irrespective of their background.
178
The College has increased the proportion of students
aged 30-39 in the last two years. The average student is
26, 22% are over 30, and the oldest student is 89 years
young.
Staff and Faculty-- Although the majority of employees
are White (64%), many other ethnicities are represented among faculty, staff, and administrators at Cypress
College; 15% are Hispanic and Asian (including Filipino and Pacific Islander). Compared to 2007, the proportion of White employees decreased by 3 percentage
points) but held steady between 2008 and 2009.
The results of the Climate Survey (employees) and
Student Satisfaction Survey both suggest that Cypress
College welcomes everyone irrespective of their race
or ethnicity. Moreover, the climate survey results indicate that the perception of employees regarding diversity has improved since the last survey.
In the Climate Survey conducted in Fall 2009, it was
noted that more employees expressed positive feelings
related to the general College atmosphere since the
previous study in 2008. Similarly, more employees also
felt that the College has a strong commitment to supporting diversity activities that address issues relevant
to gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender employees and
students than in the 2008 study. A substantial portion of the survey focused on employees’ perceptions
of how responsive the College is to its diverse students
and staff. Analyses looked at items related to gender,
race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, and general diversity, as described below (6.7). Overall, the
campus atmosphere related to diversity has improved
since the last survey although agreement levels vary
among different groups. Also, none of the areas were
perceived overwhelmingly negatively (below 60% score
on Agree/Strongly Agree) by any of the groups. While
the campus has improved the perception towards diversity, the good work needs to continue to strengthen
the position.
Planning Agenda
None.
4.a. The institution creates and maintains appropriate programs, practices, and services
that support its diverse personnel.
Cypress College
Descriptive Summary
The College is committed to maintaining programs,
practices, and services to support the diversity of its
personnel.
According to the District Office of Equity and Diversity, the faculty are represented by the following groups:
Black Faculty/Staff Association, Latino Faculty Association, and Gay and Lesbian Association of District
Employees. An Asian/Pacific Islander Faculty group is
in the planning stages.
The Diversity Committee highlights a different group
each month of the school year and supports a variety
of activities and educational opportunities, including
brochures available at the library: September, Hispanic Heritage Month; October, Disabilities Awareness
Month; November, Muslim Awareness Month; December and January, Kwanzaa Awareness; February,
Black History Month; March, Women’s Recognition
Month; April, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Awareness Month; May, “Noche par alas familias
Latinos” (6.53). These events are also publicized in the
College’s weekly @Cypress newsletter (6.54).
In addition, through the District Office of Equity and
Diversity, training is required of all College personnel
in the areas of Sexual Harassment and Unlawful Discrimination and Hiring Committee Training for equal
opportunity for those participating on hiring committees. The Office of Equity and Diversity also monitors
programs and activities to ensure compliance with state
and federal laws and District policies regarding equal
employment, sexual harassment, unlawful discrimination, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (6.55).
Support for employees in need of assistance is provided
through the District Office of Human Resource. The
Employee Assistance Program helps employees with
health and wellness, personal relationships, work relationship, and finances. Resources are also provided to
find counselors, lawyers, a certified financial planner,
child care provider, eldercare provider, and estate guidance (6.56).
Self Evaluation
According to the most recent Campus Climate Survey
(6.7), more personnel are satisfied with the College’s
programs, practices, and services than in the previous
survey. The majority of employees believe that individInstitutional Self Study — Spring 2011
uals have equal opportunities in their careers regardless of their gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
Employees self-identified as minorities are less satisfied
than those of the majority groups (men, white). Faculty
and staff are less satisfied than managers.
The results of the survey indicate that the College
should focus on improving the experience for employees who are women, non-White, GLBT, or disabled.
Also, the College could help staff and faculty (especially part-time faculty) “feel that their opinions and duties
are influential, meaningful, and important for the college and our students.”
Planning Agenda
None.
4.b. The institution regularly assesses its record in employment equity and diversity consistent with its mission.
Descriptive Summary
The District Office of Equity and Diversity is responsible for “monitor[ing] programs and activities” to
ensure that they are consistent with the goals of the
District. At the College, the Diversity Committee reviews the findings of the semi-annual Campus Climate
Surveys to determine if there are areas of concern that
need the committee’s attention. Each hiring committee
is aware of the need for equity and diversity, and members are trained to meet these requirements.
The District Office of Equity and Diversity provides
“in-service training for administration, faculty and
staff regarding hiring procedures, equal employment
opportunity, prevention of unlawful discrimination
and sexual harassment in the academic setting/work
environment.” The District-wide Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity Advisory Committee
(EEOAC) assists the District in developing and implementing the District Equal Employment Opportunity
Plan and helps to formulate and recommend activities
to promote diversity, inclusion, and multiculturalism
throughout the District, and to promote community
relations in the area of diversity. This district-wide
committee is comprised of representatives of the various College/site constituent groups (faculty, classified,
management, confidential, students, and community
members). A Cypress College student, faculty member,
179
classified employee, and management employee serve
on the District-wide EEOAC committee as a part of
the participatory governance process.
In accordance with Cypress College’s Mission Statement, the Diversity Committee is dedicated to fostering diversity among its students, employees, and community by cultivating and promoting inclusiveness,
awareness, and acceptance. The Diversity Committee supports the recruitment and retention of diverse
faculty, staff, and management. This is accomplished
through assistance with diversity-related outreach/recruitment activities, job postings in newspapers, publications, websites, and other social media as it relates to
equity and diversity. The District Office of Equity and
Diversity works with Cypress College to ensure that all
employees who serve on hiring committees are provided with appropriate in-service training regarding the
District’s hiring policies and procedures, the legal aspects of hiring, and unlawful discrimination in the academic/working environments. The District monitors
college hiring, programs and activities to ensure compliance with state and federal laws and District policies
as they relate to equal employment opportunity (6.36).
Self Evaluation
The Campus Climate Survey 2010 shows that the majority of staff that responded felt that the College is
responsive to the issues of diversity and equity (6.7).
The Campus Climate Survey reports that 85.9% of
respondents feel the campus is equally supportive of
all genders. 75.8% feel that women have equal opportunities for recognition, respect, and advancement
at the College. 79.8% (72% non-white 84.1% white)
feel the campus is equally supportive of all racial/ethnic groups. 56.1% (50% non-white 59.5% white) feel
the College is committed to increasing numbers and
percentages of ethnic minorities in classified, faculty,
and administrative positions. 75.5% feel the campus
is equally supportive of all sexual orientations. 43.9%
feel the College is committed to supporting diversity
activities that address issues relevant to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees and students. 74%
(63.1% non-white 80% white) feel that diversity is actively promoted on campus.
4.c. The institution subscribes to, advocates,
and demonstrates integrity in its treatment of
its administration, faculty, staff and students.
Descriptive Summary
The NOCCCD Board Policy BP 1002 states:
2.2 Achieving, respecting and embracing diversity within the student body, faculty, and
staff will be of primary importance.
2.3 Consistent with state legislation, the District
will apply the principles of shared governance, which is a decision-making process
that is based on a fundamental belief in the
value of all opinions, as well as on an agreement to thoughtfully consider the point of
view of all affected constituencies.
These policies are in evidence at the College through
the many shared governance committees that exemplify integrity in incorporating the participation and
viewpoints of all campus constituents. Among many
examples are the President’s Advisory Cabinet, the
Planning and Budget Committee, the Diversity Committee, and the Program Review Committee.
Self Evaluation
The most recent Campus Climate Report shows that
the majority of respondents feel that the College does
demonstrate integrity in its treatment of its diverse
population. There is a strong feeling at the College
that each group has a voice and that voice is heard.
Policies and procedures at the District and the College
demonstrate the fair treatment of faculty and staff.
The policies and practices at the College show this fair
treatment of all students.
Another example of the supportive environment at the
College is the frequent honoring of faculty and staff
for their contributions to the College. Award luncheons
are held each year for faculty and staff. A year-end
Luau includes awarding personnel on their time served
at the College. At graduation, the honorees are recognized publicly.
In all, there is a strong sense throughout the College
that work and effort are noticed and honored.
Planning Agenda
None.
180
Cypress College
Planning Agenda
5. The institution provides all personnel with
appropriate opportunities for continued professional development, consistent with the
institution’s mission and based on identified
teaching and learning needs.
more effectively to various forces that demand change
with the ultimate goal of improving student success.
Consequently, the College’s multi-faceted professional
development program provides on-campus workshops,
semester-long intensive seminars, and funding for offcampus workshops. The framework developed provides for immediate responses to queries and concerns
from faculty and staff.
Descriptive Summary
Self Evaluation
None.
Professional development at Cypress College is a collaborative endeavor guided by the College’s Educational Master Plan (EMP) (6.1) and the Student Services
Master Plan (6.23). Professional development is operationalized and implemented by the College’s Strategic
Plan (6.2) and the District Strategic Plan (6.34) with the
overarching purpose of improving staff performance
and student success while enhancing the College’s status as a premier learning community. At the center of
this effort is the College’s Staff Development Committee, a shared-governance committee comprised of
faculty, classified staff, managers, and students. The
mission of this committee is to plan and implement
professional development activities, collectively known
as the Staff Development Program, for all College staff
based on the teaching and learning needs identified
through a variety of needs assessments, program review and evaluation (6.9), review of current literature
on learning-centered instruction, and examination of
the College’s institutional research such as the Campus
Climate Surveys for students and staff (6.7). The faculty Staff Development Coordinator chairs the Staff
Development Committee, coordinates and implements
the activities of the Staff Development Program, and
serves on numerous committees (Academic Senate,
SLO Team, Basic Skills/ ESL Committee, Planning
and Budget Committee, District myGateway Steering
Committee, and District Staff Development Chairs
Committee) in order to share information and collect
ideas for future professional development activities.
In addition, other departments and programs provide
professional and staff development opportunities as
well (e.g., Distance Education Coordinator, Academic
Computing, Health Center, Emergency Operations
Center Advisory Team, and District Information Services). At the heart of this collaborative effort is the
philosophy that staff and professional development
should enable College faculty and staff to respond
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
The Spring 2007 Campus Support Services Quality
Review (CSSQR) for the Staff Development Program
satisfaction survey revealed that 93% of respondents
rated the overall quality of the service (hours of operation, timeliness of responses, presenter knowledge,
quality of materials) as Good/Excellent (6.9). The
Spring 2010 CSSQR satisfaction survey found that
89% of respondents rated the overall quality as Good/
Excellent (6.9). Although there was a drop in satisfaction ratings, it must be noted that in May 2008, the
100% Staff Development Administrative Assistant resigned and was not replaced due to budget cuts. Due to
this loss of administrative support, the Staff Development Coordinator with 60% reassigned time has had
to balance the demands of the Staff Development Office with the coordination of the Staff Development
Program.
Planning Agenda
None.
5.a. The institution plans professional development activities to meet the needs of its personnel.
Descriptive Summary
Every three years through the Campus Support Services Quality Review (CSSQR) (6.9) process, the Staff
Development Committee utilizes the CSSQR faculty
and staff satisfaction survey, as well as workshop evaluations, to evaluate the past three year’s plan of activities. The Staff Development Committee also conducts
an intensive needs assessment every three years before
completing the CSSQR. A review of the Educational
Master Plan (EMP) (6.1), the College’s Strategic Plan
(6.2), and other College planning documents provides
the foundation for future Staff Development activities.
181
A search of instructional and student services planning
and program review documents and the Campus Climate Survey (6.7) also reveals needs that might otherwise be missed. Once this review of assessed needs has
been collected, the committee reviews and revises the
program’s mission and administrative unit outcomes, as
needed, and writes a new three-year plan of activities,
including a list of resources that are needed to carry
out the new three-year plan. The Staff Development
Committee then uses the results of the CSSQR as justification to request annual operating funds through
the One-time Budget Funding process.
The committee meets twice a month when classes are
in session to develop, implement, and evaluate professional development activities for faculty, classified staff,
and managers. The annual plan is a flexible document
that allows the committee to respond expeditiously to
changing needs. For example, when new technology is
adopted by the District or purchased by the College,
immediate plans are made to develop training opportunities and materials for faculty, classified staff, and
managers (6.24).
The Staff Development Program has several components. One is the opportunity for faculty, classified
staff, and managers to request workshop and conference funding for off-campus events to meet the critical needs for professional development as determined
by campus priorities. The Staff Development Office
also produces electronic materials, such as the Classified Resource Book and instructions for using the Early
Alert Program, available on the Internet as a resource.
In Fall 2010, a “resident expert” program offering oneon-one assistance by knowledgeable staff members
will be developed and offered as needed. The Staff
Development Program also offers a limited number
of single meeting workshops, such as Adjunct Faculty
meetings, single-session TechCafe workshops on new
instructional technology, myGateway/Webstar and
TracDat workshops (6.37). Most professional development activities, however, have been developed to focus
on the collaboration of colleagues over an extended
period of time to develop new strategies or materials.
Participants in these seminars or workshop series may
also earn equivalent unit credit toward advancement
on the pay scale. Some examples of this type of activity
include the following, which are ongoing unless otherwise noted:
182
◊
New Faculty Seminar – year-long program for new tenure-track faculty
◊
New Classified Orientation and Mentoring Program – six-month mentoring
program
◊
Learning-Centered Instruction Seminar – year-long program which includes
learning/teaching styles, student diversity, student preparedness, classroom
management techniques, brain-based
research applicable to learning, classroom assessment techniques, reading and
writing strategies, and modes of delivery
◊
SLO Writing, Assessment, Analysis and
Report Writing Workshop Series – a
series designed for faculty to attend and
work together as departments developed
by the SLO Facilitator and Coordinator
◊
Best Practices in Instruction and Student
Services – one-day event with follow-up
activities
◊
Learning Communities Development
Training – a semester-long program for
faculty to produce syllabus and materials for integrated instructional learning
community (2004-2008 funded by 20032008 Title V Hispanic Serving Institutions Grant)
◊
Hybrid/Online Training Seminar –
intensive semester-long instructional
seminar developed by the Instructional
Designer (2004-2007)
Other programs and services offer workshops and
seminars as well. The Distance Education Coordinator and Instructional Designer are revising the Online Training Program for all faculty. Academic Computing also presents workshops for email system and
off-campus access to the campus network (6.39). The
Cypress College Health Center initiated a day-long
Non-Violent Crisis Intervention Workshops, which is
now offered as a district-wide program. The College
also provides Emergency Management Training utilizing videos and discussions to prepare faculty and staff,
and ultimately students, for disasters such as fire, earthquake, and shooter-on-campus events. In addition to
the videos and discussion activities, the College engagCypress College
es in ongoing emergency response drills to be better
prepared for unforeseen disasters. These drills are held
every semester and include all staff members, students,
and various community response organizations. District Information Services presents workshops on the
Banner Enterprise System for all of its employees who
utilize the system (6.37). District Human Resources facilitates workshops on sexual harassment and discrimination and has sponsored the Hire Me Workshops for
prospective full-time faculty, a program developed at
Cypress College (6.38).
Self Evaluation
As a result of the needs assessment conducted during
the CSSQR process in 2004 and 2007, the following
workshops, seminars, and other activities have been
developed and implemented. The list below reflects
the manner in which the need was identified and the
activity that was developed to meet that need. This list
provides examples of the results of the Staff Development planning process.
◊
Develop and assess instructional and student services student learning outcomes
(6.1 and 6.2a and b) ➔ the SLO Assessment, Analysis, and Report Writing
Workshop Series
◊
Support and provide for changes in the
workplace for all personnel (6.2a) ➔
Classified Resource Book
◊
Purchase and implementation of the
District myGateway portal ➔ myGateway Training including web accessibility
and course studio implementation
◊
Purchase of the TracDat Assessment
Management Software ➔ Development
of TracDat Training for faculty
◊
“Need: online workshop registration”
(2007 SD Needs Survey) ➔ Development of District-wide Staff Development Registration Calendar
◊
“No recent workshops on first aid” (2007
SD Needs Survey) ➔ District-sponsored
First Aid/CPR classes
◊
“Workshops on working with angry and
troubled students” (2007 SD Needs Sur-
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
vey) ➔ Nonviolent Crisis Intervention
Workshop
The Spring 2010 CSSQR Satisfaction Survey found
that 89% of respondents rated presenter knowledge of
all workshops and seminars as Good/Excellent (6.9).
Planning Agenda
None.
5.b. With the assistance of the participants,
the institution systematically evaluates professional development programs and uses the
results of these evaluations as the basis for
improvement.
Descriptive Summary
Because of the variables affecting the improvement of
teaching and learning, it is difficult to identify and quantify the impact of professional development activities in
a statistical way. However, the ASCCC “Guidelines for
Implementation of the Flexible Calendar Program”
(developed with the Chancellor’s Office) outlines four
different levels of evaluation for staff development
programs, ranging from basic to advanced in regard to
“reaction,” “achievement,” “behavior,” and “impact”
(6.33).
One mechanism used by the Staff Development Committee that demonstrates “reaction” is to compile selfreported responses and evaluations from faculty and
staff to determine if the workshops had an immediate
impact. The results of the satisfaction survey component of the CSSQR are examples of this “reaction”
type of evaluation (6.40).
Whenever possible, Staff Development activities — especially seminars and workshop series — are designed
to be evaluated at the “achievement,” “behavior,”
and/or “impact level.” More specifically, several workshops used “achievement” as the type of evaluation. A
component of the Webpage Development Training is
a quiz on web accessibility, which the faculty must pass
before starting to build their webpage. At the end of
this workshop, instructors demonstrate that that they
have attained these skills by developing their faculty
homepage. The myGateway Course Studio Training,
TracDat Training, First Aid/CPR, and Nonviolent
Crisis Intervention Training are all evaluated by the
“achievement” of the participants.
183
The evaluation of “behavior” determines if participants have modified their on-the-job behavior and are
using the information they learned. The faculty who
successfully completed the Hybrid/Online Training
developed a hybrid or online class using Blackboard.
Since 2007, 223 instructors have attended at least one
of the SLO Assessment, Analysis, and Report Writing
workshops. As of October 2010, faculty members have
defined SLOs for 85% of the courses, defined assessment methods for 82%, and closed the loop on 48% of
all the courses.
The last type of evaluation identifies whether or not
the training had a positive “impact” on the organization including student success or improved morale. For
example, participants in the initial Learning Communities Development Program developed the University Transfer Achievement Program (UTAP) learning
community whose students achieved higher retention
and student success ratings than the freshmen not participating in the program (6.41). Another example of
“impact” evaluation was conducted after Student Services SLO workshops. Each November since 2006, the
Student Services Council has dedicated their November meeting as their SLO workshop. During the past
three years (cycles) of SLO development and evaluation, most of the student services areas have demonstrated positive effects on student learning as measured
through the outcomes and objectives established in
each of the departments (6.42).
The data collected from these four types of evaluations
are reviewed during the annual planning meeting and
the development of the three-year Staff Development
Plan.
Every three years since 2004, the Staff Development
Committee has completed the Campus Support Services Quality Review (6.9) that now asks the committee
members to do the following:
184
◊
Review the mission of the Staff Development Program and determine how well
it has achieved its previous three-year
goals, including those included in the
College’s Strategic Plan (6.2)
◊
Review the results of the faculty and
staff satisfaction survey.
◊
Review the results of the current needs
assessment.
◊
Write Administrative unit outcomes for
the next three years, including those
goals related to professional development
in the Strategic Plan.
◊
Develop an expenditure plan needed to
achieve the goals.
◊
Evaluation of the best funding resource
to achieve the goals and Administrative
Unit Outcomes, i.e. one-time funding
requests, grant proposals, and/or fund
raising events
◊
Submit requests for funding based on
needs assessment, three-year Staff Development Plan, and the Strategic Plan.
In addition, the Staff Development Committee plans
to develop each Staff Development activity and its
evaluation to include achievement, behavior, and/or
impact types of evaluation.
Self Evaluation
The Staff Development Committee has completed
the Campus Support Services Quality Review for the
past three program review cycles (6.9). The committee
has seen a drop in the satisfaction ratings of the overall
quality of the Staff Development program as Good/
Excellent from 93% of all respondents in 2007 to 89%
of all respondents in Spring 2010. This is most likely
the result of the reduction of services due to the loss of
the 100% Staff Development Administrative Assistant
position in May 2008. Until funding sources are made
available, the reduction of services from the Staff Development Office will continue, and adjustments will
have to be made.
The Staff Development Program is moving from “reaction” evaluations given at the end of workshops to
the three higher levels of evaluation. To evaluate the effectiveness of the TracDat workshops, “achievement”
was used. Instructors were asked to practice with a
training “course” and then input actual SLO assessment data for one of their courses into TracDat. Of
the 154 instructors who attended the workshops, 89%
inputted actual course data into TracDat during the
workshop (6.43). There was a 100% pass rate on the
exit test for the 8-hour Non-Violent Crisis Intervention
Training Program for 28 Cypress College faculty and
staff (6.44).
Cypress College
To evaluate the effectiveness of the series of SLO workshops presented over a span of two years, the measure
of “behavior” evaluation was used: “Are participants
using the information they learned to assess SLOs?”
Although faculty members worked on just one course
in each of the workshops, the end result was that 223
academic instructors who attended at least one of the
SLO Assessment, Analysis, and Report Writing workshops have written SLO assessment plans for 82% of
all courses and closed the SLO loop on 48% of the
courses (6.45).
The University Transfer Achievement Program
(UTAP) is an example of the “impact” of the semesterlong Title V Learning Communities Training Program
and the persistence of the lead instructor of the UTAP
program. During 2007-2008, the UTAP successful
course completion rates for UTAP courses were considerably higher than the successful course completion
rate for all non-UTAP courses: English 60 – 90% to
60%; English 100 – 81.8% to 57%; Counseling 150 –
94% to 71.1%; and Psychology 101 – 84.8% to 60.5%
(6.41).
When planning Staff Development activities, the Staff
Development Committee encourages the development
of activities that can be evaluated by “achievement,”
“behavior,” or “impact,” as defined by the ASCCC
Guidelines for Implementation of the Flex Calendar
Program. Whenever possible, the Staff Development
Committee recommends the use of these more advanced types of evaluations when Staff Development
activities are being planned and developed.
Planning Agenda
None.
6. Human resource planning is integrated with
institutional planning. The institution systematically assesses the effective use of human resources and uses the results of the evaluation
as the basis for improvement.
Descriptive Summary
The Cypress College Educational Master Plan (6.1)
directs institutional planning and the development of
the Cypress College Strategic Plan (6.2). The Educational Master Plan was written in September 2006 for
the period 2006-2016. The current Strategic Plan was
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
written for the period 2008-2011. The College’s goal is
to more fully integrate its planning processes with the
District’s Master Plan that is currently being updated
(6.13).
In addition, the College has several annual review
processes in keeping with its core values of excellence
and collegiality and commitment to the shared-governance process. Review processes include: Department
Planning and Program Review, (6.3) Student Services
Quality Review (6.4), Campus Support Services Quality Review (6.9), and Special Programs Quality Review, (6.10) all of which are completed every three
years. These reviews evaluate the effectiveness of each
department or program and identify human resource
needs to meet identified goals and objectives.
Self Evaluation
The College has excellent procedures in place to ensure that human resource planning is integrated with
institutional planning.
All of the entities on campus (CSEA, full-time faculty,
and management) look to the Educational Master Plan
and Strategic Plan as the basis for the goals and objectives established by departments, programs, and divisions. This process also helps the Planning and Budget
Committee ensure that its decision-making processes
meet the goals and objectives specified in the Educational Master Plan and Strategic Plan.
Deans, directors, managers, and the Academic Senate
each have monthly meetings, and CSEA constituents
meet regularly. This allows all constituencies to evaluate and make recommendations for institutional planning, the effective use of human resources, growth and
development, and improvement. Every two to three
years a Classified Needs Survey (6.11) is conducted to
determine Classified Staffing Needs at the College. In
March 2010, all Cypress College managers and three
Academic Senate representatives participated in a
Classified Needs Assessment Prioritization (6.12) to determine the most critical classified positions to fill for
2010-2011 based on the available funds. This process
was necessary due to retirements, vacancies, and positions that could be terminated due to the reduction in
categorical program funding.
Also, the campus annually conducts a full-time faculty
hiring assessment using the Full-time Faculty Hiring
185
Request form (6.8). The form asks how the position
request relates to needs stated in the most recent Educational Master Plan and Department Planning and
Program Review. Each division dean consults with the
full-time faculty regarding the tenure-track positions
that should be requested, and a request for a position(s)
is submitted to the Executive Vice President. The requests are then ranked by a committee comprised of
the deans and Academic Senate representatives, and a
recommendation to hire positions in the ranked order
is submitted to PAC and the President for review and
a final decision. The number of positions that may actually be filled for the next year is determined by the
District.
The District and College have systems in place to ensure that all performance evaluations are conducted
and meet requirements. For full-time faculty, the Executive Vice President’s Office sends out a list of evaluations that are due and checks to make sure that they
have been completed. Deans and Human Resources
audit required evaluations for adjunct faculty and classified employees. In addition, District Human Resources also provides training for managers to ensure that
proper procedures are being followed.
Although a process for filling vacancies exists for CSEA
and full-time faculty positions, currently, no similar
process exists for management positions. In 2009,
a committee was formed to review the management
evaluation form and change it to be similar to the process used for full-time and classified employees (6.22).
Discussion is currently taking place with District Human Resources on whether the annual management
evaluation will be changed to more closely follow the
two- or three-year evaluation schedules held for classified and faculty, respectively.
Planning Agenda
None.
6.3Department Planning and Program Reviews for
2006-2007 and 2008-2009 — www.cypresscollege.
edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/ProgramReview
6.4Student Support Services Quality Review http://
www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/ProgramReview
6.5NOCCCD Board Policies, Administrative Procedures
and Administrative Guide — www.nocccd.edu/Policies/PoliciesAndProcedures.htm
6.6Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory 2007
— www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/rsurveys.aspx
6.7Campus Climate Surveys — www.cypresscollege.
edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/rsurveys.aspx
6.8
6.9Campus Support Services Quality Review — www.
cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/ProgramReview
6.10Special Programs Quality Review — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/ProgramReview
6.11
Classified Needs Survey
6.12
Classified Needs Assessment Prioritization
6.13
District Master Plan Timeline
6.14Institutional Effectiveness Report — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/rreports.
aspx
6.15United Faculty Collective Bargaining Agreement,
July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2011
6.16Board Agenda/Minutes June 24, 2003 — www.
nocccd.edu/Trustees/MtgMinutesArchive2010.htm
6.17
Dr. Bob Simpson email, November 16, 2009
6.18
Nina DeMarkey email, November 12, 2009
6.19Adjunct Faculty United Agreement, July 1 – July 30,
2012
6.20
Reference Documents
6.1Cypress College Educational Master Plan, 20062016 — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspx
6.2Cypress College Strategic Plan, 2008-2011 —
www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspx
186
Full-time Faculty Hiring Request Form
CSEA Agreement, August 1, 2007 – July 31, 1010
6.21California Community College Chancellor’s Office
June 2005 Report from the “Workgroup on 75/25
Issues”
6.22Email from Jorge Gamboa regarding Management
Evaluation Revision Committee, December 16, 2009
6.23Student Services Master Plan — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.
aspx
Cypress College
6.24Staff Development Committee Minutes – J:\Staff
Development
6.25United Faculty Probationary Tenure Track Evaluation
Form — J:\District Forms and Templates
6.26United Faculty Tenure Track Evaluation Form — J:\
District Forms and Templates
6.27Classified Evaluation Forms, Probationary and Permanent — J:\District Forms and Templates
6.47
Steve Duncan email 9-27-10
6.48 Jeff Horsley email 9-28-10
6.49
Faculty Evaluation Schedule
6.50Distance Education Plan — www.cypresscollege.
edu/IRP/Resources/Planning/CC_DE_Plan_Final_040209.pdf
6.28Management Evaluation Form — J:\District Forms
and Templates
6.29Focused Mid-Term Report, 2008 (p. 29) — www.
cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/Accreditation/areports.aspx
6.30
Guide to Evaluating Institutions, August 2009 (p.7-8)
6.31@Cypress — www.cypresscollege.edu/newsEvents/
news/atcypress.aspx
6.32 Student Services SLO Final Reports 2007, 2008,
2009 — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/SLO
6.33Guidelines for Implementation of the Flexible Calendar Program — www.cccco.edu/Portals/4/AA/Flexible%20Calendar/Flex_Calendar_Guidelines_04-07.
docx.pdf
6.34District Strategic Plan — www.nocccd.edu/StrategicPlanning/StrategicPlan.htm
6.35Cypress College Catalog — www.cypresscollege.
edu/academics/CollegeCatalog.aspx
6.36Email from Ken Robinson, District Director of Equity
& Diversity, November 24, 2010
6.37
MyGateway — Staff Development Calendar
6.38
HireMe Workshops Report 2007 & 2008
6.39
Web Editor Training email announcements
6.40
Fall 2009 Opening Day Evaluation Summary
6.41UTAP Course Completion Report Fall-2004-Spring
2008).
6.42
CCRAA STEM Grant Proposal, 2008-2010
6.43
TracDat Workshop Report, 2009-2010
6.44
Non-Violent Crisis Intervention Training Report, 2010
6.45
SLO Workshop Participation, April 2009
6.46Email from Vice Chancellor of Human Rsources,
August 23, 2010
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
187
Standard IIIB: Physical
Resources
Cypress College is recognized for the quality and vitality of its physical resources, including its major facilities, architectural themes, and landscaping strategies.
The integrity of the physical environment is assured by
the dedication of human and financial resources to the
continuous planning, construction, and maintenance
cycles necessary for the provision of resources conducive to a sound educational environment. The College
is a part of community-wide participation and involvement programs to assist in evaluating the strengths and
weaknesses of its Emergency Action Plan. The College
is committed to maintaining a positive status with respect to its physical resources even during challenging
economic times. It takes all necessary measures to assure a safe, secure, and supportive learning environment, with physical resources appropriately conceived,
built, and maintained for the disciplines they support.
Physical resources, which include facilities,
equipment, land, and other assets, support
student learning programs and services and
improve institutional effectiveness. Physical
resource planning is integrated with institutional planning.
1. The institution provides safe and sufficient
physical resources that support and assure the
integrity and quality of its programs and services, regardless of location or means of delivery.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College has engaged in significant construction, including new and remodeled facilities, over the
course of the last six years. This construction has occurred utilizing a combination of District and local
bond funding. The new and newly remodeled facilities
have positioned the College to assure the integrity and
the quality of its programs and services. In order to assure continuing standards of integrity with respect to
its facilities, the College collaborates on a regular basis
with District personnel to review facilities issues. Alliance of Schools for Cooperative Insurance Programs
(ASCIP), state agencies, and legal directives require
the campus to monitor and evaluate facility and campus safety according to required codes and regulations
188
and, therefore, provide the main criteria and processes
against which the College evaluates its facilities’ safety.
State agencies include the Air Quality Management
District (AQMD) (7.4), the Health Department (7.24),
the local Fire Authority (7.20), the Department of
State Architecture (DSA) (7.15), and OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) (7.34). Legal
directives include the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) (7.1).
Custodial, maintenance, and campus safety staff conduct daily inspections of facilities under their charges.
Physical Plant personnel are alerted when deans, office personnel, faculty, or students encounter potential
safety hazards. In addition, the Campus Safety Committee (7.39) meets every month to review the College
status with respect to the various District, state, and
federal safety programs and any other related issues.
Throughout the year, on a rotating basis, the Physical
Plant Director and the Manager of Maintenance and
Operations (M&O) survey the buildings and grounds.
Unsafe conditions or potential hazards are addressed
immediately.
The Emergency Action Plan (7.17) is overseen by the
Vice President of Administrative Services, but is facilitated by Campus Safety. The campus participates in
mandated emergency drills (7.18) every semester, during which the campus administration team sets up the
Incident Command Post (7.26) in accord with state and
federal emergency response protocols with identified
key personnel serving in their designated roles. The
College coordinates communication plans with the
District and local agencies for mutual emergency response aid. The campus has also been designated as a
potential evacuation site for the Red Cross and a Point
of Dispensing (POD) for vaccines for the local Health
Department. The Director of the Physical Plant and
the Campus Safety Director, along with other campus
administrators, are able to identify through these drills
the strengths and weaknesses of the College’s current
emergency response plan. The institution continues to
learn and improve from these exercises.
The District also conducts campus facilities inspections
(7.12) and offers suggestions and advice. The District
complies with the requirements of the mandated Injury and Illness Prevention Program (7.28) for ensuring
the safety of all employees and students. The District
conducts a safety audit (7.38) of its facilities every three
Cypress College
years. These loss prevention and safety audits (7.38) are
driven by the insurance carrier, Alliance of Schools for
Cooperative Insurance Programs (ASCIP). Participants
in this review are the Physical Plant Director or Manager of Maintenance and Operations, the District Environmental Health and Safety Specialist, and a representative from the Alliance of Schools for Cooperative
Insurance Program. The District insurance carrier also
requires additional inspections as mandated by the Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) (7.28). Currently, the District’s Environmental Health and Safety
Specialist conducts unofficial periodic evaluations of
the campus with either the Physical Plant Director or
the Manager of Maintenance and Operations.
The State Space Inventory System (7.41) is updated
by the campus every Fall to provide for an accurate
accounting of current availability and use of its classrooms, lecture halls, laboratories, and other facilities.
Classroom use continues to be monitored and included
in the Annual Fall Report (7.4) created by the Office
of Institutional Research and Planning. The availability and quality of lecture and lab spaces continue to
be of particular concern, especially in older buildings
such as the Science, Engineering & Math building.
The campus pays close attention to the annual Spring
Space Utilization Report (7.42). This report contains
data conducive to the monitoring of scheduled usage,
indicating the sufficiency or deficiency of space, and
availability of classrooms, lecture halls, labs, and other
facilities.
The College continues to monitor the ability of its facilities to meet the instructional needs of the campus.
This topic is often evaluated in relation to the Education Master Plan, the Facilities Master Plan (7.19), the
Strategic Plan (7.43), the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (7.32), the Campus Climate Survey
(7.6), the Planning and Budget Committee (7.35), the
Campus Support Services Quality Review (7.8) Quality Review (7.8), and the campus Safety Committee
(7.39). The Program Review Guidelines (7.37) and
the Campus Support Services Quality Review (7.8)
are processes that focus on department-specific needs.
The College also continues to employ the services of a
consultant who reviews and makes recommendations
that help the campus meet and achieve space utilization goals (7.42).
Safe and adequate physical resources are available
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
campus wide to ensure that the needs of programs
and services are met regardless of locality or means of
delivery. The primary criteria used by the campus to
assess the safety of its facilities are the codes and regulations of the various state agencies, including the Fire
Authority (7.20), Health Department (7.24), Air Quality Management District (7.4), Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (7.34), and American Disabilities Act (7.1). The institution remains in compliance
with the codes and regulatory requirements of the state
agencies. The Fire Authority conducted its most recent
inspection of the campus April 7, 2010 (7.20). The
Health Department conducted its annual inspection
of the campus December 3, 2009 (7.24). There were
no violations.
For its off-site programs, the Health Sciences Department uses the Agreement for Clinical Programs in
Health Science for each facility (7.2). This contract was
drawn up by legal counsel and executed by the Manager of District Resources, as well as the Vice Chancellor, Finance and Facilities.
The Physical Education Department also offers offsite programs. However, for these programs there is no
campus process in place to evaluate the safety and quality of the sites. These facilities are typically businesses
that the general public uses, such as a golf course or
a bowling alley. These off-site facilities must meet and
comply with state and city codes and regulations, as
well as criteria set by insurers. These public businesses
are regulated by the same agencies as the institution,
such as the Fire Authority and Health Department.
Since 2003, the Cypress College Career Technical
Education Division’s Hotel, Restaurant, Culinary Arts
classes (HRC) have been held at the NOCCCD Anaheim Campus. This move has resulted in significant
improvements in the quality of the educational experience and student success. The larger Anaheim Campus location with state-of-the-art kitchen equipment
and learning facility allows for cutting-edge culinary
techniques and hospitality instruction. The larger facility and classroom space has also allowed for additional sections and class offerings resulting in double
the enrollments. Additionally, the Anaheim Campus
proximity to the Anaheim Resort District benefits area
employers and HRC students with employment and
internship opportunities, industry guest speakers, hotel
field trips, and networking opportunities.
189
The individual programs evaluate the safety and sufficiency of the facilities and the equipment they use
on an ongoing basis. The College uses the results of
these evaluations to determine unmet needs for maintenance, improvements, purchases, upgrades, and replacement of equipment. The unmet needs are prioritized and resolved mainly through the One Time
Funding process (7.33).
the classrooms. This work was completed during Summer 2010. In the face of limited finances, the College
has engaged in a process of prioritization to assure the
provision of facilities support necessary for the maintenance of quality in its programs. The institution remains in compliance with the codes and regulations of
the state agencies even during these difficult economic
times.
The College’s Maintenance and Operations Department works with the offices of Academic Computing
and the Distance Education Program to assure that
distance delivery modes are well-supported for faculty and students. For example, if a television requires
mounting, or fiber optic needs to be pulled, the Physical Plant responds and quickly provides required assistance. The Technology Plan was prepared by the
Campus Technology Committee (7.45) and Academic
Computing in order to provide a framework of support
conducive to the maintenance of sound instruction.
The plan addresses Distance Education infrastructure,
hardware, and software support for faculty, staff, and
students. Computer equipment is on a regular rotation
schedule for replacement (7.11). Updated equipment is
purchased regularly to replace the old or obsolete computer systems.
The Director of Disabled Students Program and Services (DSPS) affirmed that the campus strives to comply
with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (7.1).
Two examples were cited of how M&O interfaces with
DSPS to assure accessibility. First, during the comprehensive remodel of the Humanities Building, accessible
features such as automatic doors and accessible counter space were factored into the building plans. Second,
the campus Master Plan included specifications that
would assure physical access such as larger elevators,
curb cuts, wider sidewalks, and automatic doors (7.7).
Self Evaluation
Facilities and construction updates are shared monthly
with the campus Management Team (7.31). Faculty
and staff surveys indicate that they are not always
fully informed and aware of any upcoming improvements or changes that would help benefit the campus.
This information is made available at all Management
Team meetings (7.31). The expectation is that managers will share in a timely manner the information that
is provided at these meetings.
The campus community is aware that funding sources
are more limited than in past years. The Fine Arts and
Science, Engineering & Math buildings were taken
off the initial list of priorities during the funded renovations since they were next in line for State Capital
Outlay Funding (7.5, 7.48). These projects are still on
the State approval list; however, the funding may be
a few more years away given the current state of the
economy. Local Capital Outlay Funds were identified
to replace the carpet and paint in the public areas of
these buildings and to address other critical needs in
190
According to the 2009 Space Inventory (7.41), the
campus is 59.0 % efficient per the State Utilization
Formula in the use of its facilities. The reduction in
course offerings has increased the fill rate to approximately 102%. Enrollment is up and parking has been
impacted for the first time in many years. Now that
the Humanities building remodel has been completed,
the campus has several vacant (inactive) classrooms
that could negatively impact its Space Inventory (7.41)
and the potential Capital Outlay Funding (7.48) for the
Fine Arts and the Science, Engineering & Math building. The removal of the old temporary buildings is now
a College priority. The elimination of buildings in this
space would open an opportunity for the campus to
expand parking and meet the needs of growing enrollment.
A Centralized Scheduling Program (7.9) is in place
and working for the improved coordination of facilities assignments. The system has many capabilities that
could benefit the entire campus; however, the program
is not yet fully implemented. It is a very strong tool used
by the Facilities Office to address scheduling needs for
inside requests and outside rentals. Once fully implemented, it will assist the campus in locating and booking rooms that are made available to staff. It will also
allow staff to view real-time information on events and
activities taking place on and off campus.
The expressed needs of the College often come into
Cypress College
conflict with State formulas and guidelines regarding
space utilization (7.42). The educational programs and
divisions, in general, perceive a need for more space.
However, the educational plans for most programs and
divisions do not always validate this perception. College governance mechanisms facilitate the process to
evaluate requests for program expansion and facilities
needs. Through the use of these tools, the institution
assesses and ensures that its facilities meet the needs of
their programs and services, and that the facilities are
also being used effectively.
port for distance learning demands.
The institution addresses facilities issues in a regular
and timely manner. The criteria used by the institution
to verify the safety and sufficiency of the off-campus facilities are established in state codes and regulations as
previously indicated. However, different off-site facilities (e.g., hospitals) are under different jurisdictions and
regulations that are frequently more stringent and far
exceed those used by an educational facility. Some programs, such as those offered by Health Science, have
an accrediting process that ensures the off-site facilities
are safe and sufficient. Other programs, such as Physical Education, may need to develop a process to better
document and ensure that the off-site facilities they use
are safe and in good condition.
Descriptive Summary
Facilities needs are promptly addressed within the existing College trouble ticket process. Special attention
and priority is always given to any potential safety hazards. The Planning and Budget process for One Time
Funding (7.33) provides the allocation of funds for
equipment replacement and other facilities and infrastructure needs. The Planning and Budget Committee
has seen the number of requests submitted annually
by each budget unit reduce significantly over the past
several years. This is evidence that the needs of the
various departments are being met.
The campus infrastructure and technology offer significant support to the needs of the distance education
delivery modes. Computer equipment and systems in
general are systematically updated or replaced. Most
of the classrooms and labs have been equipped with
state-of-the-art technology that followed the standards
set by the Technology Plan (7.46), i.e., ceiling mounted projectors, sound systems, DVD, VCR, document
readers, and wireless technology. The College has adopted and implemented a Technology Plan that will
better coordinate and administer the provision of supInstitutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Planning Agenda
None.
1.a. The institution plans, builds, maintains,
and upgrades or replaces its physical resources in a manner that assures effective utilization and the continuing quality necessary to
support its programs and services.
The institution’s Educational Master Plan (7.16) establishes the framework for evaluating the facilities needs
of programs and services. The collaborative process
used by the campus ensures representation from all
constituencies at various levels, with appropriately established standards in place to help the design team
generally meet and address all relevant issues (7.14).
The classrooms in the newly remodeled Humanities
building now have state-of-the-art technology, such
as “smart classrooms,” lighting controls, sound barriers between classrooms, appropriate furniture, power,
data, and wireless standards, and new heating and air
conditioning system and controls. The design, installation, and support needs for the new technology had to
be addressed during the remodel project. The inclusion of additional classroom space, however, was not
possible in this project. The state funding constraints
restricted such expansion and growth based on the current Space Inventory Report (7.41).
The process for determining equipment needs, replacement, and ongoing maintenance begin with an individual department request. This request may result from
the need to introduce new technology due to safety issues or because the equipment has been deemed obsolete or in need of replacement. The division initially
evaluates all maintenance, technology, and work-order
requests. Those that can be handled within existing
division budgets are resolved immediately. Those that
present an immediate impact to instruction and for
which there are no available funds result in an Emergency /Special request for funding submitted to Planning and Budget (7.35, 7.50) for consideration by all
committee members. Those items deemed critical are
recommended for funding to the President’s Advisory
Cabinet.
191
Some programs evaluate the effectiveness of facilities
and equipment in meeting the needs of their specific program through an advisory board that involves
individuals from business, industry, education, and
government. Each program meets with its advisory
group at least once annually, and several meet more
frequently for this purpose. Managers, faculty, and
staff participate in regional and statewide committees
where they discuss and evaluate emerging technologies
and instructional delivery models. Conferences and
trade shows also introduce them to new technologies.
Through this process, the institution evaluates its current status and needs, and determines if changes are
warranted. Whenever possible, the necessary changes
are implemented in a timeframe and in such a manner
as to provide faculty and students with the appropriate
facilities and equipment required for their programs.
The College assures that physical resources at all locations where instruction is offered, including the programs and services, are constructed and maintained to
assure access, safety, security, and a healthy learning
and working environment. All programs and departments are suitably built for the discipline they house.
Curricular changes can occur at a much faster rate
than the State Capital Outlay Funding process (7.48)
can accommodate. In these situations, the campus utilizes local funds or grants to facilitate the growth or
facilities changes necessary for the effective delivery of
instruction. For example, the procurement of computers for instruction came to the institution many years
prior to the State funding that supported the Telecommunication Infrastructure Requirements (7.47). During that time, the campus built independent computer
labs to support these instructional needs. Today, with
the development and implementation of the Educational Master Plan (7.16), the Five-Year Construction
Plan (7.21), and the Strategic Plan (7.43), the institution is better prepared to effectively support the existing programs and potential curricular changes of its
educational programs.
Self Evaluation
The College has developed a well-defined and aggressive internal program of facilities maintenance that
takes into account its planning documents, program
needs, maintenance cycles, and unexpected emergency
requests. The recent acquisition of facilities scheduling
software, the adoption of a Distance Education and
192
Technology Plan, and the use of well-defined College
processes for the procurement of needed support contribute significantly to the College’s reputation for putting students and instruction first.
Regular equipment maintenance is performed mostly
by specialized vendors through agreements and contracts that are issued annually for the various departments and divisions. For example, the automotive programs have repair accounts in place to service their
instructional equipment. These accounts are funded
by the campus to ensure the equipment needs of instructional programs are met. Equipment replacement
is funded by the programs out of their individual budgets or through the One Time Funding process (7.33)
of the College’s Planning and Budget Committee.
In addition to the regular processes established by the
College to address internally its facilities and maintenance needs, representatives of the College — including the President and the Vice President of Administrative Services — meet on a regular basis with District
personnel, primarily from the Office of Finance and
Facilities. These regular meetings provide the opportunity for the College to share information related to
facilities issues and to advocate the College’s position
with respect to infrastructure and support needs. Facilities issues are addressed at weekly construction meetings, Chancellor’s Staff meetings, and regular District
Planning Council meetings.
Planning Agenda
None.
1.b. The institution assures that physical resources at all locations where it offers courses,
programs, and services are constructed and
maintained to assure access, safety, security,
and a healthful learning and working environment.
Descriptive Summary
The institution assures that all facilities are safe and accessible. Daily facilities and equipment inspections are
conducted by Maintenance, Campus Safety, Facilities,
and Operations staff. The faculty and division office
employees also monitor and inspect their areas and report any unsafe or access-related issues to the Physical
Plant office. Additionally, safety and access concerns
Cypress College
are discussed at the monthly Safety Committee meetings (7.39). All concerns and potential hazards are immediately addressed by the Physical Plant Office.
regular basis, taking utilization and other relevant data into account.
Some programs, such as those offered by the Health
Science Division, undergo periodic accreditation. A
significant component of the accreditation process is a
thorough evaluation of off-site facilities used by these
programs.
Descriptive Summary
Self Evaluation
According to the latest Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Survey (7.32), students rated College facilities quite
highly and reported that the campus is generally accessible and safe. The institution responds expediently
and diligently to any potential hazard or access issue.
Assurance that the College’s physical resources are
constructed and maintained with the highest standards
of access, safety, security, and a healthful learning and
working environment are provided by the engagement
of effective College and District procedures dedicated
to this task. A variety of College committees, including the Safety Committee, Planning and Budget, the
President’s Advisory Cabinet, and the Food Service
Committee are all engaged in continuous review of
the College’s physical resource status. When issues are
identified, the College effectively engages its governance processes to assure response in an appropriate
timeframe.
The College offers a limited number of instructional
opportunities at off-campus sites that are not under the
charge of accrediting or other educational oversight
bodies. There are currently no procedures in place to
document, control, and validate that the off-site facilities adhere to appropriate educational facilities access,
safety, and security standards. Though the institution
does not have control over the off-site facilities that are
not District owned, it can engage in a process of verification regarding adherence to state and federal standards.
Planning Agenda
None.
2. To assure the feasibility and effectiveness of
physical resources in supporting institutional
programs and services, the institution plans
and evaluates its facilities and equipment on a
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Each fall, an Annual Space Inventory is conducted
to determine the adequacy of room utilization (7.41).
Throughout the year, classroom use is tracked through
the Office of Institutional Research and Planning. To
facilitate optimum utilization of space, the campus
has begun to implement centralized scheduling (7.9).
As a result, course curriculum requirements are more
easily matched with the best possible classroom configurations. In addition, Program Reviews often trigger
impromptu assessment and modifications of existing
facilities several times a year (7.37). Some of the results
of these assessments are used to plan and improve or
replace facilities and equipment by way of the Planning and Budget Process (7.35). The College also submits an annual Scheduled Maintenance Plan (7.40) to
the District, requesting State matched funding for projects that far exceed the campus maintenance budget.
However, due to growing budget deficits not only in
California, but across the nation, no scheduled maintenance dollars have been received from the State in the
past two years.
The College’s Five-Year Construction Plan was submitted for 2010-2015 (7.21). This plan included an Initial Project Proposal (IPP) for Tech Ed I (7.29) and an
FPP Final Project Proposal for Fine Arts (7.22) and Science, Engineering & Math (7.23). The Fine Arts building is on the approval list of projects pending passage
of a State bond (7.5) for Capital Outlay Funding (7.48).
Due to the existing economic conditions, expecting
passage of a new Bond (7.5) is not realistic this year.
With the exception of the Fine Arts and Science, Engineering & Math, most buildings were remodeled with
the Measure X Bond (7.5) funds: Tech Ed 1, Tech Ed
2, Tech Ed 3, Business, Theater Gym 2, and Humanities. The College was able to carpet and paint the Science, Engineering & Math and Fine Arts buildings in
Summer 2010 using other local Capital Outlay Funds
(7.48). This helped to give these buildings a facelift
while State Funds to totally renovate these facilities
continue to be on hold.
Self Evaluation
The existing process is designed and applied to effec193
tively manage the available spaces. Curriculum changes sometimes trigger room changes, modifications,
or upgrades. For example, a drafting lab in the SEM
building was converted into a multi-purpose lab with
the integration of computer stations and data infrastructure. This was done with the use of STEM grant
funding, which was awarded for this purpose. Also, as
space is available, sections are moved to different classrooms to allow for the right size space to be used. For
example, in the Business building, the seat count for a
CIS course was restricted because of the room size. To
accommodate growth in the seat count, the room was
traded for an “inactive” space on campus. The previous “too small” room was deactivated. Space inventory
reports are prepared and filed annually each Fall. This
exercise allows for the annual evaluation of improvements in space utilization, which can also lead to qualifying for additional State Capital Outlay funding for
future renovation projects.
Planning Agenda
None.
2.a. Long-range capital plans support institutional improvement goals and reflect projections of the total cost of ownership of new facilities and equipment.
Descriptive Summary
The Educational Master Plan (7.16), Facilities Master
Plan (7.19), and the Strategic Plan (7.43) all feed into
and inform the District Five-Year Construction Plan
(7.21). Some smaller projects are funded by the campus through the Planning and Budget process (7.35).
A recent example would be the new carpet and paint
in the office area of the Science, Engineering & Math
building.
Elements that comprise “total cost of ownership” include product quality and durability for maximum life
expectancy. The campus has developed a list of standards to help ensure that inferior substitutes are not
utilized (7.14). Also, organizations such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (7.49), the Air Quality
Management District (AQMD) (7.4), and Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) (7.30) set
guidelines and codes that must be complied with. The
campus’s ability to maintain facilities and equipment
versus the cost of a maintenance contract is taken into
194
consideration as well.
Capital Projects are prioritized based on criteria that
support short- and long-term planning by the institution. These criteria are set by the Educational Master
Plan (7.16), Space Inventory Data (7.41), Student Enrollment Capacity Load Ratios (7.44), building conditions, and District matching funds.
Long-term planning has already allowed for various
modernization and facilities upgrade projects, including the Capital Outlay Funding (7.48) of the new Library/Learning Resource Center (L/LRC) and the
Humanities Building remodel for efficiency. Next
in the queue are Final Project Proposals for the Fine
Arts Building (7.22) and Science, Engineering & Math
building (7.23) remodels for efficiency.
Self Evaluation
The existing plans and procedures are effectively supporting the facilities improvements. The needs will always exceed the funds, and this is where the planning
process helps.
The campus has recently completed several new construction projects that were designed by several different
architectural and engineering firms. Although the College established standards (7.14) as the initial projects
were started, these different firms did not always follow
them. For example, the Telecommunication Standard,
which can be found in the District Standards, (7.14)
was not followed, and soon after the staff moved in,
there were needs for additional phone and data lines
that would have been in place if the set standards (7.14)
had been followed. The College had to absorb most
of the cost using its operation’s budget. The most significant impact was on the time and material it took
to get the work completed after the walls and ceiling
had been closed. What could have cost $3,000 in material to add what was required by the District Standards
cost five times that amount. The maintenance staff
and budgets were negatively impacted. Many of the
campus divisions and departments suffered the consequences with diminished and delayed services that the
Maintenance and Operations Department was able to
provide during that time.
To date, the College is still experiencing difficulties in
meeting certain requests. For example, the Student
Center originally had an office that was set up for one
Cypress College
staff member. Because the Telecommunication Standards were not followed, there are not enough data and
phone jacks on the walls to support two work stations.
Work will need to be done to pull new wires through
the wall and ceiling across the building in order to provide the lines requested for the second work station.
The cost associated with this request will need to be
funded from the College’s general fund.
Due to the lengthy approval process for Capital Outlay Funding (7.48), a project’s needs may change from
its original scope of needs. It is difficult to change the
scope of work on a state funded project after the Final
Project Proposal has been submitted. Any change in
scope could jeopardize approved funding. Because of
this fact, the College endeavors to submit construction
concepts that are well thought out and in accord with
identified need, understanding that as time passes from
the date of plan development to the date of project
completion, the fit of the project with College needs
may be compromised to a greater or lesser degree.
Planning Agenda
None.
2.b. Physical resource planning is integrated
with institutional planning. The institution
systematically assesses the effective use of
physical resources and uses the results of the
evaluation as the basis for improvement.
Descriptive Summary
All allocations for facilities modification and expansion, including general upkeep and major repairs, are
processed through the College Planning and Budget
Committee (7.35). The committee relies upon approved College planning documents to determine the
appropriateness of requests for facilities funding support submitted by the various College programs. The
committee assesses, evaluates, and recommends funding for the submitted projects to the President’s Advisory Cabinet for those projects deemed appropriate
and in accord with established plans. The agenda for
planned and approved facilities improvements derives
from this process.
great autonomy with respect to internal budgets, including local cash allocations and grant funding, they
are expected to act in accord with established planning
agendas and to obtain appropriate authorizations prior
to proceeding with significant expenditures.
Self Evaluation
The existing process allows the institution to allocate
funds to meet the needs that support the College’s established plans and goals in an effective and timely
manner. The collaborative participation of various
constituencies in the process, and their individual participation, allows for the list of funded priorities to be
developed and approved at the different levels, e.g.,
departmental, divisional, Planning and Budget (7.35),
Management Team (7.31), the President’s Staff, and
President’s Advisory Cabinet (7.36).
Data and comments returned every other year from
the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI)
Survey (7.32) and the Classified Needs Assessment Survey (7.10) help the campus to prioritize allocation of
physical resources. Strengths cited as areas of high importance and satisfaction in the 2009 SSI (7.32) included that, on the whole, the campus is well-maintained,
is safe and secure for all students, and is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Two ongoing areas
of low satisfaction were cited as being substandard
restroom sanitary conditions and inadequate parking
space (7.32). After in-depth surveys of use conducted by
Maintenance and Facilities staff in collaboration with
the College’s Campus Safety Department, the parking issue was substantially addressed via a regularlyapproved funding proposal to significantly improve, expand, and reallocate student and staff parking spaces.
This reallocation should significantly address concerns
over parking expressed in the Campus Climate Survey.
The institution does the best it can with available resources. Students are served and faculty and staff are
provided with the tools and equipment needed to perform their jobs.
Planning Agenda
None.
College divisions and programs have great latitude in
utilizing internal funding sources to address identified
physical resource needs. Though the programs have
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
195
Reference Documents
7.28
Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP)
7.1
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
7.29
Initial Project Proposal (IPP) for Tech I
7.2
Agreement for Clinical Programs in Health Science
7.30Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED)
7.3Annual Fall Report — Institutional Research and
Planning — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/rreports.aspx
7.4
Air Quality Management District (AQMD)
7.5
Bond and Remodel for Efficiency Projects List
7.6Campus Climate Survey ­— www.cypresscollege.
edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/rsurveys.aspx
7.7Campus Master Plan — www.cypresscollege.edu/
about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspx
7.8Campus Support Services Quality Review — www.
cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/ProgramReview
7.31
Management Team Meeting information
7.32Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory — www.
cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/
rsurveys.aspx
7.33One-time Funding Process — documents and priority list — J:\Planning & Budget Committee
7.34Occupational Health and Safety Administration
(OSHA)
7.35Planning & Budget Committee information — J:\
Planning & Budget Committee
7.36President’s Advisory Cabinet — J:\President’s Advisory Cabinet
7.9
Centralized Scheduling Samples
7.10
Classified Needs Assessment Survey
7.37Program Review guidelines — J:\Program Review
and Department Planning
7.11
Computer Replacement rotation schedule
7.38
Safety Audits
7.12
District Inspections and Evaluations Records
7.39
Safety Committee meeting minutes
7.13
District Purchasing Handbook
7.40
Scheduled Maintenance Plan
7.14
District Standards
7.41
Space Inventory Report
7.15
Department of State Architecture (DSA)
7.42
Space Utilization Report
7.16Educational Master Plan — www.cypresscollege.
edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspx
7.17
Emergency Action Plan
7.18
Emergency Drills
7.19
Facilities Master Plan
7.20
Fire Authority Inspections
7.21
Five-Year Construction Plan
7.22
Final Project Proposal (FPP) for Fine Arts
7.23
Final Project Proposal (FPP) for Science/Math
7.24
Health Department Inspections
7.25
Health Science Accreditation Document
7.26
Incident Command Post
7.43Strategic Plan, 2008 - 2011 — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.
aspx
7.44
Student Enrollment Capacity Load Ratios
7.45Technology Committee information — J:\Campus
Technology Committee
7.46Technology Plan — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/
InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspx
7.47
Telecommunication Infrastructure Requirements
7.48
Capital Outlay Funding
7.49
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
7.50Emergency Funding Request — J:\Planning & Budget Committee
7.27Institutional Effectiveness Report — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/rreports.
aspx
196
Cypress College
Standard IIIC: Technology
Resources
Technology resources are used to support student learning programs and services and to
improve institutional effectiveness. Technology planning is integrated with institutional
planning.
1. The institution assures that any technology support it provides is designed to meet
the needs of learning, teaching, college-wide
communications, research, and operational
systems.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College recognizes the importance of instructional and operational technology in the success of the
educational mission of the College. Technology planning is purposefully integrated with Cypress College
institutional planning in order to enable and encourage a wide and varied use of technology to support
student learning programs and services as well as to
improve institutional effectiveness. Technology is integrated through all five of the College’s Strategic Plan
directions (8.3).
Technology planning serves as a guide for the day-today operations, educational mission, and strategic initiatives of the College and is a key component in creating a dynamic environment for the use of information
technology.
The Cypress College Technology Plan (8.1) provides a
thoughtful and measured vision for how information
technology is to be developed, used, and applied at the
College over the next three years. The plan functions
with the understanding that Cypress College is a multidisciplined institution with an emphasis in distinct academic and career-oriented divisions: Business & CIS,
Health Science, Fine Arts, Language Arts, Social Science, Physical Education, Career Technical Education
& Economic Development, and Science, Engineering
& Mathematics. A practical approach is taken in balancing the need for information technology security
with the need for flexible access of academic groups
and operational areas. The plan also considers the importance of effective access to the College’s infrastructure and information assets from anywhere and at any
time.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Of significant value — though not addressed in the
Technology Plan — is the commitment of Cypress
College’s Academic Computing Staff to providing the
college community with the technology resources and
training necessary to thrive in this dynamic environment. Academic Computing staff members are quick
to respond and resolve issues. They routinely evaluate new technologies and are purposeful in deploying
them. Most importantly, they are focused on providing
proactive solutions for the needs of the College and the
college community. Members of Academic Computing are committed to doing their jobs efficiently, costeffectively, and with a positive attitude.
The Academic Computing Staff of nine currently includes:
◊
1 Manager, Systems Technology Services
(Interim)
◊
1 Administrative Assistant II
◊
2 PC Technicians: Responsible for
1600+ computers on campus
◊
1 User Support Analyst: Responsible for
Helpdesk functions and email services
◊
2 Applications Support
•1 responsible for the campus website
and web based program development
•1 responsible for Virtual Servers and
program development
◊
2 IT Services Coordinators
•1 responsible for the Network, Infrastructure, and security appliances
197
•1 responsible for “after hours” support of the Network, Infrastructure,
and classroom technology
The Academic Computing staff develops and promotes new instructional support technology and maintains current systems across campus. Considering the
amount of equipment deployment in use (which expands each semester), staffing is lean for the number
of computers and programs being served. Current
computer and multimedia equipment supported by the
Academic Computing Staff consists of:
◊
1619 computer systems (PC and MAC)
◊
24 Physical file servers
◊
45 Virtual file servers
◊
38 Computer labs
◊
6 Computer classrooms
◊
103 Instructional station classrooms
◊
~70 Smart technology classrooms
To aid staff members charged with daily maintenance
and support, the College has been making its classrooms “smarter,” easier to use, and standardized across
campus. Standardization of multimedia equipment
(i.e. projectors, DVD/VCR players, and classroom
computers and the addition of enterprise control systems) makes it possible to maintain, monitor, and operate systems remotely. Remote control of systems as
well as providing instructors with more user-friendly
tools to operate classroom multimedia has improved
troubleshooting and instructor support.
It should be noted that there is very little overlap of
skill sets in support of the systems. However, every staff
member continues to help one another when needed.
Because of this, the Academic Computing staff have a
close relationship with faculty. Staff are welcomed to
conduct classroom observations to better understand
faculty and student needs. This information gathering
is crucial in matching the right technology for each instructional situation.
Vendors also play a crucial role bringing their experiences with other educational institutions for evaluation in the College’s own environment. Additionally,
Academic Computing staff work very closely with the
campus Facilities Department in coordinating projects
and ultimately providing complete systems. Technol198
ogy support and meeting the needs of learning, teaching, college-wide communications, research, and operational systems is truly a team effort and has been
proven to be successful for all involved.
The department continues to offer training for Groupwise (email), web editor, and CITRIX systems throughout the semester at various times to better facilitate staff
and full-time and part-time faculty using these systems.
The Academic Computing Department utilizes an inhouse web application to register faculty and staff in
these classes.
The Cypress College educational mission is supported
by campus technology through Academic Computing,
by District technology through NOCCCD Information Services, and by technological resources available
through the State Chancellor’s Office.
As an institution, the College employs various instruments to determine ongoing and future technological needs. More specifically, the College’s Technology
Plan, Strategic Plan, Student Services Master Plan, and
Educational Master Plan guide the technology needs
of the campus. New technology is generally driven by
instructional needs as defined by the College in the following plans.
Campus Plans
The Cypress College Education Master Plan (8.2) and
the Cypress College Strategic Plan (8.3) are the guiding plans for the campus. An organizational chart of
the College Strategic Plan illustrates how the campus
planning committees work with one another and drive
campus decisions. Identifying technology needs plays
a key role in most of the Strategic Plan — and specifically in Directions 1 and 3 (8.3).
Each campus division develops its own plan, included
in the College’s Educational Master Plan, which has a
technology component driven by internal assessments,
curriculum, and student learning outcomes (SLOs). For
example, the Business & CIS division has an advisory
committee composed of community members and instructors who are experts in their respective fields of
technology. Through this partnership, they assist in developing curriculum and identifying the lab equipment
needed to train students in the latest technologies.
The budget to support technology on an ongoing basis per the College’s Technology Plan is allocated by
Cypress College
the campus. There are additional needs at the campus
that are supported from a variety of sources. Any identified needs are brought to the attention of Planning
and Budget Committee. The committee evaluates the
importance as well as urgency of the need and tries to
identify potential sources of funding. Needs of this nature are funded from grant money or carryover funds.
In either case, the process involves need evaluation,
implementation planning, and approval from the Planning and Budget Committee.
Technology needs also play a significant role in the
Cypress College Student Services Master Plan (8.4).
Each of the subsections within this plan has a technology section identifying technological needs necessary
to providing services to students.
Academic Computing Operational Plans
Academic Computing prepares the College Technology Plan (8.5) in consultation with the Cypress College
Campus Technology Committee.
Academic Computing operational support procedures
are implemented to identify and support the computing needs across campus. PC Computers receive full
hardware and software support including the Windows
operating system and base software imaging. The campus-based software image includes virus protection, the
Microsoft Office suite, the necessary clients for Novell,
and Internet access.
Apple Computer hardware systems are also fully supported. However, Apple software receives limited support. Academic Computing makes a “best effort” attempt to resolve issues and/or facilitate repairs through
a third-party vendor.
The Campus Technology Committee (CTC) &
the Technology Plan
The Campus Technology Committee (CTC) (8.5) is a
shared-governance committee that reports to Planning
and Budget with recommendations on the direction of
technology on campus. This committee is a forum for
addressing technology needs across the campus. Issues
addressed by the CTC include maintenance, usage,
and ongoing support policies and procedures.
CTC is responsible for the annual review and for the
implementation of the objectives defined in the Campus Technology Plan (8.1), which is submitted to the
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Planning and Budget Committee, all relevant campus constituent groups, and finally to the President’s
Advisory Cabinet for approval. The Technology Plan
encompasses the Computer Replacement Schedule
(8.14), which, in conjunction with the physical inventory maintained by the Academic Computing Staff,
ensures that campus computers are on a 3 to 5 year
replacement cycle. The campus has committed annual one-time funding to this project with instructional
computers having top priority. While the Computer
Replacement Schedule is not a formal plan, Academic
Computing does evaluate the systems up for replacement and develops a working plan with a strategy to
leverage the College’s current investment and ultimately extending the usable life of the equipment in question. The Computer Replacement Schedule is created
with consideration for current system usage, pending
software upgrades and requirements, and necessary
upgrades to systems. Using this schedule, the oldest
computers are cycled out to surplus, stripped for spare
parts, and in many cases, replaced with newer models.
Self Evaluation
Technology effectiveness and use is measured both
quantitatively and qualitatively. The Institutional Research Office helps to direct a campus-wide Program
and Quality Review. Program Review allows for individual departments and programs to evaluate their
needs including technology planning. It is the responsibility of each department or program to address its
technology planning needs by seeking funding and approvals through the campus Planning and Budget process. Academic Computing provides consulting and
specification recommendations for technology purchases as well as subsequent technology support.
The Campus Services Quality Review Satisfaction
Survey (8.6) performed during the Spring 2010 semester provided useful survey information about Academic Computing services. The survey results showed
overall satisfaction in the quality and level of service
and support provided by Academic Computing. The
survey results indicated that, “Each core area was rated as favorable 84% of the time or greater.” Most respondents indicated that they were satisfied with the
“overall quality of service” (92%). In addition, students
indicated that they were most satisfied with “staff helpfulness” with a satisfaction rating of 96%.” (8.6, p.1)
199
A customer satisfaction survey (8.7) is offered electronically upon closure of every Trouble Log System ticket.
Since the beginning of 2009, the Trouble Log surveys
have been overwhelmingly positive. Two IT Technicians are responsible for over 1,600 computers on
campus, and that number continues to grow each year.
While the number of servers and desktop computers
increases, the staff supporting those systems continues
to remain static in number.
Technology use is monitored through the interactions
between Academic Computing and campus faculty and
staff. Faculty and Academic Computing staff members
work together to evaluate the needs of each instructional lab and determine a strategy to allow the labs to
efficiently support instruction for the next 3 years.
New technology is also funded and evaluated through
federal, state, and community business partnerships
such as the Perkins grant (8.8), which provides federal
funding to improve Career Technical Education programs.
Planning Agenda
None.
1.a. Technology services, professional support, facilities, hardware, and software are
designed to enhance the operation and effectiveness of the institution.
Descriptive Summary
Support for Overall Campus Functions
The Technology Plan is used to support decisions
made at all levels at Cypress College. Generally, total
cost of ownership is a determining factor in technology
decision making including costs for adoption, maintenance, support, replacement, licensing, and knowledge
base costs.
Academic Computing staff members also rely upon
the experiences of their peers at other campuses and
institutions across the state. Vendors play a key role in
delivering new and emerging technology information
by way of trade shows, webinars, personal visits, and
equipment demonstrations. Gartner Group Research
(8.9) is also available to help guide the direction the
College takes in its choices of available technology.
200
Decisions regarding technology services, facilities,
hardware, and software that require or could potentially require shared use districtwide are generally
brought to the weekly District Technology Roundtable
(DTR) (8.11) meeting. The IT Directors from Cypress
College, Fullerton College, NOCCCD Information
Services, (Anaheim campus), and the School of Continuing Education share ideas and determine whether
to proceed collectively or at the campus level only. This
committee meets weekly by conference call and once
a month face to face to provide a forum for existing
and potential vendors. DTR’s role is to collaborate on
projects, share resources (Gartner Group Research)
and ideas, and develop policy and standards where
applicable. Some of the collaborative projects include
Microsoft Agreement, Maintenance Contract review,
Credit Card Processing, and an Emergency Notification System. A complete list of ongoing and potential
projects is identified as “DTR Collaborative Projects”
(8.15).
Academic Computing is charged with managing the
campus technology resources. Academic Computing
uses many forums of information and collaboration
available from varying sources in choices for meeting
technology needs from the Wide Area Network to the
classroom. The College decision-making process at the
institutional level encompasses collaboratively created
planning documents, standing committees, and ad hoc
committees that oversee the planning for technology
services, facilities, hardware, and software.
Support for Distance Education
The Cypress College Distance Education Program
(DE) manages online and hybrid distance education
course offerings. Selective DE resources are managed
separately but in consultation with Academic Computing. Examples of available resources are Groupwise,
Webmail, Web Editor, and Turnitin.com. Decisions regarding Distance Education technology resources are
based on the goals and outcomes found in the DE Plan
(8.10).
Distance Education faculty members are served by the
campus technology services available to all faculty and
staff. These services include access to the Academic
Computing Help Desk for any of their computing
needs and access to the College website, which hosts
the Distance Education site and individual faculty
Cypress College
home pages. Distance Education is also serving as a
pilot group for the development of a Virtual Desktop
Interface (VDI) and ThinApp from VMWare. These
services will allow Distance Education faculty to access
a broader range of applications and files for themselves
and their students and save the program and the College software licensing costs. In the future, VDI may
ultimately be offered campuswide.
The only official course management system for Cypress College Distance Education is Blackboard.com,
version 9.1. The NOCCCD Information Services supports Distance Education technology at Cypress College with consultation services and automatic course
management system enrollments (Snapshot) support
between BANNER and Blackboard.
Distance Education also contracts for Integration Customization Maintenance Support (ICM). ICM is an
annual subscription-based upgrade maintenance program contracted specifically for Snapshot™. ICM provides coverage for data integration, including the use
of existing integration tools, scheduled upgrade maintenance events, and troubleshooting in the event of unexpected behaviors. Blackboard Inc. advertises 99.7%
uptime and safeguards against threats to physical and
data security, natural disasters, and network outages of
any kind.
Academic Computing also provides additional storage
support for Distance Education by using “EduStream”
and providing on-campus storage services for DE training delivery. EduStream is a proprietary web service
and web access portal created and maintained by the
San Bernardino Community College District under
grant funding by the California Community College
Chancellor’s Office.
Web-enhanced courses are not Distance Education
courses and while they provide virtual resources online, no instruction takes place separated at a distance.
District Information Services hosts the Luminis web
portal called myGateway (8.22), which includes course
support features designed for web-enhanced courses.
Each course home page includes announcements, basic threaded discussions, limited link creation, file, and
image upload. Faculty members also have the option
of choosing Blackboard as a web-enhanced delivery
tool.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Self Evaluation
The campus Technology Plan is serving the campus
well in its current format in addition to being updated
for continued use across campus. By collaborating with
District Technology Roundtable (DTR) team members, the College has also realized monetary savings
combining hardware and software purchases where
possible, renegotiating Service Level Agreements (SLA)
for existing maintenance contracts for both hardware
and software, and working closer together addressing
issues beneficial to all campuses. The Distance Education program continues to grow in course offerings
and attendance and has successfully completed a major software upgrade. Finally, Academic Computing
continues to grow its current deployment and knowledge base of Virtual Desktop Interface (VDI) systems
including ThinApp applications for use across campus
as an alternative to purchasing or replacing computers.
Planning Agenda
None.
1.b. The institution provides quality training
in the effective application of its information
technology to students and personnel.
Descriptive Summary
Development and creation of a training plan is part of
any campus hardware or software adoption impacting
college personnel. Student training is limited to access
to the wireless Internet.
Training for students is a campus-wide responsibility.
Academic Computing provides wireless access training
to staff and lab managers who, in turn, train students.
Library faculty and staff provide instruction in the use
of technological resources related to research and library use. The Learning Resource Center (LRC) coordinator and other staff members provide orientations
for classes at the start of the semester and one-on-one
help as needed with the technology on the open floor.
The College’s instructional designer trains LRC staff
to help online students with the course management
system. A Reading Department faculty member ensures student competence in assisting students with
Plato instructional software (8.24). Instructors and lab
assistants train students on course-specific applications.
Distance Education provides instructor training on
201
how to set up student orientation materials and offers
support through the Distance Education Office for the
course management system.
Academic Computing provides faculty and staff training for all Enterprise, Office Productivity, and classroom technology systems. Additional training and
support for classroom technology is offered by Staff
Development and the Instructional Design Office (Appendix A).
With the exception of myGateway, Academic Computing provides primary support for the systems defined
below. myGateway receives primary support from
District IT staff, and Cypress Academic Computing
provides secondary support as needed. However, questions regarding myGateway generally filter through the
Cypress College Helpdesk and are answered without
escalating to District Helpdesk.
Enterprise Systems
◊
myGateway: Staff Development provides
support and training
◊
Remote Access to Administrative systems: Individualized training for Citrix
◊
Videoconferencing and Teleconferencing: Individualized training
◊
Wireless Access: Training provided to
staff and lab managers
◊
Campus Website: Academic Computing oversees Datatel web management
system user accounts; the Instructional
Designer provides training for staff and
faculty home page, department accounts,
and special program Web Editor Accounts; support is offered through both
the Instructional Design office and the
Academic Computing Help Desk.
◊
Campus Surveillance: Individual training and support
Office Productivity
202
◊
Groupwise Email: group and individual
training and support
◊
Personal Computing: application specific
group and individual training and support for Microsoft Office and Windows
OS
◊
Shared Storage: group and individual
training and support for network drives
Classroom Technology
◊
Smart Classroom: group and individual
training and support
◊
Technology Carts: group and individual
training and support
◊
Course Management System: Distance
Education provides faculty training and
support
◊
TracDat: SLO Coordinator, the SLO Facilitator, and the Instructional Designer
provides group and individual training
and support.
Self Evaluation
The Campus Services Quality Review Satisfaction
Survey (8.6) performed during the Spring 2010 semester provided useful survey information about Academic Computing services. The purpose of the survey was
to collect employee opinions about academic computing at Cypress College. The goal was to improve the
quality of services provided by this area. A total of 235
responses were collected through an online survey distributed through campus email to all employees.
Employees were then asked to rate academic computing on eleven measures of quality, including one
measure of overall satisfaction, as well as two open
ended questions asking for feedback about what was
most helpful and what else could be done to help. The
valid percent for “Excellent” and “Good” were combined to obtain a composite score of the percentage
of favorable responses. Each core area was rated as
favorable 84% of the time or greater. The six core areas were hours of operation, response time, clarity of
procedures, usefulness of materials, staff helpfulness,
and staff knowledge. Most respondents indicated that
they were satisfied with the “overall quality of service”
(92%). In addition, students indicated that they were
most satisfied with “staff helpfulness” with a satisfaction rating of 96%.
The survey also included four items that looked at satisfaction with various aspects of the area. With the
recent changes to the College website, 66% said it was
easy to find information on the web, and 73% said the
Cypress College
information from the website was useful. With the newly added position to cover needs after normal business
hours, over 77% of respondents said they were pleased
with that service. In addition, 89% of respondents said
the office has follow through on major technology projects. Overall, the quantitative measures and qualitative
comments indicated the high level of service provided
by Academic Computing is enjoyed and appreciated
by the users. There were suggestions to improve the
user-friendliness of the campus website.
End of Life information provided by manufacturers.
This information gives Academic Computing the ability to produce a three- to five-year replacement schedule to help inform the campus Planning and Budget
Committee of future expenditures. Since 2009, all District sites have been working together to review of software purchases to bring those purchases and annual
maintenance costs under one contract when feasible.
Cypress College Academic Computing continues to
work with the Campus Technology Committee (CTC)
and the Campus Technology Plan in providing equipment, service, and support in addition to providing
recommendations to the Planning and Budget Committee to fund future technology upgrades. It continues to update its three- to five-year technology planning documents for network infrastructure equipment
replacement and work closer with faculty and staff
in analyzing its current PC Replacement Plan needs.
Additionally, it continues to look for ways to support
technology on campus remotely and by providing additional training to staff and faculty as requested and
necessary.
Academic Computing manages the campus systems
on a daily basis. Some systems require hourly maintenance and/or monitoring to run at peak performance.
Early warning systems for the critical Network Operations Center battery backup system and HVAC systems are in place with text messaging and email status reports sent to staff mobile phones. Maintenance
is accomplished both in-house and through outside
vendors. Operational Maintenance is administered by
Academic Computing staff and backed up by Service
Level Agreements from third-party vendors. Hardware
support is administered by third-party Service Level
Agreements generally encompassing 24-hour service
five days a week.
Planning Agenda
None.
1.c. The institution systematically plans, acquires, maintains, and upgrades or replaces
technology infrastructure and equipment to
meet institutional needs.
Descriptive Summary
Academic Computing routinely tracks annual maintenance and life expectancy of its Enterprise network
infrastructure equipment. It takes advantage of savings
in annual maintenance costs through equipment standardization under one district-wide contract. The campus Computer Replacement Schedule assumes a threeto five-year life cycle. However, in 2010 the College is
in the second year of making a more detailed analysis
of computers up for replacement in an effort to leverage current investment and deployment. Instructional
systems are top priority in those decisions. Academic
Computing maintains a listing of its Enterprise infrastructure equipment similar to the Computer Replacement Schedule (8.14) that includes End of Service and
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Self Evaluation
Maintenance contracts and expenditures are monitored and reviewed by Academic Computing in March
of each year to plan for each new fiscal year. All Cisco
Networking equipment maintenance is contracted under one contract for the entire District.
Physical Infrastructure
The Cypress College Physical Infrastructure was built
to Sumitomo and Systimax manufacturer’s specifications with full manufacturer warranty (20 year) standards to address any related issues.
Server Technology
Campus server technology includes the following applications to monitor and manage the various systems
used to support the campus community needs.
◊
VMware View: Managed from the view
desktop manager and has built-in responses for memory, CPU and storage
alerts
◊
Vcenter: Monitors and alerts to identify
problems with the ESX environment
203
supporting the bulk of the College’s
server farm
◊
services to campus network users.
◊
Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS): All
Critical Campus systems and devices are
physically connected to Enterprise UPS.
In the event of power fluctuation or a
complete campus-wide power failure,
critical components will roll to an onsite
UPS and continue to operate normally
for approximately 90 minutes. Once the
UPS is exhausted, a generator will be
used to continue operations on a continuous basis until power is restored.
◊
District Backup: Cypress College is also
directly connected to the District Information Systems. The District IT Systems
also have battery backup (UPS) systems
in addition to being directly connected to
their site generator.
Windows 2008 server: Provides built-in
support used to manage and identify issues with user logins
Network Infrastructure
The Cisco Electronics supporting the College logical
infrastructure are kept under continuous maintenance
agreements, which entitle the College to software updates and support. Each of the 37 data rooms on campus is physically cleaned on a rotational basis to maintain an optimum environment in an effort to maximize
equipment life.
Academic Computing upgrades technologies and explores new technologies to keep a high degree of automatic redundancy for services offered on and off campus.
204
◊
◊
2008 Server: The 2008 server supports
file replication and a domain base distributer file system providing real time
file redundancy spread across 2 to 4 servers depending on the critical nature of
the files.
In Summer 2010, AVAMAR replaced
tape backup with real time redundant
disk backup.
◊
Dell M100E: A blade chassis that offers
triple power redundancy, quad network
redundancy dual SAN redundancy and
up to 16 redundant blades. The MDF
also has the ability to be hooked up to
an external generator to provide power
to the core system if the outage will last
more than the 90 minutes of inline battery backup that is currently in place.
Electrical plans are in the process of being drawn to permanently connect one
of the campus generators to the MDF
electrical panel for emergence power.
◊
Cypress College Logical infrastructure:
Designed to provide logical redundancy
to each building on campus. The design
principles employed have built-in redundancy, which allows for a single Core
Switch to fail and still provide continuous
Planning Agenda
None.
1.d. The distribution and utilization of technology resources support the development,
maintenance, and enhancement of its programs and services.
Descriptive Summary
The Campus Technology Committee (8.5) is comprised of representatives from faculty, management,
students, and staff. The committee meets monthly to
coordinate the technology needs of the campus with
the goals of the Cypress College Educational Master
Plan (8.2), Strategic Plan (8.3), the Campus Technology Plan (8.1), and the Student Services Master Plan
(8.4). The Academic Computing Department gathers
input from the Campus Technology Committee as well
as information, needs, and concerns from members/
groups of the campus community in order to promote
effective and efficient use of technology and develop
technological partnerships among campus programs
and departments. Examples of this type of information
gathering and collaboration would include recent projects for classrooms in the Humanities building. When
funding was made available to remodel the Humanities
building, Academic Computing met with members of
the faculty to upgrade the technology carts used in the
Cypress College
classrooms. This effort also included a visit to a neighboring community college before final decisions were
made in purchasing equipment. Once the needs were
identified, an equipment list developed, and cart placement finalized, the project was incorporated into the
building project’s plans. Prior to the building opening
for classes, training sessions were developed and made
available to faculty in addition to hard-copy documentation placed with each technology cart in all 48 classrooms.
Another key addition to the new building was a need
to develop computerized classrooms, three in total.
Due to the number of computer workstations needed
in conjunction with limited table space in each of the
three rooms, a collaborative decision was made between Academic Computing, the division dean, and
faculty teaching in these rooms to use Virtural Desktop
Interface (VDI) technology. One of the main concerns
for this project was trying to identify a system that
would allow for optimum table space for students to
complete assignments alone and in collaboration with
one another. Basic Skills Grant monies were sought after and subsequently awarded to the division to complete the project, and all three classrooms are being
fully utilized. These are just two examples of the kind
of thought processes and collaboration that takes place
to provide faculty and students the best possible solutions to enhance the teaching and learning experience
at Cypress College.
Portions of grant monies are also used to upgrade technology in classrooms and labs. As newer systems are
purchased and integrated, they become the new standard for many divisions across campus to use in classrooms.
data security in addition to Payment Card Industry/
Data Security Standards (PCI/DSS) for the handling
of credit card transactions across campus. Data and
systems security are also a district-wide function as illustrated in the District Technology Roundtable (DTR)
Collaborative Projects List (8.15). NOCCCD is also
developing a District standard for information security
specific to the campuses and District Enterprise System
(8.22). Security of both the campus and wide-area network infrastructures are randomly tested on an annual
basis and consistently receive a “B” rating for network
security, which is a satisfactory rating for system/infrastructure/network security to prohibiting threats or attacks to its data network.
The following Security devices are deployed on the Cypress College Campus Network.
◊
Firewall ASA 5550: Network edge
Enterprise firewall is used to protect the
campus from malicious attacks from outside Internet sources. Common attacks
would include Denial of Service and
Port Scan attacks.
◊
SCM 3200 Appliance: The Network
Edge email scanning appliance. This appliance is used to scan all inbound email
for viruses, SPAM and phishing signatures and quarantine this traffic based on
policy prior to being delivered to a user
mail box. This policy is designed to stop
the propagation of malicious traffic that
may be undetected by the end user.
◊
Safeconnect NAC: This appliance is
used for Network Access Control of
Campus wireless network users. The Appliance enforces the posture of a wireless device prior to the device gaining
access to the campus network. The level
of security is based on policy defined by
administrators. The policy includes Os
patch level, virus and spyware definitions, and music sharing and download
policy.
◊
Bluecoat Packet Shaper: This appliance
is used to manage network bandwidth
and network protocols. The appliance is
also used to identify and ultimately stop
malicious traffic that may have infected
Self Evaluation
On a daily basis, Cypress College employs the tools and
applications necessary to ensure the security and integrity of the campus network and infrastructure. These
appliances and applications are essential to network
administrators to aid in ensuring a secure network environment for staff and student user communities in
an ongoing effort to prevent data loss in addition to
malicious attacks against network services. A high level
of human intervention is involved in securing a network from malicious attack. As an educational institution, the College operates under FERPA Guidelines for
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
205
◊
◊
staff or student workstations.
◊
McAfee Desktop Suite: Application
resides locally on all campus workstations scanning for viruses and malicious
applications that may embed themselves
on campus workstations.
Learning Center Lab: Component of
the Learning Resource Center in the
LLRC
◊
Writing and Reading Lab: Component
of the Learning Resource Center in the
LLRC
◊
Computer Applications and Office Technology Labs: Business & CIS division
◊
Disabled Students Program and Services
classroom: DSPS
◊
Photography Lab: Technical Education
II
◊
Computer Graphics Lab: Fine Arts
building
◊
Distance Learning Lab: Component of
the Learning Resource Center in the
LLRC, not associated with Distance
Education
◊
Math Lab: Component of the Learning
Resource Center in the LLRC
Cisco Access Control Server: Used by
Academic Computing to manage Secure
Access to all campus network switches,
routers and access points. The function
of this server is to prevent unauthorized
access to network devices. The ability
of the application to log all attempts to
access these devices provides insight to
administrators regarding the presence of
potential intruders.
Additional Security Features
1.
Virus Protection: Anti-Virus software is
part of the standard software package
on College computers and configured to
update on a daily basis.
2.
Password Protection: All computer accounts must have a password.
3.
Network Segregation: The network is
divided into two parts: an administrative/ staff area and a student area. Only
the administrative/staff area has access
to the College’s Banner system.
4.
Server Backup: All Enterprise servers are
backed up on a regular basis
5.
Spam Filters: Academic Computing implemented anti-spam/anti-virus software
for its Groupwise email system and to
monitor network traffic.
6.
Software Updates: The Groupwise email
system was upgraded in January 2010
to the latest version to make the system
more robust.
Computer labs and/or stations are available throughout the College to support teaching and learning and
student services. Software in these labs is generally updated at the beginning of each academic year so that
students have access to the most up-to-date software
the campus can deploy and support.
206
Students also have access to computers in various
campus locations to access Internet services and College services; more specifically, in the Student Services
building, Admissions and Records for online registration, the Career and Transfer Centers, and the Student
Activity Center.
The campus infrastructures are designed and built
based upon the District’s Telecommunications Standards (8.16). All cabling is designed and built holding
a 15- to 20-year warranty in performance and workmanship. Any new construction or additional work
must follow these standards and warranties. The College is on its third revision of the District Telecommunications Standards (8.17) document, which serves as a
planning guide for architects working with the District
to improve current facilities and create new facilities
as funding becomes available. Needs for renovated or
new buildings are assessed to assure that the College
provides the technology best suited for the learning environment. This has resulted in new smart classrooms
that have “plug and play” computer systems for the
instructors to use. These classrooms also have ceilingmounted projectors, sound systems, Internet connection, DVD and video capabilities, and document cameras.
Cypress College
The College provides both computer equipment and
servers in support of Distance Education courses. Distance Education faculty are assigned computers, either
desktops or laptops, to support their courses. These
computers were upgraded in the Desktop Rollout replacement. The Desktop Rollout Project provided a
computer to all full-time faculty and access to shared
computers for part-time faculty.
The College provides computer equipment (PCs) to
each full-time faculty member’s office. Laptops are also
made available to faculty each semester for checkout.
Adjunct faculty have a workroom for use on campus
that includes PCs and printers. The campus PC Replacement Plan allows for a number of these systems
to be upgraded as newer systems are purchased for instructional labs. The older systems are identified and
replaced on a “First In-First Out” method.
Planning Agenda
None.
2. Technology planning is integrated with institutional planning. The institution systematically assesses the effective use of technology
resources and uses the results of evaluation as
the basis for improvement.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College is nearing the end of a construction
cycle spurred by passage of a local bond measure in
2002 (8.23). The decisions made during this recent renovation and expansion of the campus emanated from
planning a process that solicited input and collaboration from all impacted parties. For each construction
project, the employees who would occupy the space
were interviewed by the project planners. Likewise, the
project planning and implementation included technology representation from both the campus and district level. Decisions were also made using information
from the previous Educational Master Plan (8.2).
Cypress College Academic Computing area is reviewed as part of the Campus Support Services area.
These services completed a Quality Review in 2004,
2007, and 2010. Such comprehensive reviews include
utilization of a Campus Services Quality Review Satisfaction Survey (8.6). There are a number of additional
methods utilized to determine that technology needs in
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
program and service areas are met beyond the results
of the Cycle of Quality Review. The College’s Campus
Technology Committee follows a shared-governance
model, with representation from across all constituencies. This group provides guidance and feedback on
the utilization of technology and the needs of the campus. Along with employee and student involvement,
there are a number of campus documents that address
the technology needs of the College. Such documents
include the Technology Plan (8.1), the Distance Education Plan (8.10), the Institutional Effectiveness Report
(8.19), the Student Services Master Plan (8.4), the Facilities Plan (8.20), the Strategic Plan for 2008-2011(8.3),
the Educational Master Plan (8.2) and the Basic Skills
Action Plans (8.21).
The prioritization of technology needs occurs on a
number of levels. Individual programs and departments are permitted to make technology purchases
within budget allocations while working in conjunction with Academic Computing. However, the primary
method involves the campus-wide “one-time” budget
process, through the Planning and Budget Committee. This process provides the framework for financial
resources for replacement hardware, technology, and
media. This funding has been given a high priority in
the past or has even been funded ahead of the process.
Generally funding is provided based on the Replacement Plan for that given year (8.25).
Self Evaluation
Technology has generally received a high priority, but
the competition for funding has increased while stateallocated resources have dwindled. The College is able
to meet its immediate and pressing technology needs
through creative solutions such as utilization of thin
clients and virtualization in order to meet the demands
of a growing desktop-computer replacement need on
campus.
The College and District can point to a number of successes in recent years as an indicator of effectiveness
in meeting the needs of the campus. Specific successes
include: the deployment of a new website, implementation of the myGateway student portal, expansion of
online-based education, deployment of a campus-wide
wireless network, implementation of a campus-wide
video system, installation of electronic marquees and
scoreboards, the opening of four new buildings and
207
the provision of technology needs in swing space during construction, installation of servers to facilitate a
virtual environment, and the design and deployment
of “smart classroom” technology and technology carts
across the campus.
8.12
Appendix A
8.14
Campus Computer Replacement Schedule
Academic Computing is also regarded across the college community as being a responsive group both in
terms of short-term, immediate computer-repair needs
and long-term, bigger picture issues. This feedback is
received via online surveys sent to campus email for
“trouble tickets” that have been completed (8.26). The
department is responsive to end user’s needs and questions. One such instance resulted in extending the campus video-monitoring system onto laptop computers
for use in the campus safety vehicles over the campus
wireless network.
8.16
sion
Planning Agenda
None.
8.15District Technology Roundtable Collaborative Projects List
District Telecommunications Standards, Third Revi-
8.17Learning Resource Center (LRC) Technology Resources
8.18Cypress College Climate Survey 2010 — www.
cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/
rsurveys.aspx
8.19Institutional Effectiveness Report — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/rreports.
aspx
8.20
Facilities Plan
8.21Basic Skills Action Plans — www.cypresscollege.
edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspx
8.22myGateway website — mygateway.nocccd.edu/cp/
home/loginf
Reference Documents
8.1Cypress College Technology Plan — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspx
8.2Cypress College Education Master Plan — www.
cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/
pdocuments.aspx
8.23
Measure X Bond passed for renovation projects
8.24Learning Resource Center (LRC) Technology Resources document
8.25
Replacement Plan
8.26
Online Survey Results
8.3Cypress College Strategic Plan, 2008-2011 —
www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspx
8.4Cypress College Student Services Master Plan,
2007-2014 — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspx
8.5
Campus Technology Committee
8.6Campus Services Quality Review Satisfaction Survey 2010 — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/rsurveys.aspx
8.7
Customer Satisfaction Survey
8.8
Perkins Grant
8.9
Gartner Group Research
8.10Cypress College Distance Education Plan — www.
cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/
pdocuments.aspx
8.11
208
Directors Technology Roundtable (DTR) Committee
Cypress College
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
209
Appendix
Chart for organizing information: IIIC 1.b What technology training does the institution provide to students and personnel? How does the institution ensure that the training and technical support it provides for faculty and staff are appropriate and effective? How effective is the training
provided?
210
Cypress College
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
211
212
Cypress College
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
213
214
Cypress College
Standard IIID: Financial
Resources
The success of the College is dependent on sound, prudent fiscal practices to support the Mission of the College. Through the past several years, Cypress has been
innovative in conserving its resources. In recent years,
the College has had to adapt in the face of reductions of State funding. This is evident by the positive
results of the external Financial and Compliance annual audits. The College community is well informed
regarding financial issues and Board actions that have
an impact on the operations and the ability to provide
quality education. Campus constituents are able to
provide feedback by various methods to assist with utilizing financial resources appropriately.
1. The institution relies upon its mission and
goals as the foundation for financial planning.
1.a. Financial planning is integrated with and
supports all institutional planning.
Descriptive Summary
The College’s financial planning and budget development processes reflect the vision, mission, core values,
priorities, and goals of the College. The Planning and
Budget Committee (PBC), a college-wide shared-governance committee, serves as the primary recommending body to the President’s Advisory Cabinet (PAC) on
general planning and budget issues for the campus and
conveys to PAC the views of the campus community
on matters relevant to both planning and budget for
the College. At the onset of each budget planning cycle, PBC reviews the mission and goals of the College
as part of the fiscal planning and preparation process.
PBC identifies goals and actions for campus-wide involvement. Priorities for annual planning and budgeting are established by measures of broad institutional
effectiveness and department or program goals established through cyclical quality review processes (9.1).
At the last accreditation cycle, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior College (ACCJC)
recommended that an Educational Master Plan (EMP)
be written. The College took steps to develop an EMP
to serve as the “foundational document” for the comprehensive planning process. The Educational Master Plan was completed and submitted to ACCJC on
October 15, 2006. The EMP, which covers a ten-year
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
period, is the umbrella for other College plans. Most
importantly, the EMP focuses the directions of the
Strategic Plan, which is the vehicle to guide short-term
and long-term decision making including resource allocation.
At each budget development cycle, the College sets
goals for achievement that include enrollment growth
targets, full-time faculty obligation, development of
new programs and business partnerships, facilities and
maintenance needs, contract commitments, and other
long-term commitments as evidenced in the Department Planning and Program Review for Instructional
and Student Support Services areas and Campus Support Services (9.2).
Every three years, Instructional Program Review allows faculty to evaluate how well a program is serving
students and how it is related to the mission of the institution. The instructional program review takes a critical look at the resources that have been allocated and
that are required to run a program successfully. After
an overall evaluation of the quantitative and qualitative data pertaining to a program, the Program Review
Committee prepares its report and ultimately the program review process is expected to make continuous
improvement to the quality of instruction offered to
students.
The following describes the College’s standard practice regarding one-time budget requests; however, in
response to the state budget crisis for 2009 and 2010,
the process was temporarily suspended. The Planning
and Budget Committee recommended in 2009 that in
light of the serious reduction in funds available from
the state, only critical-need items would be considered.
This mitigated the need for the work-intensive regular process. In consideration of this special circumstance, the Direction Committees were not required to
convene. For the 2010-2011 academic year, because
the state budget crisis had not been resolved, and in
consideration of the fact that the College’s Strategic
Plan objectives were nearly complete, the Planning and
Budget Committee recommended that the convening
of the Direction Committees should once again be deferred. Based upon the College’s current understanding of projections for the next budget cycle, it is anticipated that the standard practice will resume in 2011.
Each Spring, the campus-wide budget request process
is implemented. The One-Time budget request pro215
cess and timeline is distributed via an “allusers” email
in December. Step-by-step instructions are provided
to complete the necessary budget forms (9.3). Each of
the College’s eighteen Budget Units begins discussing
their individual program needs as addressed in their
program reviews and department goals. Faculty, staff,
budget managers, and administrators work together to
develop their budget requests and use a shared-governance process to select their top priorities to submit as
requests for funding (9.4). These requests must each
identify which one of the five Directions of the Strategic Plan it supports. All forms and instructions can be
easily accessed on the College’s J: drive.
By the deadline set forth in the timeline, each Budget
Unit submits its prioritized budget requests to the Business and Auxiliary Services Office. The office then coordinates the distribution of the campus-wide requests
to the chairpersons of the five directional committees,
one representing each direction of the Strategic Plan.
Any requests that identify health/safety/security issues
are reviewed separately by the Campus Safety Committee for completion of a risk assessment report. The
Campus Safety Committee may consult with outside
professionals, if needed, to assist in the risk assessment.
PBC uses the Planning and Budget Safety Review form
to evaluate and identify items earmarked to be given
highest priority (9.5).
Certain requests that require year-to-year funding to
maintain a program or involve broader legal issues that
require immediate response from the campus may be
given higher priority by the Planning and Budget Committee. These high priority requests are pulled from the
priority process to be included in an Advanced Funding list. The committee may choose to fund these items
immediately without submitting them to a Direction
Committee. The Vice President of Administrative Services then convenes a meeting of the chairpersons of
the five Directional Committees to review the prioritization process and to verify the appropriate committee placement of the requests. Then each of the five
Direction Committees meet to prioritize the requests
from the Budget Units. The priority of the Budget
Unit may be considered, but the work of the Direction
Committees is based upon the following criteria:
216
◊
Supports College mission, Educational
Master Plan, Student Services Master
Plan and Strategic Plan
◊
Growth of programs and/or work area
◊
Quality of program and/or work area
◊
Demonstrated need within the Budget
Unit
◊
Support of health/safety/security issues
A representative of the Budget Unit may be called to
clarify requests for the Direction Committee, if needed. Upon review and discussion of all the requests,
each Direction Committee develops one list of recommended priorities to submit to the Planning and Budget Committee. Priorities of the Directional Committees are honored, if possible; however, on occasion, the
Planning and Budget Committee may alter the recommended priority, if in its estimation, there is reason to
do so. The Planning and Budget Committee develops
one final campus-wide list of prioritized requests and
forwards the list to the President’s Advisory Cabinet
(PAC) with a recommendation for funding. PAC reviews the prioritized requests at its last meeting in May.
Early in the following Fall semester, the Planning and
Budget Committee identifies all available sources of
funding to help support the list of budget requests. Additionally, restrictions of specific grant funds that are
identified to fund items on the prioritized list may drive
some decisions on funding priorities that appear out of
order.
The Executive Vice President of Educational Programs and Support Services and the Vice President of
Administrative Services work together with the division
deans and the many campus constituencies to achieve
balanced and effective financial planning that supports
the College’s programs, goals, and strategies.
Since the primary method the State uses to allocate resources is by full-time equivalent students (FTES), the
monitoring of FTES is critical to the successful operation of the College. Not generating enough FTES can
result in reduced apportionment income, and generating more than the State-established cap can result
in unfunded enrollment. Establishing an appropriate
FTES strategy and budget parameter, therefore, is
fundamental to the budgeting process. The District establishes priorities among competing needs by holding
several discussions at District Planning Council Meetings (DPC). DPC is a district-wide committee comprised of all constituency representation and chaired
by the Chancellor. Based on the committee’s work, a
Cypress College
framework for the budget process is established and
any necessary shifts are made to annual FTES targets.
An integral part of the District’s budget comes from
resources carried over from prior-year operations. The
budget center carryovers can be used to backfill budget reductions, purchase instructional equipment, assist with overtime and hourly support, supplement extended-day budgets, or pay any other expense deemed
a priority by the budget center or identified as a goal
in the College-wide Strategic Plan. Requests are channeled through departmental planning processes such
as program reviews and goals set by each department
(9.6). The College regularly reviews its Strategic Plan,
Educational Master Plan, Student Services Master
Plan, and the Five-Year Construction Plan. Different
campus constituencies have ample opportunities and
are encouraged and invited to participate in the budget
development process. Campus-wide planning and the
established strategic priorities drive the budget allocation process.
The Planning and Budget Committee oversees major
decisions related to the budget, including allocation of
carryover funds and establishment of a contingency
fund for unanticipated needs. The budget allocation
process at Cypress College is broadly divided in two areas. As is the case for most postsecondary educational
institutions, the major part of the budget is in personnel and fixed expenses such as benefits, maintenance
and operations, and insurance. The personnel position
part of the budget process is rolled over from one year
to the next by the District Finance Staff. Other budget
line items are entered at the campus level after the District office calculates the revenue anticipated and allocates resources to the colleges to perform budget data
entry. Centralizing allocation of some budgets helps
achieve economies of scale for major purchases such
as healthcare or insurance. The College oversees the
allocation of campus carryover funds and grant funds.
Carryover funds are generated from multiple areas. As
the name suggests, any unutilized fund at the end of
the year in department budget is carried over and designated as the College fund. Apart from unspent funds,
a large part of the carryover fund is received from revenues from the weekly Swap Meet on the College campus. Allocation of these funds and any grant funding
is completed at the College. The allocation of grant
funds is made according to the guidelines of the grant.
The dean in charge of grants allocates the funds in conInstitutional Self Study — Spring 2011
sultation with grant-makers and the grant’s committee
(if any). For example, there is a consultative committee
for the Perkins Grant on campus that is responsible for
implementation of the Perkins Grant (9.7).
The carryover funds are used to provide support for
emergency needs, one-time funding needs, and special
projects. The President’s Staff recommends the allocation of carryover funds. The Planning and Budget
Committee (PBC) reviews the recommendation and
upon approval, forwards the recommendation to the
President’s Advisory Cabinet (PAC). Both PBC and
PAC are comprised of representatives from all constituencies on the campus, and both these bodies make
decisions that are based on consensus. Once funds are
allocated, the Vice President’s office calls for proposals from the campus. The proposals are evaluated by
all members of PBC individually, and upon consensus, funding recommendations are made to PAC (9.8).
Electronic communications are sent to the entire campus community via “allusers” mail for relevant topics
such as the annual one-time budget request process
and the classified staff needs assessment.
The tentative budget submitted to the Board each June
provides the basis for managing and monitoring expenditures early in the year. Once the Board approves the
tentative budget, the District has an operating plan until the official state budget is finalized and a final budget can be developed and approved by the Board. It is
the benchmark against which to measure fiscal performance for the remainder of the fiscal year. The budget
reports, audit reports, and Retiree Benefits Actuarial
Study Reports are posted on the District’s website (9.9).
Self Evaluation
At each budget development process, the College aims
to link budget allocations and funding for staffing to
program reviews and other College planning documents. Planning documents are presented to the Board
and are made available to all campus constituents participating in the budget planning process. Major planning documents include:
Five-Year Construction Plan (9.10), Educational Master Plan (9.11), Student Services Master Plan (9.12),
and Strategic Plan (9.13).
As a consequence of the institution’s emphasis on planning processes, a new section of the employee survey
217
Figure 1
was included asking about employees’ knowledge and
involvement in planning (Figure 1). For each of the following six questions, administrators were more likely to
agree than either faculty or staff:
◊
I am aware of the planning process
◊
I know how to participate in the planning process
◊
I participate in the planning process
◊
My participation influences the outcome
of the planning process
◊
I think the planning process helps the
college achieve its desired goals
◊
I am encouraged to participate in the
planning process
Similarly, full-time faculty were more likely to agree
than part-time faculty, and those who are involved in
a shared-governance committee were more likely to
agree to these same items than those not involved.
Planning Agenda
None.
1.b. Institutional planning reflects realistic
assessment of financial resource availability,
development of financial resources, partner218
ships, and expenditure requirements.
Descriptive Summary
The District provides easy access to financial documents that clearly indicate the budgeted allocations to
those involved in institutional planning. Each Budget
Unit has the capability to pull reports of its current
budget status by accessing Banner. Administrators
and budget managers regularly use this information
to project future needs. The District maintains its general ledger using the Banner operating system as well
as a dually maintained system at the Orange County
Department of Education (OCDE). Historically, all of
the funds designated as District funds (e.g., General,
Bond, Capital Outlay, Self Insurance, Retiree Benefits,
Financial Aid, and Child Development Funds) have
been dually maintained within Banner and OCDE.
Any changes on major expense categories or changes
to contingency reserves are clearly explained in the reports. At regularly scheduled meetings, the Board ratifies all contracts, personnel hiring, and purchase orders
with expense implications that affect the bottom line.
In accordance with §58310 of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, the Chief Executive Officer
of the District submits the CCFS-3IIQ report showing
the financial and budgetary conditions of the District
— including outstanding obligations — to the governCypress College
ing Board. The Chief Executive Officer also prepares a
quarterly report based on measurements and standards
as established by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges and certified on forms provided by the State Chancellor. This report is reviewed
by the District Board and entered into the minutes of
a regularly scheduled meeting (9.14). In the CCFS3IIQ report, a summary of the general fund revenues,
expenses, and fund balance for the prior fiscal year is
detailed. This report is submitted to CCCSO in conjunction with the Adopted Budget for the current fiscal
year. These documents describing the District’s financial standing are regularly referenced throughout the
year by budget managers and administrators as they
engage in fiscal planning and address budget issues.
The many campus-wide constituencies involved in institutional planning include department coordinators,
department managers, division deans, categorical program managers, and grant program administrators, as
well as the Board (9.15). Funding priorities identified
in the budget parameters include support of student
learning, growth and quality of programs, support of
College mission, the Educational Master Plan, the Student Services Master Plan, and the Strategic Plan. Focus on student learning is given top priority. The goals
of Direction One of the Strategic Plan is to design,
enhance, and deliver a comprehensive instruction to
promote academic excellence and student learning.
A significant portion of the College’s carryover funds
are used to address student learning, which include addressing program needs, updating instructional equipment, library collection updates, classroom furniture
replacement, technology upgrades, and tutor hiring.
Some programs and projects identified for “advance”
funding during the 2009-2010 year included TracDat
software implementation to house and develop student
learning outcomes (SLOs), Blackboard licensing, tutoring, Teacher’s Preparation, the Legacy Program, Staff
Development, Academic Computing, and the Diversity Committee (9.16).
the delivery of services at the same time as the College
is experiencing its highest demand for classes and services. The College is being forced to reevaluate hours
of service, course offerings, and staffing to address real
and budget reductions. The College is using campus
vacant staff positions (managers, classified, and faculty) and carryover funds to buffer budget shortfalls.
Layoffs and furloughs for employees have been avoided
through the 2009-2010 school year.
Planning Agenda
None.
1.c. When making short-range financial plans,
the institution considers its long-range financial priorities to assure financial stability. The
institution clearly identifies and plans for payment of liabilities and future obligations.
Descriptive Summary
Self Evaluation
The College has an excellent reputation in the community it serves. The College is committed to promoting student learning and success, embracing diversity,
contributing to the economic and social development
of the surrounding community, and being open to all
qualified students pursuing their educational goals.
Being in a growth district, the College takes carefully
planned measures to ensure that sufficient funds are allocated to support student access. With the College’s
understanding of budget formulas at the State level
and how the State growth calculations impact the College, each year the College ensures that data and statistical information are collected and reported to the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. The
management of enrollment is done via careful data
tracking through the Enrollment Management System
(EMS) and through ongoing dialogue with division
deans both in the instruction area as well as student
services area. Discussions in the areas of enrollment
growth, changes in demographics, outreach plans, and
marketing strategies set the tone and direction of the
College’s long-term planning.
The College has followed a coordinated, inclusive, fiscally sound process of achieving its funding goals. Its
funding priorities are centered on student learning as
it uses the Educational Master Plan as the overriding
framework and vehicle to making resource allocations
(9.1). The State budget deficit is having an impact on
As part of the long-term planning, the College engages
in discussions and decision making on the appropriate
number of sections, its associated operating expenses,
as well as facilities requirements. In Fall 2009, the District engaged the assistance of a consulting firm to coordinate the needed input to develop a new ten-year
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
219
Educational and Facilities Master Plan. Key faculty
and staff provide input to develop this document. The
resulting plan will serve to inform and drive the fiscal
planning process and budget allocation at the District
level.
The District’s most recent annual external audit of its
financial positions and activities was completed in June
30, 2009. The District reported according to the standards of Governmental Accounting Standards Board
(GASB) Statements No. 34 and No. 35 using the Business Type Activity (BTA) model as recommended by
the California Community College Chancellor’s Office. As of June 30, 2009, the District ended the fiscal
year with a healthy surplus due to prior year’s prudent
fiscal management in anticipation of challenging budget times ahead. However, there is still significant concern for the 2009-2010 fiscal year and future budget
years as there remains an overall structural deficit in
the State budget. The economic position of the District
is closely tied to that of the State of California. Currently, the North Orange County Community College
District is working through the budget woes centering
on deep ongoing cuts from the State — in particular to
categorical program funding. The District’s management will continue to closely monitor the State budget information and will maintain a close watch over
resources to sustain its ability to react to internal and
external issues (9.17).
Also in accordance of the Governmental Accounting
Standards Board Statements No. 34 and No. 35, the
District has provided an overview of assets, liabilities,
and net assets as of the end of the fiscal year. The
Statement of Net Assets is a point-in-time financial
statement that presents a fiscal snapshot of the District.
The Statement of Net Assets presents end-of-year date
concerning assets (current and non-current), liabilities
(current and non-current), and net assets (assets minus
liabilities). From the data presented, readers of the
Statement of Net Assets are able to determine the assets available to continue the operations of the District.
How much the District owes vendors and employees
can also be determined.
Finally, the Statement of Net Assets provides a picture
of the net assets and their availability for expenditure
by the District (9.18). Through prudent budgeting and
planning, the District has maintained a healthy reserve
level to position itself favorably as the State struggles
220
through budget turmoil and structural deficit. When
making short-range financial plans, the College considers every aspect of the College’s operations and
how these immediate plans will impact long-term fiscal planning and priorities. The District has few longterm liabilities and those that it has are largely offset by
revenues from numerous sources. An integral part of
the District’s budget comes from resources carried over
from prior-year operations. The ending balance on
June 30, 2009, was $38,488,658, which is an increase
of $8,019,956 from the previous year (9.19).
The District continuously monitors and evaluates its
own fiscal health. It is aware that in the coming years,
issues pertaining to the increased cost of retiree health
and welfare will impact the District’s financial horizon.
Currently, in accord with GASB 45, the District recognizes an annual expense on its financial statements
for the sum of ongoing annual out-of-pocket retiree
benefit costs, plus an amortized annual actuarially
determined amount necessary to recognize the entire
unfunded obligation over a period not to exceed 30
years. Based upon the District’s most recent actuarial
study, as of June 30, 2008, the District’s actuarially
determined unfunded liability was estimated at $158
million, and the District’s annual required contribution
(ARC) was $12.3 million. To date, the District has accumulated $49 million in the Retiree Benefits fund and
expended $4.7 million in 2008-2009 of the ARC (9.20).
Since 2002 and the passing of Measure X, the College has received $80.3 million for remodeling and
for new buildings. It also received another $30 million
through State Capital Outlay funding. With this funding, the campus addressed many of the facilities needs
identified in the 1999 Facilities Master Plan. As part of
the continuing planning process, the District will once
again conduct an update of its Educational and Facilities Master Plan to address the educational needs of
faculty and students. The District will look into the potential of a new combination of Local and State bond
fund programs to complete the projects delineated in
the most recent Facilities Master Plan (9.45).
Self Evaluation
In spite of the challenges associated with the state budget, the District is financially stable. It makes short-term
plans by carefully considering the long-range financial
implications and has established plans for payment
of its long-term obligations. The District has no CerCypress College
tificates of Participation (COPs) to offset. It regularly
monitors its financial standing through regular budget
monitoring, quarterly reports, and the annual external
audit (9.43).
Planning Agenda
None.
1.d. The institution clearly defines and follows
its guidelines and processes for financial planning and budget development with all constituencies having appropriate opportunities to
participate in the development of institutional
plans and budgets.
Descriptive Summary
The College follows a shared-governance process
whereby all affected persons have an opportunity to
provide feedback into decision making, directly or
through representation, and have those suggestions seriously considered. The rationale for the final decision
on planning and budget matters is communicated to all
campus constituents. As the budget is developed, budget requests, budget parameters, and meeting minutes
are all recorded and made available on the College’s
shared J: drive (9.8). The Planning and Budget Committee (PBC), which meets bi-monthly, is the primary
recommending body to the President’s Advisory Cabinet (PAC) on general planning and budget issues for
the campus. PBC uses the Educational Master Plan
and the Strategic Plan to drive its budget decision making. Each campus Budget Unit is expected to submit
its budget requests based on its responsibility for accomplishing the goals and objectives identified in their
respective Program Reviews. The Planning and Budget Committee also provides the context on how the
District’s financial planning and budget process takes
place. The Board adopts the tentative budget in June
for the next fiscal year to provide the District with an
operating plan until the Proposed Budget is approved
by the Board of Trustees in September. Presentations
are made detailing the budget development and planning process at each site and how the process is driven
by the District-wide Strategic Plan.
The College uses the Banner system as its financial
budget and reporting system. The Office of the Vice
President of Administrative Services provides the financial management and planning oversight and,
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
through clearly delineated procedures, ensures that
the resources received from the District are accounted
for and disbursed appropriately. The College, through
scheduled program review cycles, reviews and monitors for the appropriateness of the level of support provided to various departmental programs and services.
Self Evaluation
Because educational planning and goals are the engine
that drive the College’s fiscal planning, which determines the District’s financial forecast, it can be said
that the District has been successful at designing a
strong financial foundation that is supportive of the instructional programs and mission of the College. The
District’s accounting of long-term obligations using the
GASB methodologies further attests to the District’s
fiscal stability.
Planning Agenda
None.
2. To assure the financial integrity of the institution and responsible use of financial resources, the financial management system has
appropriate control mechanisms and widely
disseminates dependable and timely information for sound financial decision making.
2.a. Financial documents, including the budget and independent audit, reflect appropriate allocation and use of financial resources
to support student learning programs and services. Institutional responses to external audit
findings are comprehensive, timely, and communicated appropriately.
Descriptive Summary
The annual Proposed Budget and Financial Report
documents the distribution of allocations within the
College and the obligations for which they are used.
The Strategic Plan leads the College in its decision
making regarding allocation of funds. Each Fall semester, the Planning and Budget Committee focuses
on planning by communicating with those responsible
for the action plans of the Strategic Plan (9.16). In the
Spring, the Planning and Budget Committee oversees
development of the campus operating budget, which is
prepared under the direction of the Vice President of
221
Administrative Services. The budget is then submitted
for approval to District Fiscal Affairs and to the Board
of Trustees for review and adoption (9.21). Carryover
funds, which are available from concerted efforts to
conserve resources, are generally used to provide a
contingency fund for emergencies and address needs
such as instructional equipment, one-time program expenses, tutors, safety issues, library collection updates,
classroom furniture replacement, and technology upgrades (9.17). Requests for funding from carryover
funds are prepared and submitted to the Planning and
Budget Committee, for review and prioritization based
upon goals and objectives of the Strategic Plan. Final
approval is given by the President’s Advisory Cabinet.
In the Strategic Plan 2004-2008, one of the completed
goals was to identify, develop, and utilize student learning outcomes in the instructional areas (9.22). A completed Quality Review Report accompanies funding
requests for carryover funds as part of the justification
for the request. Managers and deans are asked to fill
out accountability reports on the completed program
or projects (9.23). Annually, the CCFS-311 Report is
included with the Proposed Budget, which is made
available for public inspection prior to Board approval
in early September each year. After approval, it may be
found on the District’s website (9.24).
Fiscal management is assessed by annual external audits of the College, the District, the Cypress College
Foundation, and all grant programs.
When findings are presented, the District Fiscal Affairs staff works with the Vice President of Administrative Services and the appropriate dean or manager to
implement procedures to resolve the issue and ensure
future compliance. In the year subsequent to the year
of the finding or recommendation, the auditors do a
follow-up on the prior year and state whether the finding/recommendation has been implemented or not. If
not implemented, the item becomes a new finding in
the current year (9.25).
Self Evaluation
In the last six years, audits have indicated that the financial management practices in all areas of the College are conducted with integrity and presented fairly
and in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). In addition, there were no material weaknesses in internal controls identified. The
222
results of those audits are available to review in the
Campus Business Office or the District Office of Fiscal
Affairs, upon request, by anyone in the College community (9.26).
During this time, there was one Cypress College finding that took more than one fiscal year to correct due
to timing. An instructional material fee that was being
charged for material was deemed not valid but was not
implemented due to the timing from when the discrepancy was reported to being able to implement the correction in the Schedule of Classes for that same year
(9.25).
Planning Agenda
None.
2.b. Appropriate financial information is provided throughout the institution.
Descriptive Summary
A presentation of the current budget status and fiscal
stability of the College is part of the College’s Opening
Day activities each Fall and Spring. The Vice President
of Administrative Services receives ongoing information from the Community College League of California (CCLC) and the State Chancellor’s Office and
shares that information at all campus meetings where
deans and managers are present. Budget updates are
also on the agenda at bi-monthly meetings of the Planning and Budget Committee, President’s Advisory
Cabinet, District Board Meetings, and District Budget Officers Meetings. The Executive Vice President
of Educational Programs and Student Services keeps
the campus informed on FTES targets and costs of instructional areas.
Annual financial information is included in the Outstanding Issues section of the Annual Proposed Budget
Narrative, while the quarterly Chancellor’s Memo and
the President’s weekly newsletter, @Cypress, contain
ongoing updates throughout the fiscal year. The @Cypress newsletter is distributed to all employees, posted
to the campus website, shared on Facebook and Twitter, and emailed to a group of recipients that includes
retirees, employees elsewhere in the District, members
of the media, Foundation Board members and other
constituents.
Employees are able to view adopted and adjusted budCypress College
gets, detailed expenditures, encumbrances, and balances of campus budgets utilizing the District’s enterprise
business system, BANNER. This application allows
monitoring and reallocation of funds within a timely
manner to avoid shortfalls. Fiscal CCF-311Q reports
are provided to the Board for informational purposes
on a quarterly basis.
All funding allocations and audit reports are on file in
the Campus Business Office and District Fiscal Services Office (9.27).
Self Evaluation
Information is expected to be disseminated to constituencies by representatives attending the various
meetings. Minutes of campus meetings are stored on
a shared network drive available to all campus employees, and Board of Trustees meeting summaries contain
financial information when presented and are electronically mailed to all users of the campus’ email system.
All avenues of distribution appear to be utilized for disseminating dependable and timely information.
Planning Agenda
None.
2.c. The institution has sufficient cash flow
and reserves to maintain stability, strategies
for appropriate risk management, and realistic plans to meet financial emergencies and
unforeseen occurrences.
Descriptive Summary
The District maintains control of the Unrestricted
General Fund and has maintained the required reserve
at a prudent level and to match the requirements of
the Board. These amounts are sufficient to maintain
an adequate reserve for emergencies. The District receives general fund revenues through the State apportionment process. Funds are then allocated to the campuses in accordance with the District approved Budget
Allocation Model.
Unrestricted ending fund balances for
the North Orange County Community
College District, by budget center, for the
previous three fiscal years is illustrated in
Table 1 (9.28).
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Fiscal Year
State apportionment deferrals can pose cash flow difficulties. Due to the significant amount of apportionment deferrals to community colleges as part of the
State budget package, the District has the following
options in place to access cash should the need arise.
The District has a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) in place with California School Employees Association (CSEA) and United Faculty (UF) to borrow
against the Retiree Benefits Fund, in the event of a fiscal emergency, for purposes of meeting the actual and
necessary expenses of the District. In addition, the District has adopted a resolution entering into an agreement with the Orange County Treasurer to obtain a
temporary transfer of funds, not exceeding 85% of anticipated revenues, to meet current expenditures (9.29).
In addition to the District’s plans to meet financial
emergencies, Cypress College’s Vice President of Administrative Services requests $750,000 from carryover
funds each year to be marked for campus emergency/
critical needs. The Swap Meet, held at the college each
weekend, generates between $1.3 and $1.4 million in
income to the College each year. The College has accumulated approximately three million dollars marked
for budget transition funding by not budgeting any ongoing costs to these funds. As of February 2010, the
College has elected not to replace 14 vacant positions
to assist with budget transition funding.
The District is insured for workers compensation and
property and liability claims through a combination
of self-insurance and commercial insurance coverage.
The excess coverage is purchased through a commercial insurance carrier (9.30).
For general liability coverage, the District is self-insured
and a part of a risk sharing pool, Alliance of Schools
for Cooperative Insurance Programs Joint Powers of
Authority (ASCIP JPA). It provides $25,000 self-insurance retention (deductible) per claim (more claims can
apply if multiple parties are injured during the same
incident) and the coverage is $5,000,000; excess coverage above that up to $20 million per occurrence. This
amount of coverage applies to an event that caused the
injury(ies)/claim(s), and the coverage is for all claims
CC
FC
SCE
District
Total
2008-09
6,583,338 8,018,211 543,706
20,297,234 35,442,489
2007-08
4,901,918 7,005,143 128,242
15,699,473 27,734,776
2006-07
4,945,541 5,739,862 (4,641)
19,125,426 29,806,188
Table 1: Unrestricted Ending Fund Balance
223
resulting from the single event/occurrence, and only a
single deductible applies (9.31).
For Workers Compensation, the District is self-insured
for the first $500,000 for each claim, and excess coverage is purchased from a commercial insurance carrier,
up to the statutory limit (9.32).
Self Evaluation
Because the District has maintained a prudent level of
reserve funds and monitors cash flow on a regular basis
to assure that operational obligations can be met, for
more than six years, no short-term financing options
such as Tax Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANS)
or long-term financing options such as Certificates of
Participation (COPS) have been necessary. For precautionary purposes, should the District be in need of cash
to meet its current obligations, the MOU and County
agreements, as discussed above, are available (9.28).
The District sets aside an adequate amount of funds
each year to cover its self-insurance obligations for both
Workers’ Compensation and property and liability
claims. The District obtains periodic actuarial evaluations on the programs used. Based on the actuarial
studies, sufficient reserves are maintained in the selfinsurance fund (9.33).
Planning Agenda
None.
2.d. The institution practices effective oversight of finances, including management of
financial aid, grants, externally funded programs, contractual relationships, auxiliary organizations or foundations, and institutional
investments and assets.
Descriptive Summary
For effective oversight of finances, the College relies
on procedures such as monitoring of major budgets
for projected deficits, monthly reviews of auxiliary financial statements and of financial updates for grants
budgets, internal auditing throughout the year, and an
annual external audit. There is a consistent layering
of review and approval levels between the campus and
District. Purchase requisitions route electronically from
the originator through appropriate management channels reaching the District Director of Purchasing for
224
final approval. Routing does not proceed without proper contractual obligations being met at specific checkpoints. Any reallocations between major expenditures
over $10,000 are approved by the Board. Financial information is easily accessible with the enterprise business system so that individuals are able to monitor their
own Budget Unit’s allocations and financial transactions.
There are regular annual external audits as well as internal and agency audits conducted as needed. External audits include audit of categorical programs (9.34).
Self Evaluation
External auditors perform tests of internal control,
and those results determine how they conduct their
audit. In the audit opinions of the last six years and
prior, the District’s financial statements were said to be
presented fairly and in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Of the 14 audit
findings in the last six years, seven applied to Cypress
College. One example was a finding having to do with
an error in calculating the Gann limit at the District
Office; another with errors in assessing the fixed assets
of the North Orange County Community College District by the appraiser currently used by the District. In
both cases, management response included solutions
that would prevent future errors. None of the findings
were deemed material weaknesses, and all recommendations of findings have been implemented (9.25).
Planning Agenda
None.
2.e. All financial resources, including those
from auxiliary activities, fund-raising efforts,
and grants are used with integrity in a manner consistent with the mission and goals of
the institution.
Descriptive Summary
The College’s Associated Students (AS) (Education
Code Section 76060) is funded by an optional fee of
$7 per semester, including summer. This fee supports
student clubs and co-curricular activities. It provides
students with organizational leadership experience to
promote multicultural, educational, and social opportunities; finance student activities; and facilitate particiCypress College
pation in the College community that enhances their
academic experience. The AS budget is prepared by
the AS Vice President of Fiscal Affairs, the AS President, and the Advisor to the AS Council.
Each week the AS reconciles transactions through its
own records that parallel the records maintained on
their behalf by the College.
Cypress College raises funds for student scholarships,
student emergency assistance, faculty/staff minigrants, endowments, and other College programs. In
addition, the Foundation fosters community relationships and partnerships. Cypress College is a member
of ten local and/or county Chambers of Commerce,
an effort that is coordinated by the Foundation. It accepts donations on behalf of the College from businesses and individuals, from private grants, and from
planned gifts. The President of Cypress College is a
voting member of the Foundation Board of Directors
and Executive Committee. The Foundation Strategic
Plan is updated during each planning cycle at an annual retreat attended by a majority of the Foundation’s
Board members and is tied into the College’s mission
and goals.
The Bursar’s Office assists the Foundation and auditors
by reconciling income to Foundation donor records,
preparing a cash summary for all bank accounts, as
well as a balance sheet, income sheet, and revenue and
expense analysis. The Bursar also prepares monthly
financial statements and investment reports for the
Foundation Finance Committee, which meets monthly.
The Finance Committee also reviews the annual audit. In turn, the Finance Committee reports to the full
board at each regular Board of Directors meeting. The
Board of Directors reviews all of the Foundation’s activities (9.35). The Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit
organization with a separate Tax I.D. (#12-7197703)
although in several respects it functions as part of the
College. For example, Foundation staff are District
Employees, and the Foundation Executive Director reports to the College President. The Foundation undergoes an annual external audit process that is separate
from the NOCCCD audit. The Foundation Finance
Committee, which meets monthly, oversees this process
by providing direction to the audit, and in turn, reports
to the Foundation Board of Directors, which meets bimonthly. There have been no adverse audit findings for
the Foundation in the past ten years.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
The Bookstore moved into a new facility in May
2008, which includes an adjacent Bookstore Express
area that offers snacks and drinks. Over the last two
years, the campus’ self-operated Bookstore has been
hit hard by rapidly reducing book sales as the demand
for print materials has begun to shift to other modes
of delivery. In 2009-2010, overall book sales dropped
$533,863 from the prior year in spite of record enrollments at the College. Sales in the Summer and Fall
semesters of 2010-2011 also reflect a gradual decline
as students search out the many alternates to the purchase of hard-copy textbooks. To meet the changing
demands, in Summer 2010 the Bookstore entered into
a textbook rental contract with Follett and a contract
with CourseSmart, which offers e-books for sale. Both
services offer much less expensive alternatives to students than the traditional hard-copy textbook. Unfortunately, neither option has the revenue potential to
support the overhead of the Bookstore in delivery of
textbooks and supplies. To date, the decline in book
sales has been mostly offset by revenue generated in
the Bookstore Express and the gradual downsizing of
full-time staff with two positions eliminated subsequent
to staff retirements. The Bookstore operation is being
monitored closely, hours modified, and new revenue
sources sought while staff assess how the store might
evolve in the future.
Cypress College out sources the Food Service operations. The current food services contract with Sodexo
expires in June 2011, and a Request for Proposals will
be issued in Spring 2011 as the College considers who
will manage the operation over the next five years.
In 2008-2009, the Cypress College Foundation experienced significant investment losses, as did many similar
organizations. Investments fell 16.6%, from $1,109,500
to $925,836 during this period. This — coupled with
investment losses in the final quarter of 2007-2008 and
the recessionary economic environment — put the
Foundation’s unrestricted funds into a deficit. However,
from April 2009 to March 2010, investments rebounded, increasing by 32% in this 12-month period. As of
March 31, 2010, the Cypress College Foundation’s total assets were $1,635,851, an all-time high.
Cypress College administers several grants. As of February 2010, grants include:
Captioning Grant — assist instructors in getting
DVDs/videos closed captioned ($150,000 or more
225
over 2 years).
gram ($5,500 annually).
Edustream Grant — Provides off-site storage of online
media content and a library of over 2500 closed-captioned videos for faculty use in instruction ($100,000
annually for 5 years).
HSRA Health Science Grant — Provides direct scholarship awards to HS students ($100,000 annually).
Perkins IV — Supports a variety of CTE programs/
projects ($857,000 annually for 5 years).
CCRAA STEM — Supports a variety of projects/
equipment purchases and summer Bridge Program
($1,250,000 annually for 2 years).
Tech Prep Grant — Supports a variety of CTE outreach/articulation and other projects ($76,000 annually for 5 years).
AARA DHHS HIT Grant — Supports curriculum revisions and program expansion for HIT professionals
($700,896 over 2 years).
WIA Grant — Supports program expansion of Allied
Health Programs ($776,000 over 4 years).
Nursing Enrollment Growth and Retention — Supports an increase in the number of Nursing students
accepted into the program ($300,000 annually).
Psych Tech Apprentice Grant — Supports an increase
in the number of Psych Tech students accepted in the
program ($221,000 over 2 years).
UniHealth Foundation Grant — Addresses the nursing shortage at St Mary’s Hospital in Long Beach and
COPE Health Solutions ($150,000 over 2 years).
ATTE Grant — EWD grant supporting curriculum
development and industry training in emerging technologies ($220,000 annually for 5 years).
Title V Grant — Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Grant ($650,000 annually for 5 years).
CTE Teachers Prep Grant — Supports the development of CTE teachers ($190,000 for 1 year).
NOCROP Partnership Academy Grant — High
School Medical Academy partnership ($10,000+/-).
Tech Prep Cooperative Grant (HS) — Supports CTE
programs, curriculum development, articulation, outreach ($20,000 annually for 5 years).
Basic Skills Initiative — Improvement of Basic Skills
($128,000 varies annually from $100,000 to $180,000).
Multimedia Grant — Provides support to ACG and
other MM programs ($10,000+/- annually).
All grants are governed under Board and Administrative Policy BP/AP 3280 and the Education Code,
Section 70902. The Dean of Career Technical Education and Economic Development maintains primary
oversight over all grants. For each grant, this office sets
up an accounting system at the campus level, which
is checked monthly against, and independently from,
District financial reports. Prior to their approval, grant
purchases are checked for consistency with the particular grant work plan. On larger grants, the College hires
a third-party consultant for additional guidance on
achieving grant goals and preparing for audits. Select
grants associated with specific departments (e.g., within
Health Science) rely on that division dean as the first
level of oversight. The second level of oversight is provided by the Dean of Career Technical Education and
Economic Development, and a third level of monitoring is carried out by the District’s Finance Office.
Grant reports are provided either quarterly or semiannually to the appropriate funder’s governing body.
Midterm and final report outcomes, including complete budget information, are shared with the appropriate constituencies.
Self Evaluation
The financial resources including those from auxiliary
activities, fund-raising efforts, and grants are used with
integrity in a manner consistent with the mission and
goals of the College. This is documented in audit reports as well as the internal reports presented to the
Board.
Planning Agenda
None.
2.f. Contractual agreements with external entities are consistent with the mission and goals
of the institution, governed by institutional
policies, and contain appropriate provisions
to maintain the integrity of the institution.
Hilgenfeld Grant — Supports Mortuary Science Pro226
Cypress College
Descriptive Summary
The Board delegates to the Vice Chancellor of Finance and Facilities the authority to supervise the general business procedures of the District to assure the
proper administration of property and contracts per
Education Code Section 70902(d); 81655, 81656. The
Board delegates to the Vice Chancellor of Finance and
Facilities, or District Director of Purchasing, the authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the District
and to establish administrative procedures for contract
awards and management.
The Vice Chancellor of Finance and Facilities establishes procedures regarding the use of College property, including but not limited to facilities, equipment,
and supplies, by community groups and other outside
contractors. These administrative procedures reflect
the requirements of applicable law, including Education Code Section 82537, regarding Civic Centers.
All District properties are subject to a facility use charge
in accordance with Education Code Section 82545 (bf). This ensures the highest level of protection for the
District and the least amount of exposure for liability
or financial issues.
Under the guidelines provided by the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS), Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA), the NOCCCD has developed a threestage process to be completed before an independent
contractor is engaged. The questionnaire is completed
by a representative from the division requesting the
services and reviewed by the dean/director or a designee. The risk for engaging independent contractors
is evaluated by a designated individual for each college
and the District. The risk evaluators are: Cypress College – Vice President of Administrative Services; Fullerton College – Director, Budget and Finance; School
of Continuing Education – Manager, Administrative
Services; and District – Purchasing Director. Contracts
up to $5,000 are approved by the Budget Officer or
College President/Provost. For services or work to be
done costing less than $25,000, the Chancellor, Vice
Chancellor of Finance and Facilities, or the Director
of Purchasing may approve. Any agreement above
this threshold requires NOCCCD Board of Trustees
approval (9.36). Contract language is drafted with the
intent to develop fair contracts that would allow each
party to function at the highest level, while always taking into consideration the regulations and policies that
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
govern the College. “Out” clauses are included in every contract for any breach, for cause, and for no cause.
Self Evaluation
The District negotiates contractual agreements with
external entities that are consistent with its mission
and goals, governed by institutional policies, and that
contain appropriate provisions to maintain the integrity of the institution with evaluation and review by legal counsel, as appropriate, and final approval by the
Board.
Planning Agenda
None.
2.g. The institution regularly evaluates its financial management processes, and the results of the evaluation are used to improve financial management systems.
Descriptive Summary
The campus Bursar’s Office maintains the books and
records for Bursar Office activities, the Associated Students, other trust and agency funds, and the enterprise
activities on campus such as the Bookstore and Food
Services operations. In addition, it maintains trust accounts for various student and department activities
(9.37). All cash disbursements are approved by a minimum of two authorized individuals and supported by
adequate documentation. Purchases are made in accordance with the guidelines established (9.44). The
campus Bursar’s Office submits to the District a quarterly investment report of all campus investment funds
maintained by the Bursar’s Office. These reports are
then incorporated into the quarterly financial reports
provided to the Board.
The Board of Trustees provides an annual audit of all
funds, books, and accounts under the control and jurisdiction of the District in accordance with the regulations of the Board of Governors. Arrangements for the
audit for any fiscal year are made final no later than
May 1 of the preceding fiscal year. The annual audits
are made by Certified Public Accountants licensed
by the California Board of Accountancy and contain
the identification of expenditures by source of fund;
a statement that the audit was conducted pursuant to
standards and procedures developed in accordance
227
with Education Code Section 84040.5; and a summary of audit exceptions and management recommendations. The Board of Trustees then reviews the annual
audit at a public meeting of the Board (9.38).
The Budget Process Committee has been meeting for
the past ten years. The committee consists of members from Cypress College, Fullerton College, and the
School of Continuing Education. It meets every second
and the fourth Tuesday afternoon throughout the year.
The purpose of this committee is to discuss different
issues concerning the College or the District. The Vice
Chancellor is accessible and open for any dialogues or
discussions on any financial matter.
The rate of pay for each employee of the District is in
accordance with the rate established for the position
on the appropriate salary schedule as approved by the
Board of Trustees, unless the employee’s compensation
is otherwise fixed by the Board. Payment to employees is in accordance with the schedule and procedures
for school payrolls established by the Orange County
Department of Education. Any payroll error resulting
in insufficient payment for an employee is corrected,
and a supplemental check is issued within a reasonable
time after the employee provides notice to the District
Payroll Office. If an overpayment occurs, the Payroll
Office will notify the employee. Normally, salary deductions for overpayment commence with the next
month’s paycheck, and the overpayment is deducted
in the same number of paychecks in which the overpayment occurred, except when the period of overpayment exceeds one year. In that situation, the period
over which deductions are made shall not exceed a period of one year (9.39).
Other effective vehicles for financial oversight are internal audit projects, such as the District’s cash handling review. NOCCCD established a position several
years ago to be responsible for this area. This part-time
position, Special Projects Manager, reports directly to
the Vice Chancellor of Finance and Facilities. The
risk assessments done by this Special Projects Manager
are summarized in several internal reports. These are
not public documents, nor are they available on the
College’s J: drive. However, the reports are available
through the Vice Chancellor’s Office.
Self Evaluation
The District regularly evaluates its financial manage228
ment processes with the goal of providing feedback
that can be used to improve financial management systems. Training on financial management systems enhances the usefulness of management reporting. Also,
the District’s external and internal auditors are regularly involved in reviewing processes and procedures,
especially with new or developing programs.
Past fiscal planning is a good template for the future
and provides a framework for procedures and controls.
The District encourages those who have fiscal oversight
for an area to take a direct role in ensuring future compliance. Fiscal needs are evaluated as planning is done
and brought forward as part of the budget process. If
resources are not immediately available or if the need
can be deferred without consequence to a subsequent
budget period, documentation to this effect is made so
that the funding can be established at an appropriate
time.
Planning Agenda
None.
3. The institution systematically assesses the
effective use of financial resources and uses
the results of the evaluation as the basis for
improvement.
Descriptive Summary
The District has an established Board and Administrative Policy BP/AP 2430 prescribing the delegation
of authority to the Chancellor. Also, BP/AP 6100 designate authority to the Vice Chancellor, Finance and
Facilities, over general business procedures of the District to ensure proper administration (9.41). Additionally, a Functional Map is being formulated to delineate
District-wide functions and responsibilities of Administrative Services, Instructional Services, Student Services, and Facilities and Infrastructure. This Functional
Map will be presented to the District Planning Council
(DPC) for review. Once DPC has the opportunity to
review the Functional Map, appropriate steps will be
taken to have this reviewed and approved by the Board
of Trustees.
From a financial perspective, there are various mechanisms in place to assess the effectiveness of services
provided District wide. Financial records are subject to
periodic internal review and an annual external audit.
Cypress College
Various categorical programs are also subject to review/audit by the funding agency. Committees such as
DPC and the Budget Officers Group meet regularly to
discuss and assess financial practices and procedures of
the District. Additionally, frequent feedback is received
from outside vendors, contracting agencies, and other
educational institutions regarding the effectiveness of
District practices. Also, employee evaluation instruments are an essential tool utilized by the District to assess the effectiveness of services. The District’s current
budget allocation model and decentralized operational
model provide operational budgets to each of the campuses to address their individual needs and priorities.
The District has semi-monthly meetings with the budget officers from each campus where there is an opportunity to voice campus concerns. In addition, comprehensive evaluation instruments of District managers
are sent to many people on the campuses as another
opportunity to provide feedback to the District. And
lastly, every District agenda item submitted under the
current Board Agenda format clearly identifies how
the District operations are aligned with the Districtwide Strategic Plan, which encompasses each institution’s mission and function.
The District’s budget allocation model includes the
budget centers Cypress College, Fullerton College,
School of Continuing Education, Information Services, and District operations. It encompasses the following budget categories: Personnel costs of all permanent
positions; Operating Allocation costs; Extended Day
budgets; District-wide expenses; Self-supported Programs, Contracts, Grants, Restricted Programs, and
Other Funds; and Carryover Funds.
In addition, a 5% reserve for economic uncertainty is
maintained in accordance with the California Community College State Chancellor’s Office recommended guidelines as a “prudent” reserve level. The District
primarily receives resources from the State based on
FTES and, therefore, FTES is the primary driver of
the District’s budget allocation model. Institutions’
FTES targets are established based on a shared-participation process that includes discussions at various
forums where Campus and District personnel evaluate the resources available to generate FTES and the
campuses’ ability to generate FTES targets based on
institutional priorities.
The District’s budgeting process is decentralized once
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
the resources are allocated to the institutions in accordance with the budget allocation model. Therefore,
with the exception of personnel costs for all permanent
positions, use of the allocated resources is left to the
institution’s internal budgeting process, using a sharedgovernance approach to address the needs and priorities of the institution. The District’s budget allocation
model allocates resources based on one measurement
focus, which is the measurement of students served.
Several years ago, the District did a thorough analysis
of the budget “split” using other points of measurement such as number of personnel and gross square
footage. That analysis, which was in response to an
accreditation recommendation, did not present any
significant concerns that the method of distributing resources was inequitable (9.40).
The resource distribution method is data driven. To
name a few examples, distribution based on FTES
is from data compiled by the campuses from the information contained within the District’s enrollment;
carryover analysis is based on information contained
within the District’s general ledger system; personnel
costs, which comprise over 80% of the on-going expenditures, are based on information contained within
the District’s human resource system. In addition, each
campus has its own researcher to provide evidence
based on data gathered from various sources. As mentioned above, the District’s budgeting process is decentralized once the resources are allocated to the institutions in accordance with the budget allocation model.
Therefore, with the exception of personnel costs for all
permanent positions, use of the allocated resources is
left to the institution’s internal budgeting process using a shared-governance approach to address the needs
and priorities of the institution.
The District and College’s expenditures are controlled
via an electronic approval queue process that routes all
expenditure requisitions, transfers, etc., to the proper
approvers. This approval routing system is very extensive and incorporates adequate layers to provide checks
and balances through many campus levels prior to
moving to the final District-level approval. Once at the
District level, the District Manager of Fiscal Affairs, or
designee, reviews every item for compliance with various laws and regulations under which the District is
governed. The District has practiced sound, prudent,
fiscal management for many years. This is evidenced
by the positive results of the external Financial and
229
Compliance annual audits. The District has not received any audit adjustments, nor has the District had
any material weaknesses reported over any areas for at
least the past six years. Additionally, any deficiencies
noted through the audit process are taken seriously by
the District, and appropriate steps are taken to ensure
that the deficiencies are addressed, which is also evidenced in the results of subsequent audits as the “status
of prior year findings.”
Following is a brief summary of finding topics for the
previous six fiscal years:
2009 — There were two deficiencies noted in the areas of 1) Procurement, Suspension, and Debarment,
and 2) Student Financial Aid Return of Title IV Funds
(Note: the District has implemented procedures to correct these deficiencies and expects that the 2010 audit
will confirm this.)
2008 — The District did not receive any findings.
2007 — There were five deficiencies noted in the areas of 1) Student Health Fees, 2) Lottery Funds, 3) Instructional Material Fees, 4) Course Repetition, and 5)
CalWorks (Note: These comments were reported as
“implemented” in the subsequent fiscal year audit.)
2006 — There were two deficiencies noted, both in the
area of Instructional Material Fees (Note: One of these
comments was reported as “implemented” in the subsequent fiscal year audit while the other comment was
reported as “implemented” in the 2008 audit.)
2005 — There were three deficiencies noted in the
areas of 1) Student Financial Aid Return of Title IV
Funds, 2) Student Financial Aid Pell Grant Origination
Records, and 3) EOPS Advisory Committee (Note:
These comments were reported as “implemented” in
the subsequent fiscal year audit.)
2004 — There were two deficiencies noted in the areas
of 1) Student Financial Aid Return of Title IV Funds,
2) Concurrent Enrollment (Note: The comment related to Concurrent Enrollment was reported as “implemented” in the subsequent fiscal year audit while the
Student Financial Aid Return of Title IV Funds was
reported as “implemented” in the 2006 audit.)
The District consistently ends the fiscal year with a
positive ending balance. Following is the General Fund
ending fund balance for the last six years:
2009 – $38,387,687
230
2008 – $30,468,702
2007 – $32,400,251
2006 – $33,879,585
2005 – $30,247,716
2004 – $32,138,768
For at least the past six fiscal years, the District has received an unqualified opinion on its external financial
and compliance audits. This is the highest level opinion
of audit assurance possible. This evidences the sound
fiscal practices and strong internal controls that are in
place throughout the District. In addition, the unqualified opinions reveal that the District is in compliance
with all applicable laws and regulations, including the
California Community College State Chancellor’s Office Budget and Accounting Manual and all applicable
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)
statements.
The evidence supporting the Chancellor’s delegation
of full responsibility/authority to the Presidents and
other appropriate administrators at Cypress College
to implement and administer policies without interference and holds them accountable for the College operations is found in Board Policy and Administrative
Procedure BP/AP 6100, which states that authority is
delegated to various positions throughout the District,
including the College Presidents. In addition, through
weekly Chancellor’s Staff meetings, the College Presidents meet with the Chancellor to discuss various updates and make decisions on certain matters through
a collaborative process. Furthermore, the majority
of campus operations are decentralized and thus fall
under the responsibility and authority of the College
President.
Methods of the College and District working jointly
come in many forms including informal communication by telephone, email, fax, and/or inter-office mail.
This allows for a quick flow of information. From a
fiscal standpoint, the District fiscal staff and the campus fiscal staff work well together and have open lines
of communication. Additionally, semi-monthly Budget
Officer meetings and DPC meetings provide a faceto-face atmosphere to communicate with one another.
These methods allow for a shared perspective of College as well as District matters.
The Colleges are well-informed about financial isCypress College
sues and Board actions that have an impact on their
operations, educational quality, stability, or ability to
provide quality education. As previously mentioned,
weekly Chancellor’s Staff meetings and semi-monthly
DPC and Budget Officer meetings provide a formal
mechanism to keep the colleges well-informed on various financial issues. In addition, any issues that need
attention prior to the next scheduled meeting are communicated to the campuses. In regard to Board actions, all of the Board agenda items are available for
review and comment via monthly DAC meetings. For
non-business meetings (the second Board meeting of
each month), the Board agenda items are available for
review and comment at Chancellor’s Staff. In addition,
all Board agendas and minutes are posted on the District’s website, available to the public (9.42).
The District can evaluate the effectiveness of its financial practices through several instruments. As mentioned above, the District’s financial records are subject
to periodic internal review/audit, and annual external
audits, both of which provide qualitative and quantitative data assessment. Additionally, various monthly,
quarterly, bi-annual, and annual reports are completed
accurately and timely. There have been no material
weaknesses identified on audits or reviews performed
on any of the District’s categorical programs, or on the
District financial records as a whole.
Financial audits are conducted on a regular basis, both
internally and externally. The results of the periodic
internal reviews/audits are shared frequently with
members of the Budget Officers Group. Annual external audit results are also presented to, and accepted by,
the Board of Trustees, and subsequently filed with the
State Chancellor’s Office and various regulatory agencies.
SELF- EVALUATION
Fiscal resources are reviewed regularly and results of
those reviews are used to make improvements.
Planning Agenda
None.
Reference Documents
9.1Educational Master Plan, Page 10 Diagram — www.
cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
pdocuments.aspx
9.2CC Department Planning and Program Review
Form, CC Student Support Services Quality Review Report, CC Campus Support Services Quality
Review Report — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/
InstitutionalResearch/ProgramReview
9.3Documents for 2010-2011 One Time Funding Requests — J:\Planning & Budget Committee
9.4Cypress College Budget Units for 2009-20109.5
Planning and Budget Safety Review Form — J:\
Planning & Budget Committee
9.6NOCCCD/Cypress College Budget Process Flow
Chart
9.7
Perkins Grant Team meeting minutes
9.8Minutes of meetings from PBC, PAC, Evaluation
Forms — J:\Planning & Budget Committee and J:\
President’s Advisory Cabinet
9.9Budget and Audit Reports — www.nocccd.edu/Departments/FandF/FinanceFacilities.htm
9.10
Five Year Construction Plan
9.11Educational Master Plan — www.cypresscollege.
edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspx
9.12Student Services Master Plan — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.
aspx
9.13Strategic Plan — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/
InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspx
9.14NOCCCD Board Agenda, Quarterly Financial Status
Reports — www.nocccd.edu/Departments/FandF/
FinanceFacilities.htm
9.15Cypress College Shared Governance Process Committees and Task Forces, President’s Advisory Cabinet February 1, 2007, Cypress College President’s
Advisory Cabinet Description, Purpose & Guidelines, September 2008, Cypress College Planning
and Budget Committee, September 5, 2008 — J:\
Planning & Budget Committee and J:\President’s
Advisory Cabinet
9.16Proposed Budget and Financial Report 2009-2010,
Page 31
9.17NOCCCD Annual Financial Report 6/30/09, p. 16)
(graphs p. 12 -13) — www.nocccd.edu/Departments/FandF/FinanceFacilities.htm
9.18NOCCCD Annual Financial Report 6/30/09, p. 5-6)
(include SNA stmt, p.7-9) — www.nocccd.edu/Departments/FandF/FinanceFacilities.htm9.19 Proposed Budget and Financial Report 2009-2010 P.4
231
& 29
htm#HumanResources
9.20Proposed Budget and Financial Report 2009-2010,
p 11
9.40DPC Meeting Minutes — J:\Chancellor’s Cabinet
District Planning Council Summaries-Minutes
9.21Budget Preparation, Board Policy 6200 — www.
nocccd.edu/Policies/PoliciesAndProcedures.htm
9.41North Orange County Community College Board
Policies and Administrative Procedures — www.
nocccd.edu/Policies/PoliciesAndProcedures.
htm#BoardPolicies
9.22Strategic Plan 2004-2008 — www.cypresscollege.
edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspx
9.23Annual Proposed Budget Narrative 2009/10, page
18; Strategic Plan 2008-2011, p.6-7; Educational
Master Plan 2006-2016, p.7
9.24
Annual Proposed Budget Narrative 2009/10, p.54
9.25Phone interview with Claudette Dain, District Director of Fiscal Services, 12/18/09
9.26
Annual Financial Reports, 2007, 2008
9.27Chancellor’s Memos Feb 2009-Feb 2010, Planning and Budget Committee Guidelines, @Cypress
Newsletters 8/21/09, 9/18/09, 1/29/10
9.42NOCCCD Agenda and Minutes — www.nocccd.
edu/Trustees/MtgMinutesArchive2010.htm
9.43Department of Finance and Facilities — www.
nocccd.edu/Departments/FandF/FinanceFacilities.
htm
9.44Department of Finance and Facilities, Purchasing —
www.nocccd.edu/Departments/FandF/Purchasing.
htm
9.45Department of Finance and Facilities Progress
Report — www.nocccd.edu/Departments/FandF/
FacilitiesBond/documents/NOCCCDFMPProgressReport2009.pdf
9.28Claudette Dain email 10/29/09, Audit Reports under
Analysis of Ending Fund Balance
9.29Claudette Dain, District Director of Fiscal Services,
email 10/29/09; 11/24/09 Board Meeting Minutes,
Item 4.a; News from the Board 11/24/09
9.30Claudette Dain, District Director of Fiscal Services,
email 10/29/09; Board Meeting Minutes 6-9-09 for
2009-2010 school year, item 3.e & f
9.31
T. Oh, District Director of Risk Services, 2/11/10
9.32
T. Oh, District Director of Risk Services, 12/16/09
9.33
T. Oh, District Director of Risk Services, 12/14/09
9.34External Audits — www.nocccd.edu/Departments/
FandF/FinanceFacilities.htm, internal audits performed by Pete Cruz under the direction of Vice
Chancellor Finance & Facilities, periodic compliance
reviews from state agencies remain with the program/department reviewed
9.35
Foundation Meeting Minutes
9.36Administrative Procedure 6150 — www.nocccd.
edu/Policies/PoliciesAndProcedures.htm
9.37Ref. Education Code Section 84040(c); Title 5, Section 58311; Accreditation Standard 9B and C
9.38Board Policy/Administrative Procedure 6400 —
www.nocccd.edu/Policies/PDFs/6400.AP_022206.
pdf
9.39Board Policy/Administrative Procedure 7130 —
www.nocccd.edu/Policies/PoliciesAndProcedures.
232
Cypress College
Standard IV
Leadership and Governance
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
233
Standard IVA: DecisionMaking Roles and Processes
A. Decision-Making Roles and Processes
The institution recognizes that ethical and effective leadership through the organization
enables the institution to identify institutional
values, set and achieve goals, learns, and improves.
Cypress College’s leadership and governance reflects a
student-centered philosophy with the primary emphasis on student learning outcomes and success. The decision-making roles and processes, therefore, focus on
improving the learning environment on campus to accommodate the needs and interests of the students. By
integrating the systematic governing structure that involves campus members in strategic planning — staff,
faculty, administrators, and students — the College
encourages open communication for new ideas while
maintaining the integrity of the College’s mission, values, and vision.
1. Institutional leaders create an environment
for empowerment, innovation, and institutional excellence. They encourage staff, faculty, administrators, and students, no matter
what their official titles, to take initiative in
improving the practices, programs and services in which they are involved. When ideas
for improvement have policy or significant
institution-wide implications, systematic participative processes are used to assure effective discussion, planning and implementation.
Descriptive Summary
The vision for Cypress College is “A premier learning
community recognized for supporting student success
and enriching society.” This vision reveals student success to be at the core of all institutional efforts at Cypress College (10.1,10.5). The word “premier” reflects
the focus on excellence in achieving student success.
The most all-encompassing document that points towards the importance of enhancing student success
is the Strategic Plan (10.2). The four Core Values —
Excellence, Integrity, Collegiality, and Inclusiveness —
speak to the campus culture of shared governance with
student success as the ultimate goal (10.5).
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
The Directions in the Strategic Plan refine and guide
the College toward continued student success and
learning. The Plan is the primary tool used by decisionmakers on campus and is the foundation for institutional planning and budgetary determinations (10.5).
Monetary requests that are in close harmony with the
directions of the Strategic Plan are more likely to be
funded (10.2).
Student success is monitored as part of program review for both instructional programs and support services. To this end, the College is nearing completion
on its plan for integrating student learning outcomes
(SLOs) and assessments into its ongoing quality review
process (10.7). The program review process allows the
faculty and classified staff in each area to contribute
their insights to the program evaluation. Since these
reviews serve as the basis for long-term planning, employees also have a say in determining the direction of
their programs.
The culture of the institution reflects excellence in
its ability to live up to the core value of inclusiveness
through the many efforts the College utilizes to provide opportunities for all segments of the institution to
be involved with planning. Planning retreats are held,
requests for participation are sent to the entire campus community, and the conveners always ensure that
there are representatives from faculty, classified, management, and student constituencies. Sometimes representatives of the surrounding communities are also
included. The most recent planning retreat in Spring
2008 involved 50 members from the Cypress College
community who attended a strategic planning colloquium. The participants included all segments of
the campus from students, to faculty, managers, and
classified staff as well as the Cypress College Foundation board of directors and other community partners.
Some had been at the campus for many years, while
others were new (10.5).
Self Evaluation
The Fall 2009 Campus Climate Survey revealed that
overall Cypress College faculty and staff members
viewed the campus atmosphere favorably (10.3). A majority (over 60%) (10.3b) of Cypress College employees
who responded assigned positive ratings on all eleven
descriptors. In fact, over 80% agreed that the campus
was “friendly, respectful and comfortable.” This result
235
was considerably higher than it had been in 2008 when
the satisfaction in those areas was closer to 70%. It is
interesting to note that in all remaining descriptive areas except “relaxed” (61.6%), respondents rated the
atmosphere at Cypress College at or above the 70%
level. This result is ten percentage points above the last
climate survey from 2008. This increase in faculty and
staff satisfaction is noteworthy as California has been
faced with the worst economic conditions in decades.
Cypress College has suffered budgetary cutbacks, overcrowding in classrooms, and reductions in staff, and yet
satisfaction with the campus climate is higher than in
the past.
Administrators and managers perceived the atmosphere on campus more favorably than other employee
groups. Administrators, full-time faculty members, and
members of shared-governance committees are more
satisfied with their work at Cypress College and believe
that their contributions are more influential than staff,
part-time faculty, and those not involved in shared-governance committees. Administrators were also most
likely to agree that they are aware and involved in campus planning while part-time faculty were least likely
to agree. The 2009 Climate Survey trends show that
overall the College atmosphere, acceptance of diversity and decision-making, and job satisfaction are rated
more positively than in the past (10.3).
Although most employees of Cypress College hold
positive attitudes and beliefs about the College, all employees do not experience the campus as positively as
others. Employees who are members of dominant social groups (e.g., Whites, men, heterosexuals, and nondisabled individuals) experience the College as more
supportive and equitable than do employees who are
members of minority social groups. Similarly, experiences of administrators are more positive, and they feel
that their involvement in campus planning and decision making is more meaningful than faculty (part-time
or full-time) or staff (10.3).
With excellence as a goal, improving student learning is also the primary outcome of the Department
Planning and Program Review (previously known as
Instructional Quality Assessment) and the Student
Services Quality Review processes. These committees utilize the decision-making processes to assess and
evaluate where the campus is succeeding and which
areas need improvement in both the instructional and
236
student support areas. Past results have included curriculum and budget revisions that focus on improving
student learning and an increase in grant applications
that are designed to enhance the College’s ability to
provide support services for its students.
The College’s current self evaluation processes are
relying upon the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges’ (ACCJC) revised accreditation standards that went into effect in 2004.
These standards stated in part, “…The institution
provides the means for students to learn, assesses how
well learning is occurring, and strives to improve that
learning through ongoing, systematic, and integrated
planning” (Standard I,10.2). Instructional programs,
student support services, and library and learning support services evaluate their effectiveness in supporting
these goals through the program review process. The
results of these evaluations are published in the annual
Institutional Effectiveness Report. At this point, program learning outcomes have been developed for all
academic programs and support service areas (10.7b).
Most academic departments have completed their first
cycle of assessment and will be linking these assessments
into their planning documents and program review
through the TracDat software in the next evaluation
cycle (10.7). Some programs (e.g., the Supplemental Instruction Program) also conduct detailed analyses with
the assistance of the Office of Institutional Research
and Planning. The results of these studies are posted
on the office’s web page (10.7c) as well as in other College documents.
In addition to its role in evaluating practices within its
programs and services, the SLO process has involved
many campus personnel in meaningful dialogue. It has
increased faculty and staff awareness of their roles in
helping achieve institutional goals. Faculty play the key
role in determining the content and delivery of student
learning with input from this ongoing dialogue as well
as assessment and curricular program and professional
development activities. Staff members who are directly
involved with campus and district committees — those
involved with funding, campus activities, and events
— perhaps can even more readily describe their own
roles than those who are not as involved. The College
recognizes the importance of continually keeping the
various constituency groups aware of their roles and
opportunities for involvement in governance structures
(10.5).
Cypress College
There are many opportunities for innovation on the
part of the faculty both as individuals and as members
of departments. They create and modify existing curriculum on a five-year cycle to maintain currency and
compliance with the CSU and UC articulation agreements. Either by working independently or with the
assistance of the Expanded SLO Committee, faculty
members develop SLOs for individual courses as well
as PLOs that evaluate their ability to serve students effectively. Based on the results from SLO analysis and
other input, faculty evaluate their departmental planning goals and recommend changes to bring these
goals into alignment with action plans identified in the
master planning documents. These evaluations provide input to the annual budget development process
through department participation and one time funding requests. They also assist the division deans in prioritizing proposals for hiring additional faculty (10.5).
Through the negotiated language of faculty and classified contracts, the District administration encourage
faculty and classified employees to participate in the
numerous colloquia, strategic conversations, and strategic planning gatherings. Students are encouraged to
participate through their involvement in club activities and student government. The structure of these
events encourages individuals to express their opinions
and share their ideas. In addition, there are important
workplace structures which rely upon the governance
process to enhance student learning. They include departments, divisions, and offices where individual and
group ideas may be heard. Finally, there are campus
committees, governance structures such as the Academic Senate and Faculty and Classified Employees’
unions, and the Associated Students, which can serve
as vehicles for innovation and improvement (10.5).
Planning Agenda
None.
2. The institution establishes and implements
a written policy providing for faculty, staff,
administrator, and student participation in
decision-making processes. The policy specifies the manner in which individuals bring forward ideas from their constituencies and work
together on appropriate policy, planning, and
special-purposes bodies.
2.a. Faculty and administrators have a subInstitutional Self Study — Spring 2011
stantive and clearly defined role in institutional governance and exercise a substantial voice
in institutional policies, planning, and budget
that relate to their areas of responsibility and
expertise. Students and staff also have established mechanism or organizations for providing input into institutional decisions.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College has developed both formal and informal avenues of communication consistent with its core
values of inclusiveness and collegiality. These communication networks allow for both top-down and bottom-up communication that encourage efficiency and
creativity within the community so that each member
has the opportunity to suggest ideas for institutional
improvements. As part of the North Orange County
Community College District (NOCCCD), communication between Cypress College, Fullerton College,
the School of Continuing Education, and the District
Office must also be coordinated effectively. Formal
structures within the District as well as all Board policies can be found on the NOCCCD website (10.10)
For example, Board Policy 2510 specifies the role of
faculty, staff, and students in institutional governance.
Descriptions of College-level communication structures can be found in both the College’s Strategic Plan
(10.2) and the Educational Master Plan (10.5). Specific
details about the membership, history, and purpose of
the various governance and planning committees are
stored on the College’s J: drive (10.11).
Individual faculty members have many avenues
through which to communicate ideas and participate
in the governance process. Regular (monthly or as
needed) department and division meetings allow faculty to express concerns, contribute ideas, and participate in the day-to-day operations within their department. At these meetings, department coordinators
share information and provide status reports on their
areas. Faculty members on shared-governance committees and Academic Senate representatives inform
their peers about the deliberative activities of these
groups (10.12). In turn, faculty discuss these activities
and, when appropriate, vote to establish directives for
their representatives.
The Academic Senate represents faculty on all issues
regarding classroom instruction and College policy.
237
Faculty can bring division-specific issues to the Academic Senate through their elected representatives. In
addition, faculty can address areas of wider concern
through their at-large Academic Senate representatives
(10.13). When necessary, issues related to instructional
assignment or terms of employment can be addressed
through the United Faculty union (UF) for full-time
faculty or Adjunct Faculty United (AdFAC) for adjunct
instructors. Both of these unions operate under their
own set of governance rules (10.14).
Classified staff participate in division meetings where
they can express their concerns and provide feedback
to the faculty. Most divisions also hold regular staff
meetings where classified personnel can communicate
directly with their manager to establish operating procedures for their area and help develop the division
budget. Much of the operational information affecting day-to-day processes are communicated informally through the network of division office managers
(10.12). Their ability to communicate effectively and
their willingness to work together is one of the College’s
strengths. Like faculty, classified staff can communicate
workplace-related concerns through their California
School Employees Association (CSEA) when necessary
(10.15).
Cypress College administration communicates via a
regularly scheduled series of meetings. Deans from Academic Divisions and Student Support Services meet
twice monthly with the Executive Vice President of
Instruction to share the concerns of their faculty and
staff and to discuss issues that affect instruction and
student support. At a separate meeting chaired by the
President, Deans and Directors discuss broader campus issues including facilities concerns and the development of campus-wide procedures. These directors’
meetings are scheduled to alternate with a larger Management Team meeting that includes all administrative
personnel (10.16). In addition to these administrative
meetings, managers are also members of one or more
other committees where they serve side-by-side with
faculty and staff (10.17).
Student representation occurs through the Associated
Students Council, which makes appointments and provides feedback to campus committees. Over the past
two years, student participation on the Council has
increased, enabling stronger and more diverse student
representation in the shared-governance process. In
238
addition to input through the formal process, students
at the College are able to promote change through less
formal processes by working directly with faculty, managers, and administrators (10.18).
Most decisions that affect Cypress College are made
at the campus level. These decisions may involve budgetary, staffing, and instructional issues as well as the
development of policies and procedures. Typically,
planning begins at the department and division level
as part of the program review process (10.19). This
planning document aligns departmental goals with the
institution’s goals as outlined in the Strategic Plan and
Educational Master Plan (EMP), taking into account
the data collected through the SLO process (10.19),
the Institutional Effectiveness Report (10.7), and other
research projects requested through the Office of Instruction.
When instructors determine that additional resources
are needed to fulfill their goals, they submit a OneTime Funding Proposal to the appropriate direction
committee (10.2). The various direction committees
prioritize these proposals and make recommendations
to the Planning and Budget Committee (PBC). The
PBC reviews these proposals, evaluates the campus
needs and resources, and passes their recommendation on to the President’s Advisory Cabinet for final
approval.
Occasionally, decisions affecting the campus occur via
a top-down mechanism. These decisions begin as directives from the president, often as a result of changing
regulations or accreditation standards. In these situations, information regarding campus goals — including the rationale behind them and the parameters for
resolving the issues — are communicated in a variety
of venues. These discussions occur at large gatherings
such as campus Opening Day events, Leadership Team
meetings, as well as through management and division
meetings. As much as possible, the campus community
works together to craft an appropriate response.
Self Evaluation
Although Cypress College has developed a structured
decision-making process that encourages open communication and innovation, the number of individuals who participate in this process is less than optimal.
Those individuals that do participate express a greater
sense of satisfaction both with the College and with
Cypress College
their job (10.3). The two most common excuses for lack
of involvement are a lack of available time and inadequate information on how to get involved.
New personnel and those that do not have a history
of involvement are often unaware of campus processes
and procedures. This problem creates an information
gap forming a barrier for recruitment into the sharedgovernance process. For example, many instructors are
not familiar with the valuable information available
on the campus J: drive, while others do not know how
to access it or that it even exists. These obstacles prevent them from becoming involved in campus governance. Cypress College’s plans to improve involvement
include creating a brochure “How to Get Involved”
(10.25); however, barriers to participations still remain.
The fact that many individuals are not involved has serious consequences in terms of both communication
and governance. Increasing participation will require
an extensive effort of analysis, recruitment, and retentions.
Staff Development introduces first year full-time faculty
members to the structure and function of college governance in their New Faculty Seminar Series (10.58).
However, the amount of new material first year faculty
members are exposed to can be overwhelming. Hence,
they are not likely to retain this information. Also, since
new instructors are encouraged to devote their early
years to enhancing their instructional aptitude, campus involvement is delayed. Unfortunately, the habit
of participation is much more difficult to develop once
behavior patterns are established.
As the modes of communication have moved rapidly from print, to electronic, to web-based media, the
College has struggled to remain current. Each area of
campus has established communication networks that
meet their local needs. However, individuals from other areas are not aware of these structures or how to use
them. Most importantly, no single individual or entity
on campus bears the responsibility for maintaining or
coordinating the systems. As a result, there is no single
depository for institutional documents, although that
was the intent behind creating the intranet J: drive.
Planning Agenda
None.
2.b. The institution relies on faculty, its acaInstitutional Self Study — Spring 2011
demic senate or other appropriate faculty
structures, the curriculum committee, and academic administrators for recommendations
about student learning programs and services.
Descriptive Summary
The North Orange County Community College District (NOCCCD) has established and implemented
written policies providing faculty, staff, administrators,
and students participation in the decision-making processes. These specific policies include: Board Policy
2430 — Delegation of Authority to the Chancellor,
Board Policy 3100 — Organization Structure, Board
Policy 3250 — Institutional Planning, Board Policy
6250 — Budget Management, and Board Policy 6300
— Fiscal Management. (10.53)
The major legal provision that sets forth the official responsibilities and authority of the faculty is California
Assembly Bill 1725 (10.22), which codified the principles of shared governance. The Board of Trustees
has adopted the policy that it will “rely primarily” on
the advice of the Academic Senate “or seek to reach
mutual agreement” in the ten identified areas of academic and professional matters. In keeping with its
Core Value of Inclusiveness, Cypress College is committed to the principle of shared governance and relies
on the faculty as the major contributor on curricular
and educational matters.
As an institution, Cypress College values inclusiveness.
Adherence to this value is manifest in the makeup of
the College shared-governance committees. Each of
the following committees includes membership from
administration, faculty, classified staff, and students:
President’s Advisory Cabinet, Diversity, Matriculation Advisory, Curriculum, Planning and Budget, all
Direction Committees of the Strategic Planning Process, Planning and Budget Subcommittees, Staff Development, Student Equality Planning, and Campus
Technology (10.42). In this respect, every aspect of
governance that includes planning and curriculum development receives significant input from both faculty
and administrators.
The Curriculum Committee is a subcommittee of the
Academic Senate and assumes primary responsibility for curricular issues. The Cypress College General
Procedures on Curriculum describes the official responsibilities of faculty and academic administrators in
239
curricular matters (10.43). Both the committee membership and its function are weighted heavily toward
faculty involvement. The curriculum process is made
up of four phases: Consultation Phase, Campus Approval Phase, District Approval Phase, and Resolution
Phase. (10.54) During the Consultation Phase, Division
Representatives work with faculty within their divisions
to create and/or modify their curriculum. Representatives ensure that the curriculum is in accordance with
State law and College guidelines. Completed curricula
are thoroughly reviewed before the Campus Approval
Phase, during which the Technical Review Subcommittee evaluates the curriculum for technical errors. These
errors are corrected before the curriculum is presented
before the full committee for campus approval. Similarly, procedures at the District Approval and Resolution phase include a high level of faculty input and
administrative cooperation. Recently, Cypress College
has strengthened and streamlined this approval process
through the utilization of the CurricUNET software
to standardize formats and improve oversight (10.23).
Every third year, each academic department conducts
an internal Department Planning and Program Review (10.57) during which faculty members collaborate with one another to evaluate data from SLOs and
other sources and develop plans for the future direction of their instructional program. During this review,
instructors are encouraged to consider how well their
department mission, goals, and action plans reflect the
mission and broader goals of the College as articulated
in the Educational Master Plan. These internal reviews
are submitted to the Department Planning and Program Review Committee, which is composed of a faculty chair appointed by the Academic Senate, a faculty
representative from each of the ten instructional divisions approved by the Academic Senate, and one dean.
Self Evaluation
Cypress College has developed a comprehensive governance structure to ensure that both faculty and administrators have significant input into decisions that
impact student learning and educational support services. This structure encourages input at both the local
(i.e. departmental/divisional) level and at the campus
level.
Most departments rely on collective contributions from
each individual instructor as they develop their goals
240
and SLOs, implement curriculum changes, and conduct their program review. The division dean is consulted during this process and submits a companion
form that includes his/her observations and recommendations. The Program Review Committee reads
these reviews and recommends changes before the final
report is submitted to the Executive Vice President and
campus committees to be used in considering funding requests for faculty, staff, facilities, and equipment.
Similarly, both the division dean and faculty members
within the division offer their input at the Consultation Phase in Curriculum Development to ensure that
curriculum changes have broad general support before
being presented at the campus level. In general, most
faculty contribute to these local processes.
Cypress College has established an inclusive model
for campus-wide participation through its Educational
Master Plan (EMP). The EMP “serves as the foundational document to inform and shape other campus
plans” (10.5). The EMP also describes the history and
the extensive collaborative effort that led to its development. Each subsequent plan developed to fulfill
the goals of the EMP was created through a similarly
collaborative process. Each was also approved by the
Academic Senate, the Planning and Budget Committee, and President’s Advisory Cabinet before adoption.
The implementation of the Student Services Plan, the
Matriculation Plan, and the Technology Plan are all
conducted with the oversight of an advisory committee that represents a range of constituencies. Representation on these and other campus-wide committees is
voluntary. Fewer faculty choose to serve on these campus committees than contribute to the decisions made
at the department and division levels.
The extent to which faculty contribute to the planning
and shared-governance processes decreases as the perceived distance from their instructional area increases. This “inverted involvement pyramid” results in a
smaller number of faculty members contributing to the
broader campus-wide decisions than those contributing to their immediate area. Currently, this picture represents the perceived pattern of campus involvement.
Both the College administration and the faculty members who serve on campus-wide committees perceive
this pattern of involvement to be detrimental to the
decision-making process. However, there has not been
a systematic study of campus involvement to verify
whether this inverted involvement pyramid exists, and,
Cypress College
if it does, whether it really is detrimental to College
shared governance.
Planning Agenda
None.
3. Through established governance structures,
processes, and practices, the governing board,
administrators, faculty, staff, and students
work together for the good of the institution.
These processes facilitate discussion of ideas
and effective communication among the institution’s constituencies.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College maintains a strong commitment to the
ideals and practices of shared governance. The campus community adheres to its core values of collegiality
and inclusiveness in making policy decisions, soliciting
input from all affected parties including faculty, classified staff, students, and administrators. These values
are an extension of the District’s goals to create a transparent decision-making environment as befits a public
institution. The following examples demonstrate how
both District and College personnel work together to
apply these ideals in their shared-governance practices.
The District website is structured to provide public
access to Board policies, meeting schedules, meeting
agendas and minutes, and financial documents (10.10).
District business is conducted in open session during
bi-monthly meetings. Meeting minutes are comprehensive and thorough. Instances where sensitive legal
issues are discussed in closed session are duly noted
with references to appropriate Government Codes
that support the Board’s actions. The District Director of Public Affairs prepares News from the Board of
Trustees (10.49), which summarizes meeting highlights
(10.49), and are distributed electronically to the constituent campuses.
An example of the Trustees’ commitment to collective
dialogue is the Annual Strategic Conversation. The
topic of this year’s 11th Strategic Conversation was
“Student Success.” Over 80 participants (including students, faculty, support staff, administrators, and Board
members) discussed definitions of student success and
shared personal experiences that affected their own
ability to succeed. Strategic Conversations have been
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
held in the District since 1999 to encourage communication and interaction between staff, community, and
Board of Trustee members. The comments and ideas
shared at these informal conversations are compiled
into follow-up reports, which serve as a reference for
the Board as it addresses future policy matters (10.41).
At the campus level, Cypress College has created a
well-defined structure to conduct its planning activities
(10.46). Using this structure, the College community
collectively determines the goals and objectives of the
institution based on a shared understanding of its mission, vision, and core values. In developing its guiding
Educational Master Plan 2006-2016 (EMP) (10. 5), the
College recognized the need to institutionalize datadriven decision making as part of its overall planning
process. The EMP provides a detailed analysis of the
College’s service area and student population in order
to respond more efficiently to student needs.
Assessing this information, faculty worked within the
existing departmental structure to predict enrollment
and occupational trends in their areas. Using these predictions, individual departments strive to define programs and develop support structures as a foundation
for student success. The broadly defined institutional
goals outlined in the EMP directly feed into the more
specific planning objectives expressed in the Strategic
Plan 2008-2011 (10.2).
The basic foundation for the Strategic Plan was developed during a planning colloquium at the UCLA Conference Center in Lake Arrowhead in March 2008.
Participants included personnel across all areas of the
campus. Among the participants were 13 instructors
(including two representing the Academic Senate), 5
students, 8 academic deans, 4 area coordinators and
directors, 2 academic counselors, 2 research personnel,
9 other classified employees as well as the VP, EVP, and
President of the College (10.47). Contributors engaged
in structured dialogues addressing critical issues facing
the College and its students.
Based on the discussions of this diverse group, six primary challenges were identified. A steering committee used this information to develop a draft document
containing five Strategic Directions with 37 objectives
supporting 13 specific goals. The draft document was
then distributed to campus committees including the
Academic Senate, the Planning and Budget Committee, and the Enrollment Management Committee (5%
241
MORE) before being shared with the Leadership Team
on May 2, 2008 (10.50). At this meeting, members suggested some minor revisions to improve the clarity and
readability of the document before distribution for
comment to the campus at large. After a waiting period for discussion and review, the President’s Advisory
Cabinet adopted the Strategic Plan on September 18,
2008 (10.51).
Five Direction Committees oversee the campus activities defined by the Strategic Plan to ensure that its
objectives are being accomplished according to the
proscribed timelines. Each committee seeks representation from all academic and support areas and from
all personnel categories across campus. Committee
members contact the lead persons identified by the
Strategic Plan for progress updates on specific objectives. They also review spending proposals submitted
to support these objectives and prioritize expenditures.
The proposals are subsequently presented for approval
to the Planning and Budget Committee and, finally, to
the President’s Advisory Cabinet (PAC).
Cypress College relies on several parallel structures to
communicate the results of the decision-making processes. The College has adopted electronic communication as the preferred “official” medium for conveying information to students and employees. When
students apply, they designate a primary email address
through which they receive campus communications.
All full-time faculty, adjunct faculty, and staff are issued
email accounts under the @cypresscollege.edu domain
name. Academic Computing is currently investigating
the feasibility of extending this practice to include students and alumni as well, with plans to implement this
policy in 2012-2013 (10.24). In addition to email, students and District employees have access to myGateway (10.55), a password-protected portal network with
links to important messages and administrative processes throughout the District.
The campus also provides access to District forms and
the activities of the College’s various shared-governance committees through an archive of documents
on an intranet J: drive. All Cypress College staff, including both full-time and adjunct faculty, can request
a Novell account to access the J: drive. Due to the sensitive nature of some of the documents stored there,
remote access and student access are restricted. This
resource provides a centralized location for document
242
storage. However, since no individual has been designated responsibility for maintaining this archive, there
is some difficulty in navigating the site and determining
which forms are the most current.
Because some issues require more interactive communication, deans and directors regularly meet bi-weekly
with the President, VP, and EVP. At these meetings,
administrators receive updates on policy decisions and
the rationale behind them so that they, in turn, can
communicate with their divisions. Directors also share
information on campus events/incidents and their likely impact on personnel. Discussions and deliberations
follow a participatory model that emphasizes consensus whenever possible with cordial acceptance of decisions when consensus proves elusive.
Self Evaluation
The shared-governance structure at Cypress College
reflects its culture and history as an institution. Campus Climate Surveys conducted biennially indicate a
strong correlation between involvement and personal
satisfaction with campus institutions and governance
practices (10.3). In other words, the structures of the
College’s participatory governance works well for those
employees that participate. Unfortunately, not all personnel participate.
Communicating with adjunct instructors proves to be a
particularly difficult issue to address. Since many teach
at multiple colleges, they often have three or more
separate email accounts to monitor (10.26). Therefore,
multiple modes of communication including email,
written memos, and direct personal contact are required to keep them informed.
Planning Agenda
None.
4. The institution advocates and demonstrates
honesty and integrity in its relationships with
external agencies. It agrees to comply with
Accrediting Commission standards, policies,
and guidelines, and Commission requirements for public disclosure, self-study, and
other reports, team visits, and prior approval
of substantive changes. The institution moves
expeditiously to respond to recommendations
made by the Commission.
Cypress College
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College recognizes the importance of integrity
and openness in communication. As a public agency,
the College is ultimately responsible to the public. Accrediting agencies are watchdogs for the public interest, providing the oversight necessary to ensure that the
College is providing a quality education for its students.
Since the institution also values excellence, it welcomes
the feedback and recommendations. They are taken to
heart and recognized for what they are: an opportunity
for reflection and improvement. As a community, the
College also understands that timely compliance with
these regulations and standards serves to develop and
maintain its professional relationships, reflecting well
on the College and exemplifying its commitment to
collegiality in all of its relationships.
Self Evaluation
The College responds to external agencies consistently
and accurately and makes deliberate efforts to maintain high standards of excellence. The 2008 Focused
Mid-term Report (10.27) details progression toward
completion of the 6 recommendations made by the
Accrediting Commission, as well as recognition by the
U.S. Department of Education’s (10.28) of Cypress
College as an accredited institution with the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges.
Specialized accreditations maintained by the Health
Science Division include the American Board of Funeral Service Education (10.29), the Commission on
Dental Accreditation (10.30), the Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology (10.31),
and the National League for Nursing Accrediting
Commission (10.32).
Additionally, a number of College programs are members of professional organizations and/or are in compliance with those professional industry standards.
More specifically, the Automotive Technology Program
is certified with the National Automotive Technicians
Education Foundation (10.33); the Computer Information Systems program is Microsoft Office Specialist
Certified (10.34); and the Air Conditioning/Refrigeration program is currently seeking certification with the
Heating Ventilating Air Conditioning Excellence Organization (10.35).
Some of the College programs utilize industry agencies for course standardization. The Culinary Arts Program uses materials provided by the National Restaurant Association (10.36), and the Hotel Management
Program uses materials provided by the American Hotel and Lodging Educational Institute (10.37). Partnerships have been developed with a variety of employers
such as the Toyota Corporation (10.38) and its Toyota
Technical Education Network (T-TEN) and the Johnson Controls’ Career Connect (10.39) Program to ensure that quality instruction leads directly to viable employment.
The Career Technical Education and Economic Development, Health Science, and Business & CIS divisions are all in State compliance by annually hosting
advisory meetings with industry leaders to maintain
quality and currency in course and program offerings.
In addition, the dean of Career Technical Education
and Economic Development works closely with the
U.S. Department of Education Office of Vocational
and Adult Education, the California Department of
Education Office of Workforce Development, and the
California Community College Los Angeles/Orange
County Regional Consortium.
Campus deans are dedicated to maintaining collaborative relationships with local industries and attend city
and Chamber of Commerce events. Campus deans
and other campus staff also participate in various activities and meetings with the California Workforce Investment Board (WIB).
A Public Information Office maintains an open and
cooperative relationship with the media and, through
the College’s comprehensive website, provides public access to current and archived catalogs, schedules,
newsletters, accreditation documents, institutional publications, and campus calendars. Students, faculty, and
staff have access to their private documents through
the myGateway portal (10.55).
A full-time Articulation Officer maintains course
agreements with 2- and 4-year institutions, a part-time
Technical Preparation Coordinator maintains course
agreements, alignments, and career pathways with local high schools and Regional Occupation Programs,
and all full-time counselors have liaison assignments
with the local high schools to encourage and enhance
student academic progress.
The final phase of the 2002 voter-approved Measure
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
243
X Remodel for Efficiency project was completed with
the Humanities building rededication in Spring 2010
(10.40).
Planning Agenda
None.
5. The role of leadership and the institution’s
governance and decision-making structures
and processes are regularly evaluated to assure their integrity and effectiveness. The institution widely communicates the results of
these evaluations and uses them as the basis
for improvement.
Descriptive Summary
Cypress College has not created a formal review process to evaluate its organizational governance structure, although this structure is periodically evaluated in
the preparation of its Accreditation Self Study (10.16).
Nevertheless, informal discussions occur regularly as
part of the shared-governance process. Specific conversations arise when vacancies occur or in response
to economic downturns. Each administrative vacancy
is reviewed thoroughly to evaluate the necessity of filling the position. At times, administrative duties are
shuffled or combined in response to economic uncertainties. When circumstances dictate a more comprehensive response, the President’s Advisory Cabinet
may suggest the formation of a Reorganization Task
Force composed of faculty, administrators, and classified personnel. This task force is charged with assessing
the current governance structure and making recommendations to manage both short-term and long-term
reorganizations.
Individual administrators are evaluated yearly by their
immediate management supervisor based on criteria
set forth in the Management Appraisal Instrument as
well as mutually agreed-upon goals and objectives. Every third year, administrators undergo a comprehensive review and are evaluated by a broad cross-section
of College employees using the same criteria (10.53).
The biennial Campus Climate Survey provides feedback of a more general nature about impressions of the
College environment (10.6). An entire section is dedicated to the evaluation of campus governance and job
satisfaction. The Office of Institutional Research and
244
Planning conducts these surveys, analyzes the results,
and creates a report that is accessible through their
website. The results of this survey are widely circulated
through presentations at Leadership Team meetings
and at campus Opening Day events.
Cypress College regularly conducts comprehensive
surveys of both students and staff to evaluate all functional units on the campus. The Student Survey is
conducted every Fall in odd-numbered years while the
Campus Climate Survey is conducted in the Spring
semesters of even-numbered years. These surveys are
distributed both electronically and via regular mail format to maximize responses and ensure a representative data set (10.3). In addition, the Campus Support
Services Survey is conducted every three years in the
Spring semester. These surveys become part of the
Quality Review process for Student Support Services,
Campus Support Services, and Special Programs. The
Special Programs survey began in Spring 2008, and
the rotation schedule has yet to be determined.
The results of these surveys are evaluated by the Office
of Institutional Research and Planning. Researchers
publish comprehensive reports on their website (10.7c),
on the campus J: drive (10.11), and in a shortened version on the campus website (10.52). The results are
evaluated by representatives from administration, student support services, and special programs areas. If
changes for improvement are recommended, they are
forwarded to the various shared-governance decisionmaking bodies (10.45, 10.48), including designated
management teams, the Planning and Budget Committee, and the President’s Advisory Cabinet. Minutes
of these meetings are posted on the campus J: drive for
the entire campus community to review.
Self Evaluation
Cypress College has established an effective means for
evaluating the opinions of student and staff through
an orchestrated series of surveys. The results of these
surveys are communicated through a variety of forums and serve to inform the decision-making process
on campus. The Office of Institutional Research and
Planning has developed a “Dashboard,” an effective visual format for integrating the various measures of institutional effectiveness and connecting them with the
established governance structure (10.56). This dashboard provides a detailed summary of the current staCypress College
tus and progress toward the goals outlined in the Strategic Plan. The website for the Office of Institutional
Research and Planning contains links to the analysis
and written reports for the most recent campus-wide
surveys. Full implementation of the TracDat assessment management software promises a great advance
in centralizing campus information. However, the existence of multiple storage locations and separate sites
for storing present and past reports creates confusion
among campus employees.
Cypress College management is particularly sensitive
to concerns about personal job satisfaction and the degree to which individuals are involved and content with
the governance process. In fact, the Campus Climate
Survey for Spring 2010 (but conducted in Fall 2009 for
use in the Self Study) asked 14 specific questions relating to these issues (10.3). The results of this study
indicate that there is general satisfaction with campus
governance, but that administrators express a significantly more positive opinion than do other segments
of the campus community.
Planning Agenda
None.
Reference Documents
10.1Cypress College Catalog — www.cypresscollege.
edu/academics/CollegeCatalog.aspx
10.2Cypress College Strategic Plan 2008-2011 — www.
cypresscollege.edu/Media/Website%20Resources/
PDFs/ir/Strategic%20Plan%202008-2011%20Final.
pdf
10.7Cypress College Institutional Effectiveness Report
2008-2009, p. 61 — www.cypresscollege.edu/IRP/
Resources/Research/SE/IER2009forwebsite.pdf
10.7bCypress College Institutional Effectiveness Report
2009-2010, p. 63 — www.cypresscollege.edu/IRP/
Resources/Research/SE/IER2009forwebsite.pdf
10.7cOffice of Institutional Research and Planning webpage — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch.
10.8Higher Education: A Report and Collection of Institutional Practices of the Student Learning Initiative
10.9Cypress College Accreditation Self Study 2005
— www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/Accreditation/areports.aspx
10.10North Orange County Community College District
website — www.nocccd.edu/
10.11Cypress College Campus — J:drive
10.12Richard Fee, Dean: SEM. — Personal communication
10.13Cypress College Academic Senate Constitution and
By-Laws — J:\Academic Senate\Academic Senate Constitution & By-laws\Constitution & By-laws
adopted and ratified April 2008.doc
10.14Faculty Contracts — www.nocccd.edu/Departments/HR/UnionContracts.htm
10.15California School Employees’ Association (CSEA)
By-Laws — www.nocccd.edu/Departments/HR/
documents/CSEAContract2007-2010.pdf
10.16Meeting minutes archived in President’s and Executive Vice President’s offices
10.17Shared Governance Committees — J:\Shared Governance Committees
10.3Climate Survey of Faculty and Staff, 2009-2010
— www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/rsurveys.aspx
10.18Ryan Billings, Vice President Cypress College Associated Students — Personal Communication
10.3bClimate Survey, 2009-2010 (additional unpublished
data from the Office of Institutional Research)
10.19Institutional Effectiveness Plan — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.
aspx
10.4Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory Fall 2009,
published 2010 — www.cypresscollege.edu/about/
InstitutionalResearch/rsurveys.aspx
10.22Assembly Bill 1725 — www.faccc.org/ADVOCACY/
bills/historical/ab1725.PDF
10.5Cypress College Educational Master Plan, 2006
-2016 — www.cypresscollege.edu/IRP/Resources/
Planning/EducationalMasterPlan.pdf
10.6Cypress College Strategic Plan Update 2009 —
www.cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspx
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
10.23CurricUNET — www.curricunet.com/cypress/
10.24Personal communication: Mike Kavanaugh, Director
of Academic Computing
10.25Cypress College — How to Get Involved. (expected
completion date Spring 2011)
245
10.26Basic Skills initiative Regional Meeting discussion,
Fall 2009. Richard Fee — Personal Communication
10.27Focused Midterm Report to the Accrediting Commission (2008) — www.cypresscollege.edu/IRP/
Resources/Accreditation/R/FocusedMidTermReport_Final_Feb5_2008.pdf
10.28“The Database of Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs.” U.S. Department of Education. Web. 15 Nov. 2009 — www.ope.ed.gov/accreditation/
10.29“ABFSE Directory of Programs – California.” American Board of Funeral Service Education. Web. 10
March 2010 — www.abfse.org/html/dir-ca.html
10.30“Commission on Dental Accreditation.” American
Dental Association. Web. 17 Mar. 2010 — www.
ada.org/prof/ed/programs/index.asp
10.31“Accredited Programs.” Joint Review Committee on
Education in Radiologic Technology — www.jrcert.
org/ Web. 17 Mar. 2010.
10.32“NLNAC Accredited Nursing Programs.” National
League for Nursing Accrediting Commission, Inc.
Web. 17 Mar. 2010 — www.nlnac.org/home.htm
10.33“NATEF: Certification Process.” National Automotive
Technicians Education Foundation. Web. 15 Nov.
2009 — www.natef.org/certification.cfm
10.34“Microsoft: Certification.” Microsoft. Web 15 Nov.
2009 — www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/default.
aspx
10.35“HVAC Excellence.” HVAC Excellence. Web. 15
Nov. 2009 — www.hvacexcellence.org/Default.aspx
10.36“NRA: ManageFirst.” National Restaurant Association Education Foundation. Web. 15 Nov. 2009 —
www.managefirst.restaurant.org/
10.37“AHLA: Hospitality Training, Certification and Education.” American Hotel and Lodging Educational
Institute. Web. 15 Nov. 2009 — www.ei-ahla.org/
10.38“T-TEN Find a School.” Toyota Motor Sales Corporation. Web. 15 Nov. 2009 — www.toyota.com/
about/tten/
10.39“Johnson Controls: Career Connect.” Johnson
Controls. Web. 15 Nov. 2009 — www.johnsoncontrols.com/publish/us/en/careers/college_recruiting1/
Career_Connect/partner_schools.html
Paper — www.nocccd.edu/documents/StrategicConversation11Summary.pdf
10.42President’s Advisory Cabinet — J:\President’s Advisory Cabinet\Shared Governance Process
10.43General Procedures on Curriculum: Curriculum minutes & Other Info — J:\Curriculum minutes & Other
Info\General Procedures on Curriculum.doc
10.45Planning and Budget Committee — J:\Planning &
Budget Committee
10.46Cypress College Strategic Plan 2008-2011: Appendix A — www.cypresscollege.edu/Media/Website%20Resources/PDFs/ir/Strategic%20Plan%20
2008-2011%20Final.pdf
10.47Cypress College Strategic Plan 2008-2011: Appendix B — www.cypresscollege.edu/Media/Website%20Resources/PDFs/ir/Strategic%20Plan%20
2008-2011%20Final.pdf
10.48President’s Advisory Cabinet — J:\President’s Advisory Cabinet
10.49News from the Board — www.nocccd.edu/Trustees/NewsFromBofT1011.htm
10.50Leadership Team Meeting Agenda: Maintained by
the Office of the President
10.51President’s Advisory Cabinet\2008-2009 — J:\President’s Advisory Cabinet\2008-2009\PAC Minutes
09-18-08a.doc
10.52Cypress College Website — www.cypresscollege.
edu
10.53North Orange County Community College District
Website- Board Policies — www.nocccd.edu/Policies/PoliciesAndProcedures.htm
10.54The Curriculum Process — J:\curriculum minutes
and other information
10.55MyGateway Portal — mygateway.nocccd.edu/cp/
home/loginf
10.56Dashboard Format — www.cypresscollege.edu/
Media/Website%20Resources/PDFs/pio/2009CypressCollege-Dashboard.pdf
10.57Department Planning and Program Review — www.
cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/ProgramReview
10.40North Orange County Community College District
Website- Building Progress Report 2009 — www.
nocccd.edu/Departments/FandF/FacilitiesBond/
documents/BuildingProgressReport2009.pdf
10.4111th Annual Strategic Conversation Background
246
Cypress College
Standard IVB: Board and
Administrative
Organization
In addition to the leadership of individuals
and constituencies, institutions recognize the
designated responsibilities of the governing
board for setting policies and of the chief administrator for the effective operation of the
institution. Multi-college districts clearly define the organizational roles of the district and
the colleges.
1. The institution has a governing board that is
responsible for establishing policies to assure
the quality, integrity, and effectiveness of the
student learning programs and services and
the financial stability of the institution. The
governing board adheres to a clearly defined
policy for selecting and evaluating the chief
administrator for the college or the district.
1.a. The governing board is an independent
policy-making body that reflects the public interest in board activities and decisions. Once
the board reaches a decision, it acts as a whole.
Descriptive Summary
Board Policy 2010 (11.1) sets forth the formal regulations regarding how the Board is constituted. The
Board consists of seven members, with staggered elections held every two years for the participation of registered voters in the North Orange County Community
College District (NOCCCD). Each Trustee represents
one of four specific geographic areas within the District. The Trustee must live in that area but is elected
at large by all voters within the District. Trustees are
elected to four-year terms of office. The backgrounds
of current Board members include experience in both
the private and public sectors. Several have also been
involved in local and state politics. All of the current
members have served multiple terms, providing continuity and stability to the District in their role as Trustees. Two Student Trustees also serve on the Board. The
Student Trustees participate in all open Board discussions and activities while representing the interests and
issues of their respective colleges. Student Trustees are
elected by the students at their respective colleges each
Spring and serve one-year terms beginning in June.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Self Evaluation
The Board engages in effective open debate on issues
relevant to the College as contained in Board agendas.
The Board acts in a conscientious manner to encourage input from the constituent groups and from the
public. Once action has been taken on agenda items,
the Board acts as a cohesive team in assuring appropriate implementation. Board meetings provide the
opportunity for internal and external constituents to
be heard on policy and other matters. The Board is
conscientious in listening to complaints and concerns
while serving as a buffer, explaining the parameters of
District initiatives and the limitations under which the
colleges and School of Continuing Education operate.
Regularly scheduled Board meetings serve as forums
for the Board to receive information and to act as advocates for the Colleges and the School of Continuing
Education. They are unified in serving to protect and
advance the well being of the College while being appropriately responsive to the community.
Planning Agenda
None.
1.b. The governing board establishes policies
consistent with the mission statement to ensure the quality, integrity, and improvement
of student learning programs and services
and the resources necessary to support them.
Descriptive Summary
The North Orange County Community College District has adopted its own mission statement (BP 1001):
“The mission of the North Orange County Community College District is to serve and enrich our communities and inspire life-long learning by providing
education that is exemplary, relevant, and accessible.”
(11.1) The mission statement further states: “Cypress
College and Fullerton College will offer associate degrees, vocational certificates and transfer education, as
well as developmental instruction and a broad array of
specialized training. The School of Continuing Education will offer non-college credit programs including
high school diploma completion, basic skills, vocational
certificates and self development courses. Specific activities in both the colleges and School of Continuing
Education will be directed toward economic develop247
ment within the community.” The mission statement
also provides that Cypress and Fullerton colleges “will
offer associate degrees, vocational certificates and
transfer education as well as developmental instruction
and a broad array of specialized training.” The District
has adopted a Philosophy Statement, BP 1002, (11.1)
that includes the following, “Trustees, faculty, staff
and administrators have the responsibility to provide
and support educational offerings of the highest quality and value to students and the community.” These
policy statements articulate the Board’s commitment
to ensuring high quality programs and services. District
Board Policies, Administrative Procedures, and the Administrative Guide (11.1) are intended to provide the
specific means through which the District operationalizes its mission and philosophy.
Self Evaluation
The Board engages in an ongoing process of review
of all its policies and procedures. That review process
involves participation by faculty, staff, students, and administrative personnel from the District, Cypress College, Fullerton College and the School of Continuing
Education. All entities have representation on Chancellor’s Cabinet.
The District Planning Council (DPC) serves as the primary body responsible for ensuring that the institutions
receive the resources necessary to comply with the mission of the District as articulated by the Board. In addition, ongoing and ad hoc financial matters are discussed among the District and campus budget officers
at the Budget Managers meetings, which coincide with
regularly scheduled Board meetings. The information
discussed at the Budget Managers meetings is presented as appropriate to the membership of the DPC to be
used in discussions relevant to allocation of resources.
Topics relevant to these discussions include FTES allocations, budget allocations, and human resource allocations (11.25).
Planning Agenda
None.
1.c. The governing board has ultimate responsibility for educational quality, legal matters,
and financial integrity.
248
Descriptive Summary
Legal authority for the Board of Trustees to operate
on behalf of the North Orange County Community
College District is provided in provisions of the California Education Code §70902 et al. (11.2), Title 5
of the California Code of Regulations, §51004 et al.
(11.3) and the Procedures and Standing Orders of the
Board of Governors, Article 3, §331 et al. (11.4). The
Board is the ultimate arbiter regarding issues of educational quality, legal matters, and fiscal integrity of
the District. Board Policy 1002 (11.1) specifically states,
“The Board of Trustees, faculty, staff and administrators have the responsibility to provide and support educational offerings of the highest quality and value to
students and to the community.” Local Board Policy
does not specifically address the Board’s responsibility
in legal matters; however, its authority in this arena is
assumed under the general authorization given Boards
of Trustees via state statutes and regulations.
Self Evaluation
The Board of Trustees has ultimate responsibility for
developing policies to guide the District. However, the
Board recognizes and operates in accord with the principal that those closest to issues are often best able to
resolve those issues. Consequently, the Board encourages input and strives to base its decisions on policy.
The Board relies primarily upon recommendations
from the District staff, i.e., the Chancellor, the Vice
Chancellors of Finance and Human Resources, and
the Directors of Information Services and Public Affairs, the Presidents of Cypress and Fullerton Colleges
and the Provost of the School of Continuing Education. The Board also receives input and direction from
the District constituent groups, including the Academic Senates, the collective bargaining groups, classified
and confidential representatives and the management
group. The Board receives input from these constituent
groups through their representatives serving on District
committees and from the resource table at regularly
scheduled Board meetings. Student Trustees from each
College participate in all open procedures of the Board
and represent the student voice.
Planning Agenda
None.
Cypress College
1.d. The institution or the governing board
publishes the board bylaws and policies specifying the board’s size, duties, responsibilities,
structure, and operating procedures.
Descriptive Summary
Board bylaws and policies specifying duties, responsibilities, structure, and operating procedures are contained in District Board Policies, Administrative Procedures and the Administrative Guide (11.1). Hard
copies of these documents are available at the District
Office. These materials can also be accessed via the
District website.
Self Evaluation
Nine years ago, hard copies of the District’s governing documents, including all Board Policies and Administrative Procedures and the Administrative Guide,
were kept in every department and administrative office so that all employees could have access to them at
any time. On June 12, 2001, it was decided that these
documents would be made available electronically on
the District’s website (11.1) with hard copies no longer
being provided as before. The intent was to reduce the
enormous use of paper required to provide hard copies
in every department throughout the District. All staff
are responsible for having knowledge of Board Policies
and adherence to them in the performance of their
job. Unfortunately, at the present there are still a significant number of staff that either don’t have access to a
computer, lack the training to use them due to their job
locations, and/or access to a dedicated computer. Classified staff members are encouraged to engage in staff
development activities that will enhance their familiarity and proficiency with technology, especially those
technologies that are job related. Classified employees
in lead positions are required to have immediate access
to the technology directly related to their responsibilities. This need may preclude the use of such technology by others. Whenever the College is made aware of
issues of access to technology, it responds appropriately
to determine the extent of need and to develop solutions that maintain an appropriate workplace environment. As the College becomes increasingly dependent
upon technology, training opportunities for employees
must also become increasingly available.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Planning Agenda
None.
1.e. The governing Board acts in a manner consistent with its policies and bylaws. The board
regularly evaluates its policies and practices
and revises them as necessary.
Descriptive Summary
Since the last accreditation report, the Board has remained consistent with its policies and bylaws. Through
monthly Board meetings and the DPC/Chancellor’s
Cabinet, the Board regularly evaluates its policies and
practices and revises when necessary. Recent examples
of such scrutiny include the development of a District
statement on ethics (BP/AP 3050), a District policy addressing legislative changes to nursing student selection
processes (BP/AP 4106), and revisions to AP 6150,
Designation of Authorized Signatures (11.5).
Self Evaluation
BP/AP 2410 (11.1) refers to how Board policies and
procedures are established and revised. Board meeting
minutes, which are posted to the District website (11.5)
as well as to the Cypress College campus server (11.6),
reflect evidence that the Board is operating in a manner consistent with its responsibilities under this policy
and procedure.
Any employee, student, or member of the public may
initiate a review of any policy by submitting a request
or recommendation in writing to the Chancellor’s Office. The DPC/Chancellor’s Cabinet, which includes
managers and constituent representatives from all of
the campuses, has the opportunity to review and discuss current and new policies and procedures and make
recommendations to the Chancellor’s Cabinet. All
meeting minutes from the DPC/Chancellor’s Cabinet
are posted to the campus server (11.6) and are accessible to all employees. The minutes further support the
processes that are in place to review and make recommendations regarding Board policies and procedures.
Planning Agenda
None.
1.f. The governing board has a program for
board development and new member orienta249
tion. It has a mechanism for providing for continuity of board membership and staggered
terms of office.
Descriptive Summary
Per BP/AP 2740, the District Chancellor’s Office provides an orientation and handbook to newly elected
Board members (11.1 ). New trustees have an orientation meeting with the Chancellor, College Presidents/
Provost, and constituent groups, in addition to reams
of documents they receive to read. Trustees receive excellent training from the Community College League
of California’s new trustee workshop, including a new
student trustee workshop. In addition, Board members receive further development through attendance
at various state-wide and nation-wide conferences and
workshops, Board Strategic Conversations, and the
“Trustee/Chancellor Coffees” held at the campuses.
The Orange County Department of Education
(OCDE) is a resource regarding trustee elections for
all school districts within its jurisdiction and acts as a
source of information to the public. NOCCCD adheres to guidelines set forth by the OCDE and also acts
as a public resource for trustee elections. The trustees
are elected to four-year terms with staggered elections
held every two years.
Self Evaluation
BP 2010 (11.1) sets forth the terms for Board membership. In general, the Board development and new
member orientation processes are working well as indicated by the stability of the Board.
Trustees actively participate in state-wide opportunities
such as serving on the California Community College
Trustees Board and the Community College League
of California’s Commission on the Future. The trustees conscientiously seek ongoing education by attending conferences and workshops in addition to reviewing newspaper clippings and educational articles,
which bring a wealth of information that facilitates the
Board’s decision-making ability and helps develop best
practices throughout the District.
Although there may not exist a clear process or measure for evaluating the processes, the Board’s stability
and the District’s fiscal stability, along with the Board’s
involvement statewide are strong indications that the
250
processes are effective.
Planning Agenda
None.
1.g. The governing board’s Self Evaluation
processes for assessing board performance
are clearly defined, implemented, and published in its policies or bylaws.
Descriptive Summary
The Board’s Self Evaluation requirements and process
is described in AP 2745 Board Self Evaluation (11.1).
There was an assessment of the Board of Trustees
compiled in April 2009 and contained responses from
both the resource table and the Trustees (11.7). The
majority of the respondents indicated a rating of acceptable to excellent for all questions on the assessment
instrument. The following questions received only acceptable to excellent ratings from all respondents:
◊
The Board when giving direction to staff
is based on a consensus of a majority of
the Board. Individual Board Members
do not assume this authority.
◊
The Board Members respect each others’ opinions.
◊
Board Members are punctual to and attend all meetings to conclusion.
◊
The Board reviews agenda materials and
is prepared for Board meetings.
◊
The Board conducts its meetings in
compliance with state laws, including the
Brown Act.
◊
Board meetings include some education
or information time.
◊
Board meetings provide adequate time
for discussion.
◊
Board Members are knowledgeable
about community college and state-related issues.
◊
The Board acts as an advocate for community colleges.
◊
The Board gives adequate attention to
Cypress College
the mission and goals of the District.
◊
ment and a strategic plan that looks to
the future, anticipating what the institution and its colleges will look like in 10
years.
The Board has a procedure for annual
evaluations of the Chancellor.
The following questions reflect where resource table
respondents indicated some degree of a need for improvement.
◊
The Board monitors outcomes by requiring institutional effectiveness measures.
◊
The Board reaches decisions on the basis
of study of all available background data
and consideration of the recommendations of the Chancellor.
◊
New Board Members, including Student
Trustee, receive and orientation to rules
and responsibilities and District mission
and policies.
◊
The Board’s highest priority is student
learning and student success.
◊
The Board monitors outcomes by requiring institutional effectiveness measures.
◊
Discussions are structured so that all
have an opportunity to contribute to the
decisions.
◊
Board Members have adequate information upon which to base decisions.
◊
◊
The Board reaches decisions on the basis
of study of all available background data
and consideration of the recommendations of the Chancellor.
Board Members are available to District
employees for comments and suggestions.
◊
The Board shows its support for the District through members attending various
events.
◊
The Board is knowledgeable about the
District’s history, values, strengths, and
weaknesses.
◊
The Board is knowledgeable about the
District’s history, values, strengths, and
weaknesses.
◊
The Board has processes in place for appropriately involving the community in
relevant decisions.
◊
The Board understands, appreciates, and
is responsive to the diverse community
which it serves.
◊
The Board helps promote the image of
the District in the community.
◊
◊
The Board understands the collective
bargaining process and its role in the
process.
The Board has processes in place for appropriately involving the community in
relevant decisions.
◊
The Board understands the collective
bargaining process and its role in the
process.
◊
The Board is involved in and understands the budget process.
◊
The Board demonstrates a good understanding of collegial consultation and
related processes.
◊
◊
The Board is involved in and understands the budget process.
The Board demonstrates a good understanding of collegial consultation and
related processes.
The following questions reflect where the Trustee respondents indicated some degree of a need for improvement.
◊
The Board has clearly defined instructional goals with desired outcomes both
short and long term.
◊
The Board has established a vision state-
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Self Evaluation
The Board adheres to its requirement of self evaluation every two years. The results are included in the
Board agendas and are posted to the District and campus servers.
251
An assessment of the Board of Trustees in April 2009
included responses from 12 members of the resource
tables and six of the Trustees (11.7). In those documents there was consensus by 67% of the respondents
that the Board members do an acceptable job of setting priorities that are both strategic and manageable
and provide direction for the administration. There
was a comment from a Trustee that, “We could have
greater clarity to meet the ‘strategic and manageable’
criteria” (11.26). There is also consensus ranging from
acceptable to excellent that the Board agendas focus
on policy issues that relate to Board responsibilities and
that agendas include legislative and state policy issues
that will impact the District.
Since this evaluation, the Board has addressed the
concerns of the resource table. It is reassuring that the
Board was willing to be openly critical of its own performance and that it has been addressing these issues.
The Board’s evaluation instrument is regularly reviewed and revised prior to distribution. Also, Board
policies and administrative procedures are reviewed
regularly and revised as necessary.
In addition to the Trustees’ Self Evaluations, the Board
believes it benefits from being evaluated by individuals other than members of the Board, and the Board
gives proper attention to the feedback received. Board
Strategic Conversations are beneficial because they allow for interaction with faculty and staff from the three
campuses and provide an opportunity for the trustees
to listen to concerns/points of view on various matters
(11.5).
Planning Agenda
None.
1.h. The governing board has a code of ethics
that includes a clearly defined policy for dealing with behavior that violates that code.
Descriptive Summary
Board members are obliged to maintain high standards of ethical conduct per BP/AP 2715 Code of
Ethics/Standards of Practice (11.1). The BP identifies
twelve ethical standards that address conflict of interest: Board decisions only during legally constituted
meetings; confidentiality of closed session discussions;
maintaining independent judgment unbiased by oth252
er interest influences; ensure nondiscrimination in its
policies, procedures and actions; hold student access
and success as primary concern and assure a visible
physical presence at appropriate functions; consistently
attending meetings and being properly prepared; conducting all business in open meetings; take advantage
of educational opportunities to enhance effectiveness
as a Board member; promote and maintain good relations with fellow Board members; promote an effective
working relations with the Chancellor and staff; and
be and advocate for the District in the community. It
also contains provisions for dealing with complaints or
charges of Trustee misconduct. The AP requires that
each member of the Board reaffirm adherence to the
Code of Ethics by signing a statement at the annual
organizational meeting.
In March 2009, a BP/AP 3050 Institutional Code of
Ethics was proposed for consideration in Chancellor’s
Cabinet (11.25). Creation of an Institutional Code of
Ethics that addresses the behavior and conduct of all
employees in the District was the charge of the Accreditation Team upon the completion of the 2005
Accreditation Self Study. BP/AP 3050 was completed
and adopted in Spring 2010 (11.1).
Self Evaluation
BP 2715 Code of Ethics/Standards of Practice is well
thought out and fairly comprehensive; however, the
language dealing with Trustee misconduct also includes processes and procedures that would be better
suited for the companion Administrative Procedure.
On review of the Proposed BP/AP 3050, the constituent groups’ opinion was that the tone of the
documents was not appropriate for their purpose, so
the Vice Chancellor of Human Resources was given
the assignment to make the adjustments and bring it
back. In March 2010, BP/AP 3050 was reintroduced
in Chancellor’s Cabinet and subsequently approved
by consensus. However, the language of the proposed
AP 3050 still contained language of similar tone to the
first draft. On April 12, 2010, AP 3050 was adopted in
Chancellor’s Cabinet after some language modification
and much discussion. It was agreed that the tone of the
document had become more acceptable and clearer.
To illustrate, the purpose statement changed from:
“Because of its responsibility to the public, and because the effectiveness of a public educational instituCypress College
tion is directly related to the public’s perception of its
integrity, it is the policy of the North Orange County
Community College District (hereinafter “District”) to
conduct itself with honesty in all of its dealings. The
District is committed to public accountability and
transparency in its mission and operations.”
Self Evaluation
“The North Orange County Community College District (hereinafter “District”) recognizes its responsibility
and obligation to the public to conduct its business with
honesty, integrity, professionalism, and quality in the
performance of those operations and functions necessary to achieve its established mission and philosophy
as described in Board Policy. To that end, the District is
committed to public accountability and transparency.”
Board members gain knowledge of their role in the
accreditation process through a combination of orientation workshops, training, participation in state and
national conferences, and assessment practices that
provide them with resources needed to carry out their
responsibilities. Noted in the July 27, 2010, Board minutes, is discussion regarding Board development and
self evaluation as they relate to the accreditation process. Significant to this are the ways in which Board
members demonstrate their involvement in accreditation by consistently encouraging and receiving regular
constituent input at Board meetings, campus/community functions, conferences/workshops, and via telephone or email.
Planning Agenda
Planning Agenda
to:
None.
None.
1.i. The governing board is informed about
and involved in the accreditation process.
1.j. The governing board has the responsibility
for selecting and evaluating the district/system chief administrator (most often known as
the chancellor) in a multi-college district/system or the college chief administrator (most
often known as the president) in the case of a
single college. The governing board delegates
full responsibility and authority to him/her
to implement and administer board policies
without board interference and holds him/her
accountable for the operation of the district/
system or college, respectively. In multi-college
districts/systems, the governing board establishes a clearly defined policy for selecting and
evaluating the presidents of the colleges.
Descriptive Summary
The Board is concerned about the natural correlation
between trusteeship and accreditation and uses that as
a framework for assessing how well the institution is
meeting its educational and societal mission.
The Board is involved in the accreditation process
through established governance, procedures, and practices to ensure that it works cohesively with administrators, faculty, staff, and students for the good of the
District. The established processes facilitate discussion
of ideas and effective communication among the institution’s constituencies.
The Board of Trustees adopted BP/AP 3200 Accreditation (11.1) in March 2004 to ensure adherence to
accreditation standards and process. The Board was
provided with progress reports and a timeline of the
accreditation self study on October 13, 2009, (11.5)
and May ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­11, 2010 (11.5). The Self Study Chair attended the July 27, 2010, Board meeting to engage in
discussion with the Trustees regarding areas of Standard IVB and the Trustees’ views on the effectiveness
of some of their processes. At the August 10, 2010,
Board meeting, a printed draft of the Cypress College
Self Study was presented to the Board (11.5).
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Descriptive Summary
Board Policy 2200, Board Duties and Responsibilities, Section 2.0, Subsection 2.3 identifies the Board of
Trustees’ responsibility to hire and evaluate the Chancellor (11.1). The Board’s responsibility for hiring the
Chancellor should there be a vacancy in that position is
also identified in BP 2431 (11.1). Additionally, Subsection 2.4 of BP 2200 identifies the Board’s responsibility
to delegate power and authority to the Chancellor to
effectively lead the District. The Board’s delegation of
authority to the Chancellor is more clearly and specifically defined in BP2430 (11.1). It empowers the Chan253
cellor to reasonably interpret Board policy. Where
there is no Board policy, the Chancellor has the power
to act, but such actions are subject to review by the
Board. The Chancellor is expected to perform the duties contained in the Chancellor’s job description and
fulfill other responsibilities as determined in annual
goal-setting or evaluation sessions. BP 2432 delegates
authority to the Chancellor to appoint an acting Chancellor to serve in his or her absence for periods not to
exceed 30 days at a time (11.1).
The Board is obligated to evaluate the Chancellor on
an annual basis as specified in BP/AP 2435 (11.1). The
evaluation shall comply with any requirements set forth
in the contract of employment with the Chancellor as
well as BP 2435. The Board evaluates the Chancellor on his job description and the goals and objectives
that were jointly agreed upon by the Board and the
Chancellor. Members of the resource table are given
evaluation forms to fill out regarding the Chancellor’s
performance (11.27). Since those are the individuals in
the District who have the greatest and closest contact
with the Chancellor, seeking their input is critical to
achieving a valid evaluation.
According to BP 3250, the Chancellor must ensure
the District has and implements a broad-based comprehensive, systematic, and integrated system of planning that involves appropriate segments of the College
community and is supported by institutional effectiveness research (11.1). The planning system includes
plans required by law including, but not limited to,
Long-Range Educational or Academic Master Plan;
Facilities; Faculty and Staff Diversity; Student Equity;
Matriculation; Transfer Center; Cooperative Work Experience; and Extended Opportunity Programs & Services (EOPS). Plans requiring Board approval per Title
5 are submitted to the Board by the Chancellor. The
Chancellor informs the Board about the status of planning and the various plans and ensures that the Board
has an opportunity to assist in developing the general
institutional mission and goals for the comprehensive
plans. AP 3250 provides for how these plans are to be
accomplished by the involvement of the established
committees and representational groups throughout
the institutions multi-college system (11.1). Utilization
of institutional effectiveness research, program reviews,
and individual unit plans complement and inform the
resource allocation process.
254
The Chancellor reports to the Board at its regular
meetings that are generally held every second and
fourth Tuesday of the month. The Board avails itself
of the opportunity to question the Chancellor, as well
as other members of the resource table, in order to ensure that it has sufficient information on institutional
performance to allow it to fulfill its responsibilities.
The Board also periodically requests reports from the
Chancellor and other members of the resource table
regarding the status of ongoing activities and plans.
When the Board asks the Chancellor for a report, he
either reports back directly with an explanation or delegates it to the appropriate person. If delegated, that
individual either provides the explanation or does so in
the form of a presentation, which may include other
resources and PowerPoint. Topics include areas such
as budget, campus construction, and the success of basic skills programs. Soliciting input from the constituent resource personnel is usually confined to a specific
topic or agenda item of the moment and is generally
responded to in an impromptu manner. Examples of
this interaction between the Board, the Chancellor and
resource personnel are available in the minutes of the
Board of Trustees meetings (11.5).
Since the last accreditation self study, the North Orange County Community College District (NOCCCD)
saw the retirement of its Chancellor and underwent the
hiring process for a new Chancellor. Dr. Jerome Hunter
retired from his position as Chancellor of NOCCCD
June 30, 2009. Dr. Ned Doffoney was hired as his successor effective July 14, 2009. AP 7120-4 dictated the
formation of the committee and how the hiring process was conducted (11.1). AP 7120-4 applied to all
management hirings up to and including the position
of Chancellor. When the Board decided to conduct a
search for Dr. Hunter’s replacement, they indicated that
they wanted to have more control over the makeup of
the committee, how it conducted the search, and possibly even have the authority to alter its hiring procedures and parameters. Some of the constituent groups
were opposed to these changes and asserted that what
the Board was proposing would not be in conformance
with the provisions of AP 7120-4. Also, some of the
constituent groups asserted statutory provisions that
gave them the right to appoint their representatives to
the hiring committee. Both the Board and the constituent groups conceded that it would not be feasible to
change the AP within the Board’s timetable for having
Cypress College
a new Chancellor in place, so it was decided to use AP
7120-4, as written, in hiring the new Chancellor, and
then create a new AP that would be specific to hiring
a Chancellor.
authority of the Board in hiring the Chancellor, their
relationship with each other, and the Board’s ability to
determine how effectively the Chancellor’s duties are
performed.
At the March 10, 2009, Board of Trustees meeting,
there was more discussion between the Board and the
constituent groups concerning AP 7120-4 and the
Board’s desire to change how a Chancellor is hired
(11.5). As a result, the Board decided to form a subcommittee comprised of three Trustees for the purpose
of researching the Chancellor selection process and
then make recommendations. At the August 25, 2009,
Board of Trustees meeting, the Board’s subcommittee
presented a draft of a new AP 2431, Chancellor Selection (11.5). Again there was much discussion between
the Board and the constituent groups. Upon conclusion
of that discussion, the Board requested that the proposed AP 2431 go through the Chancellor’s Cabinet
process and that written justification be provided for
any revisions to the proposed AP, which would then return to the Board for final approval. At the February 9,
2010, Board meeting, the Trustees received as Agenda
Item No. 6.a.2 a revised version of their proposed AP,
with the justifications as requested (11.5). The Trustees
are currently reviewing this document and will bring
it back either to approve as revised or possibly present
new revisions of their own.
All parties appear to be in consensus that a procedure
for hiring the Chancellor separate from the one that is
used for hiring other administrators is appropriate and
advisable. Two of the Trustees visited the Chancellor’s
Cabinet while it was discussing the proposed AP and
had expressed some concern about the hiring committee being able to subvert the hiring process for their
own purposes; and conversely the constituent groups
held the same concerns about the Board. In the revised
version that was presented to the Board, provisions
with checks and balances were included to address
these concerns.
In the selection and evaluation of the College president, the Board does not have a separate policy. The
position is included within the category of management. BP 7120 establishes the Management Employee
Hiring Policy, and AP 7120-4 establishes the procedure
for management employee hiring (11.1). Currently the
Administrative Guide Policy 2002 (11.1) dictates the
evaluative procedures to be followed for all management personnel, including the President of the College. At the time of this writing, BP 7240 establishes
the management structure within the District and the
terms and conditions of their employment, including
contract and salary provisions (11.1). AP 7240-7 is under construction and will provide for the evaluation
procedures to be followed for all management personnel, including the President of the College and the Provost of School of Continuing Education (SCE).
Self Evaluation
These policies and procedures clearly delineate the
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
At this time, there is no compelling reason for changing
BP 7120, AP 7120-4, or BP 7240.
Planning Agenda
None.
2. The president has primary responsibility
for the quality of the institution he/she leads.
He/she provides effective leadership in planning, organizing, budgeting, selecting and developing personnel, and assessing institutional effectiveness.
2.a. The president plans, oversees, and evaluates an administrative structure organized
and staffed to reflect the institution’s purposes, size, and complexity. He/she delegates
authority to administrators and others consistent with their responsibilities, as appropriate.
Descriptive Summary
The President is the chief executive officer and has full
authority to manage the College and serve as liaison
between the District and the College. He participates in
developing District policies and procedures and makes
recommendations on College issues related to finance,
personnel, and policy. The President executes and administers contracts under authority of the Board and
keeps the Board informed about the financial condition and needs of the College (11.1). He is responsible
for the efficient use of existing institutional resources
255
and the creation of new resources. He is responsible
for the formulation of all reports as may be required
by the Board and by local, state, or national agencies.
He oversees and evaluates the College’s administrative
structure, which is modified as fluctuations occur to
needs and resources. Changes are largely to enhance
efficiency or are due to budgetary considerations.
Planning Agenda
None.
2.b. The president guides institutional improvement of the teaching and learning environment by the following:
◊
establishing a collegial process
that sets values, goals, and priorities;
◊
ensuring that evaluation and planning rely on high quality research
and analysis on external and internal conditions;
◊
ensuring that educational planning
is integrated with resource planning and distribution to achieve
student learning outcomes; and
◊
establishing procedures to evaluate overall institutional planning
and implementation efforts
Self Evaluation
The current President assumed his position on July 1,
2007 (11.8), after more than 15 years of experience at
the College, first as a dean, and more recently as Executive Vice President for Educational Programs and
Student Support Services. In Fall 2007, a re-structuring of top-level administrators was implemented (11.9
& 11.10). A significant change was made when responsibility for planning was shifted from the Vice President
of Educational Support and Planning to the Director
of Institutional Research and Planning. The vice president’s title was also changed to Vice President of Administrative Services to encompass all matters related
to budget and finance as well as campus support services. In doing this, the previous position of Director
of Budget and Finance was eliminated, which resulted
in significant savings to the College.
Three top-level administrators report directly to the
President. They are the Executive Vice President of
Educational Programs and Student Support Services,
the Vice President of Administrative Services, and the
Director of Institutional Research and Planning. These
three administrators comprise the President’s Staff,
which meets at least weekly to discuss campus issues.
Each administrator has extensive expertise in higher
education. Together they provide outstanding vision
and direction while serving as valuable resources to the
President. When appropriate, the President delegates
responsibilities to these and other managers, encourages their involvement in campus decision making, and
is supportive of their efforts (11.35).
The President and his staff promote teaching, learning,
and student success through innovative approaches to
basic skills development, transfer programs, career
technical programs, workforce development programs,
and student support services. He assures that educational programs comply with Board policies as well as
state and federal statutes.
256
Descriptive Summary
The President actively communicates institutional values, goals, and directions both on and off campus. He
does this in many ways, which includes wide distribution and posting on campus of the 2008-2011 Strategic
Plan (11.11). He participates on a number of District
committees, including Chancellor’s Staff, the District
Planning Council, and the District Curriculum Coordinating Committee, where he represents the goals and
needs of the campus and also attends and speaks at
Board meetings to keep the trustees informed of campus events and issues. On campus, he chairs the President’s Advisory Cabinet (PAC), which deals with campus planning and policy matters (11.12). Membership
on PAC includes representation from all campus constituencies, which allows for constituent input in campus decision making and provides the President with a
means to communicate with constituencies. Members
of these committees are responsible for carrying information to and from their constituents.
Opening Day presentations at the beginning of Fall
and Spring semesters provide an opportunity for the
President to address the state of the College and other
issues affecting the College (11.13). In addition, he provides for and participates in campus-wide forums on
Cypress College
budget updates, holds a Leadership Team meeting each
semester, meets regularly with the Academic Senate
President, and chairs the campus Diversity Committee, Management Team, and the Deans and Directors
Team. The President meets with newly hired faculty
and classified staff during their orientation meetings
and attempts to instill an understanding of the College’s vision, mission, and values with new employees.
The President also meets with the Academic Senate at
the beginning of each semester and also when issues
arise where the interaction would be beneficial.
The President guides the institutional improvement
of the teaching and learning environment by maintaining a clear strategic goal for the College. With the
expansion of the Office of Institutional Research to
include Planning, the President encourages the director’s involvement in campus settings where planning
can be linked to other functions such as budget allocations. The director is a member of President’s Staff,
President’s Advisory Cabinet, Planning and Budget
Committee, Accreditation Self Study Committee, Institutional Effectiveness Task Force, Student Learning
Outcomes Core Team, Deans and Directors Team,
Management Team (11.14), Leadership Team (11.15),
Basic Skills Committee, and District Planning Council. As a result, the director is in a position to keep the
campus informed on a wide variety of factors where
research is critical. He is also able to glean from those
groups additional areas that need research for campus
improvement. The Office of Institutional Research
and Planning is located within the main administration
building, which facilitates frequent interaction between
the Office of Institutional Research and Planning and
the President. Daily communication occurs in person
or via phone/email so that the director can consistently
provide the President with data that affects the day-today operations of the College.
In addition to assessing campus undertakings, the President is also involved in reviewing the work involved
in the development of student learning outcomes, the
program review process, the Curriculum Committee’s
proposals and the Planning and Budget Committee’s
allocation of funding in relationship to the Strategic
Plan.
Self Evaluation
Besides ensuring the implementation of statutes and
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
Board policies and procedures, the President efficiently
manages resources and implements priorities. He effectively articulates campus needs to the District and
communicates the District’s interests and priorities
back to the campus community. He also assures a climate of participatory governance and collaboration
with internal constituencies and promotes a campus
climate that respects and values the diversity, dignity,
and contributions of all people. The results of a Campus Climate Survey completed in Spring 2008 indicated an increasing number of respondents agreeing
that constituency groups work collaboratively towards
the achievement of College goals (11.28). A majority
of respondents in the survey also agreed that there
are meaningful opportunities to participate in sharedgovernance activities, and that ideas and opinions are
encouraged and given appropriate weight in matters of
institutional decision making.
The President is an active participant in College committees, Foundation activities, and community outreach events. This allows him to monitor the relationship between institutional research and planning and
the aspects of student learning and resource allocation.
Planning Agenda
None.
2.c. The president assures the implementation
of statutes, regulations, and governing board
policies and assures that institutional practices are consistent with institutional mission
and policies.
Descriptive Summary
The President assures the implementation of statutes,
regulations, and governing Board policies and assures
that institutional practices are consistent with the institutional mission and policies. The President serves as
the chief executive officer of the College and is responsible for the integrity of all College activities. In this
capacity, the President is required to be knowledgeable
and conversant with federal and state statutes pertaining to the College as well as with District policy, procedures, and practices. Serving as the principle liaison
between the College and the District, the President
provides ongoing oversight to assure that institutional
practices align with District policies. In addition, the
President is charged with assuring that the College’s
257
institutional practices are aligned with its mission, vision, and policy directives. The President receives and
distributes information via email to constituent leaders
or presents it at management and shared-governance
committee meetings. As constituent leaders receive
information, they are expected to distribute it to their
groups for discussion and feedback. The President’s
Office also serves as a conduit between the campus and
District for specific information on items requiring District or Board approval.
Self Evaluation
The President meets regularly with the senior staff
and Management Team to ascertain if there are any
problems. The President also ultimately assures that
all personnel, facility requests, and budget requests go
through appropriate approval processes on campus.
The President also assures that others on campus are
aware of all policies. He participates in a new manager’s orientation to develop an awareness of policies,
and managers are assigned mentors similar to the process for new faculty mentoring. Although this is effective, there are slight variations as needs and personnel
changes fluctuate, so it remains a work in progress.
The President receives information from the state
Chancellor’s Office and Community College League
of California and distributes it to the Planning and
Budget Committee (PBC) and President’s Advisory
Cabinet (PAC). He also attends weekly Chancellor’s
Staff meetings where he advocates for campus needs,
receives additional budgetary information, and distributes it to managers. He maintains an open-door
policy to discuss new budget developments and works
daily with President’s Staff to make sure that budget
information is widely distributed. All campus funding requests go through a campus-wide planning and
prioritization process. The President, as well as PBC
and PAC, are guided by the Educational Master Plan,
Student Services Master Plan, and Strategic Plan when
setting priorities. The President receives funding recommendations from PBC and PAC and considers
constituent feedback before making decisions about
expenditures. On rare occasion, the President makes a
decision contrary to a recommendation from PBC and
PAC because of limited funding and a critical need for
a broader benefit to the campus or for health, safety, or
security reasons.
258
Planning Agenda
None.
2.d. The president effectively controls budget
and expenditures.
Descriptive Summary
The President is ultimately responsible for the integrity
of the College budget, including allocations and expenditures. This charge includes responsibility for assuring
that those allocations and expenditures are appropriately supportive of the primary mission of the College
and student success. He is in frequent communication
with the Vice President of Administrative Services,
the Director of Institutional Research and Planning,
and the Vice Chancellor of Finance and Facilities to
obtain current information related to College budgets
and allocation needs. The President monitors all major expenditures and approves all travel requests, and
the President’s Staff reviews budget requests, including
those for regular and hourly personnel, on a weekly basis. The Planning and Budget Committee (PBC) serves
as the primary recommending body to the President’s
Advisory Cabinet (PAC) on general budget and planning issues. For one-time funding proposals, PBC ranks
proposals based on merits, safety issues, and priorities
from direction committees (11.11). PBC conveys to
PAC the views of the campus community on matters
relevant to College budget and planning. After receiving and discussing PBC recommendations, PAC makes
funding recommendations to the President.
Self Evaluation
The President works consistently with managers to
convey the importance of monitoring their budgets.
Given the economic shortfall affecting the District, it is
significant that the President has led efforts at Cypress
College to serve record numbers of students within the
College’s budget.
Planning Agenda
None.
2.e. The president works and communicates
effectively with the communities served by the
institution.
Cypress College
Descriptive Summary
The President serves as the chief community spokesperson for the College. He serves on a number of local community committees, including local Chambers
of Commerce, philanthropic organizations such as the
Rotary Club, and community-based YMCA’s. The
President is also mindful of the need to maintain effective dialogue and partnerships with the local civic and
public sector communities. He is a regular attendee of
city governance events, particularly State of the City
addresses by our local city mayors. He maintains effective working relationships with the superintendents and
principals of local high school districts. This partnership is validated each year in the annual Superintendents/Principals Breakfast hosted at the College each
October.
In addition to his personal involvement locally, the
President has also continued with and strengthened
connections to the community amongst the management staff. Managers of the College have assignments
as representatives to local Chambers of Commerce.
Instructional and Student Services deans serve as liaisons to local area high schools. By maintaining these
personal connections to the community, the College is
kept abreast of local issues while advancing the local
image and standing of the College. The maintenance
of these relationships has proven to be of significant
importance.
Self Evaluation
The President is a member of the Anaheim Family
YMCA Board of Directors and the Cypress Rotary
Club. He regularly attends meetings and functions and
is also a member of several local Chambers of Commerce. The President is often invited to speak at gatherings and frequently brings in Cypress College staff to
be guest speakers on various topics. He also takes the
lead in encouraging specific managers to serve as liaisons for surrounding communities. The President represents College interests as a member of the Cypress
College Foundation Board of Directors. He regularly
attends Foundation functions to help develop and support fundraising efforts.
Every Fall the President hosts a breakfast meeting for
high school superintendents and principals to update
them on current happenings at the College and receive
their feedback about things the campus can do to help
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
their graduating seniors be successful college students
(11.16). Each Spring the President and Foundation
host a Business and Community Leaders Forum for local business and community leaders (11.17). A panel
of experts is invited to speak about current issues affecting business and the College. For example, in 2010
the forum was titled “Can Your Business Survive A Disaster?” A panel of experts gave presentations about
planning for disasters. The forum provided valuable information that addressed concerns impacting community safety, employment, and the local economy. The
forums are an effective way of discussing issues of concern to the community while introducing community
leaders to the resources and needs of Cypress College.
Planning Agenda
None.
3. In multi-college districts or systems, the
district/system provides primary leadership
in setting and communicating expectations of
educational excellence and integrity throughout the district/system and assures support
for the effective operation of the Colleges. It
establishes clearly defined roles of authority
and responsibility between the Colleges and
the district/system and acts as the liaison between the colleges and the governing board.
3.a. The district/system clearly delineates and
communicates the operational responsibilities and functions of the district/system from
those of the colleges and consistently adheres
to this delineation in practice.
Descriptive Summary
The North Orange County Community College District (NOCCCD) adopted a District Strategic Plan in
June of 2006 (11.18). This document defines the District vision, mission, and values. In addition, the Plan
specifies the following:
◊
An NOCCCD Strategic Plan that includes a District vision, mission, values,
institutional goals, strategies, and key
performance indicators
◊
A District Annual Plan with strategic
targets that drives the annual budget of
the District
259
◊
A participative planning process and
resulting documents that are initiated by
the Board of Trustees and Chancellor,
further developed by the Chancellor and
college leadership, widely reviewed for
feedback by District stakeholders, and
implemented by the District and colleges
◊
A future requirement and means for
aligning the Colleges’ planning processes, goals, strategies, and budget with
those of the District
In addition, the North Orange County Community
College District Functional Map (11.29) delineates the
institutional responsibilities within the District. Key
stakeholder representatives, including College faculty,
staff, and students, are expected to be familiar with
their roles and responsibilities in accord with the District governance structures. These representatives are
responsible for disseminating information consistent
with governance processes — both College and District level — including decision-making processes and
levels of responsibility. The delineation of responsibilities is reviewed and revised following the District planning cycles.
Self Evaluation
Cypress College is fortunate to operate in an environment of significant support and autonomy from
the Board. Due to clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and expectations as indicated in the Descriptive
Summary above, the College has developed effective
strategies and structures to support the primary mission of student achievement and success while operating within the context of a multi-college district. The
College President conveys to the Chancellor information from the College that is relevant and necessary to
the support of the College mission. This information is
subsequently conveyed by the Chancellor to the Board.
Chancellor’s Staff meetings are the formal mechanism
for this exchange. These regularly-scheduled meetings
are also used as forums for the Chancellor to provide
direction and feedback from the Board to the College
President.
In addition to regular meetings between the presidents/provost and the Chancellor, the College President is also given the opportunity at regularly-scheduled Board meetings to share information directly
260
with the Board about the successes and challenges of
College programs and activities. This provides elected
Board members with the opportunity for direct interaction while maintaining and respecting the operational administrative structures of the District. When
issues arise out of these conversations, the Chancellor
is charged with follow up and coordination of effort
with the appropriate college president/provost.
Planning Agenda
None.
3.b. The district/system provides effective
services that support the Colleges in their missions and functions.
Descriptive Summary
The District provides a broad array of services in support of the College mission. Among these services are:
◊
Enrollment planning and coordination
◊
Budget planning, allocation, and oversight
◊
Information services
◊
Human Resources
◊
Public information coordination
◊
Purchasing
The District Planning Council (DPC) is the primary
forum for the sharing of District information related to
budgets, enrollment, and facilities planning. The College is well represented on this body, as well as at the
various District level planning meetings where information and issues are presented. In order to provide for
assessment of effectiveness of system services, various
feedback mechanisms are in place, each representing
what is appropriate for the particular area of activity.
For example, in the area of technology, District-level
communication takes place during bi-weekly meetings
that include District personnel representing Human
Resources, Finance and Facilities, and Information
Services. At these meetings, concerns and needs are
communicated from all entities of the District. Committee members collaborate to resolve issues that affect
the entities of the District.
Cypress College
Self Evaluation
In a broad sense, when the colleges have concerns,
their voices are heard at various District meetings such
as DPC, Chancellor’s Cabinet, Chancellor’s Staff, and
the District Curriculum Coordinating Committee.
Issues of concern can also be given voice at regular
meetings of the Board of Trustees, where the trustees
encourage free and open exchange.
District services are evaluated internally but do not engage in system-wide analyses with regard to the effectiveness of support for the College mission
Planning Agenda
None.
3.c. The district/system provides fair distribution of resources that are adequate to support the effective operations of the colleges.
Descriptive Summary
The revenue allocation model utilized by the District
is historical and based in significant part upon FTES
generated by the sites. Most of the College revenue
comes via this mechanism.
Self Evaluation
Though a variety of different funding options have been
discussed at DPC, no substantive changes to the allocation model have been adopted. The District Office of
Finance and Facilities initiated a revue in 2007 of costs
by site per FTES in order to address Cypress College’s
concern that it was under funded due to the cost of
maintaining expensive career technical education programs at a level that is disproportionate in comparison
to the other District entities (11.34). Though the data
were collected and discussion ensued, no change to the
fundamental resource allocation model was proposed.
The District funding model does not take into account
institutional differences or individual needs. Because
the lion’s share of College funding is based upon FTES,
the Colleges and the School of Continuing Education
will continue to compete for limited resources based
upon their ability to increase enrollment.
Planning Agenda
None.
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
3.d. The district/system effectively controls
its expenditures.
Descriptive Summary
Board Policies 6200, 6250, and 6300 (11.1) articulate
and explain the financial mechanisms of the District.
Tentative budgets are submitted to the Board in June,
with the final budget approval typically occurring in
September of each academic year. Quarterly financial
reports (11.19) are submitted to the Board of Trustees and to the State Chancellor’s Office. The District
utilizes an approval process requiring requests for expenditures and all budget transfers over $10,000 to be
reported to the Board. A variety of documents demonstrate District control over finances and funding,
including annual audit reports (11.20), annual budget
reports (11.21), actuarial reports (11.22), and listings of
budget transfers contained in the Board agendas (11.5).
In addition, the District conducts an annual independent audit of its finances (11.20). The most recent audit revealed that the District is in good financial health.
The District typically ends each year with a positive
ending balance consisting of an operational reserve,
the Board’s discretionary fund, and campus carryovers.
The District Planning Council (DPC) is charged with
developing allocation recommendations regarding
District programs and services and forwarding those
recommendations to the Chancellor for consideration
by the Board of Trustees. DPC, in formulating recommendations, takes into account the mission of the California Community Colleges, the District Strategic Plan,
data relevant to the needs and demands of the community the District serves, goals and objectives developed
by the budget centers, and other factors deemed relevant to the planning process. DPC is chaired by the
Chancellor and is constituted of members representing
the constituency groups of each of the entities of the
District.
Self Evaluation
The District remains fundamentally sound financially
even though the state economy and community college
funding have diminished. The District continues to realize the benefits of having successfully passed Measure X in March 2002 (11.23). This measure resulted
in a bond of $239 million for facilities construction,
improvement, and expansion. Information regard261
ing both the Facilities Bond itself and recent updates
are available on the District website (11.30). The eight
member Citizen’s Oversight Committee oversees Measure X audits and compliance. Reporting to the Board
of Trustees, the Committee is comprised of representatives of business, community members, support
groups, and students. District staff members may not
serve on the Committee.
As the current construction cycle comes to completion,
the District is engaging in a new Educational and Facilities Master Plan project that will result in the establishment of a roadmap of educational and facilities needs
and priorities for the next ten years. This project is being coordinated by the District with significant College
participation and control (11.31).
The District’s Retiree Health Benefit costs continue to
escalate. Current actuarial studies place the liability
at approximately $70 million. Each year, the District
spends approximately $4 million out of its operating
budget to pay Retiree Health Benefits. This represents
an increase in annual expenditures of almost $2 million as compared to the information reported in the
previous accreditation self study. As health care costs
continue to escalate, the District will experience an
increasingly burdensome financial obligation. Discussions are ongoing at the District level — involving representatives of the constituent groups — to fairly and
appropriately address the need to fully fund this obligation.
The District has engaged in a collaborative effort with
the colleges and the School of Continuing Education
to address budget reductions that are consistent with
individual institutional needs. The fundamental guiding principal established by DPC as the District has
addressed reductions is to maintain jobs and student
access to the extent possible while operating within the
budget. The sites have been afforded great latitude to
identify reductions consistent with individual resources, needs, and priorities.
As the District addresses the need for reductions in expenditures, concerns over appropriate levels of staffing
continue. Classified staffing levels were reduced in the
last budget downturn and have not been increased since
that time. The College is now downsizing to even lower
levels and holding vacant positions unfilled in order to
reduce expenditures. The District was also successful
in renegotiating its Faculty Obligation Number to a
262
level more in line with system-wide norms. As District
revenue has decreased, workload measures have also
decreased. However, College enrollment has increased
due to significantly improved productivity measures.
The College continues to monitor expenditures related
to enrollment in order to provide the greatest possible
level of access for students within the confines of the
dollars it is allocated.
Planning Agenda
None.
3.e. The chancellor gives full responsibility and
authority to the presidents of the colleges to
implement and administer delegated district/
system policies without his/her interference
and holds them accountable for the operation
of the colleges.
Descriptive Summary
Full authority and responsibility are given to the presidents of the colleges by the Chancellor and the Board
of Trustees as evidenced in BP/AP 3100 and articulated in job descriptions for college presidents of the
District (11.1). While the President is granted collegelevel authority, in a multi-college district, the President
reports to the Chancellor. BP 2430 delegates authority
to the Chancellor the executive responsibility for administering the policies adopted by the Board and for
executing all decisions of the Board requiring administrative action. Section 1.1 of this policy authorizes the
Chancellor to delegate the administration of District
colleges and centers while retaining ultimate responsibility for those delegated powers and duties. In addition
to providing leadership to the College, the President is
responsible for addressing initiatives as directed by the
Chancellor, including initiatives emanating from other
District-level officers as appropriate to the mission.
Self Evaluation
The District structure significantly empowers the Presidents to act in accord with the best interests of his organization. At the same time, the President serves as
an executive officer of the District, reporting directly
to the Chancellor. The issue of the appropriate balance between campus autonomy and District control is
a matter of ongoing discussion at the District Planning
Cypress College
Council. In addition to DPC, other District planning
bodies provide forums for constituent representatives
to express concerns when representatives from the
campuses perceive that District control is impacting
local decision-making processes. An example of this
ongoing discussion is provided in DPC minutes (11.24)
reflecting constituent concerns that the Chancellor’s
Staff was inappropriately intruding in campus prioritization of faculty position allocations. The discussion
provided a forum for the expression of concerns and
re-affirmation of the College right to determine which
programs would receive allocations of full-time faculty
positions.
Planning Agenda
None.
3.f. The district/system acts as the liaison between the colleges and the governing board.
The district/system and the colleges use effective methods of communication, and they exchange information in a timely manner.
Descriptive Summary
College-level matters with District-level impact are
presented to and discussed at the Chancellor’s Staff
and the District Planning Council. The District acts as
liaison between the colleges and the governing Board.
Representatives of the colleges are also appointed to
positions and attend all Board meetings, providing for
direct communication with Board members. Several
standing committees consist of representatives from the
District, the two colleges and the School of Continuing Education. Among these are Chancellor’s Cabinet,
DPC, Banner Steering Committee and the District
Curriculum Coordinating Committee. The boards of
the different unions — United Faculty, Adjunct Faculty
United, and CSEA — also have representatives from
the different sites. Each of these bodies provide for individuals to share local perspectives.
Each January, there is a joint meeting of the academic
senates from the three District entities, United Faculty,
and Adjunct Faculty United. This meeting provides a
forum for the representatives of the different entities
to share and to understand the concerns and positions
of the other major faculty organizations. Trustees and
administrators throughout the District are invited and
regularly participate in the annual meeting. There are
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
also a number of ad hoc and informal interactions that
take place between District sites. Site representatives
charged with common responsibilities, such as Staff
Development, often meet to share concerns related to
their areas. It is common for deans and faculty members at Cypress College to informally interact with
their counterparts at Fullerton College, particularly
where curricular issues are concerned. Ongoing weekly meetings involving site and District representatives
coordinate the multitude of facilities and operations issues within the District. Among these regularly-scheduled coordinating meetings are the Budget Managers
meetings held on the Tuesdays of Board meetings,
twice monthly District-level construction and facilities
meetings chaired by the Vice Chancellor of Finance
and Facilities, and periodic District level meetings to
coordinate disaster response efforts. Although a multicollege district is large and complex, the implementation of these processes typically results in clear, effective, and timely communication.
Information comes to the College on a regular basis regarding significant Board discussion items and actions.
Immediately after each meeting of the Board of Trustees, the District Director of Public Affairs disseminates
the Board meeting newsletter News from the Board of
Trustees. Complete and detailed minutes of current
and prior meetings are archived and available on the
shared campus server (11.32, 11.33). The Chancellor
makes both regular contact at the Fall Opening Day
and in summer letters and periodic contact when issues
arise.
Self Evaluation
In general, administration, faculty, and support staff
are well informed regarding District-level issues. Administrative staff members regularly attend Board
meetings and report back to the deans and managers
where Board actions impact their areas. The President
of the College emphasizes the importance of these
representatives sharing information with constituents,
including managers, faculty members, and classified
staff.
Planning Agenda
None.
3.g. The district/system regularly evaluates
district/system role delineation and gover263
nance and decision-making structures and
processes to assure their integrity and effectiveness in assisting the colleges in meeting
educational goals. The district/system widely
communicates the results of these evaluations
and uses them as the basis for improvement.
Descriptive Summary
The District engages in an annual review of the Strategic Plan status, with the Colleges and SCE also providing their assessments for inclusion in the report that
is presented to the Board. Other District effectiveness
assessments occur on an ad hoc basis as issues of effectiveness arise in the relevant arenas. These ad hoc
assessments are typically in the form of concerns raised
at the relevant planning bodies regarding the effectiveness of decision-making structures and processes.
These external reviews validate the effectiveness and
accuracy of the reporting mechanisms.
Self Evaluation
With the exception of the annual review of the District
Strategic Plan, other assessments of effectiveness in this
area are dependent upon constituent representatives
raising issues and concerns on an ad hoc basis. Neither
DPC nor Chancellor’s Cabinet engage in a regular and
rigorous review of effectiveness. Though District processes and procedures are generally perceived to be effective in assisting the colleges in meeting educational
goals, regular and formal review of effectiveness is not
currently an ongoing process of District planning bodies.
Planning Agenda
DPC and Chancellor’s Cabinet include representatives
from Cypress College, Fullerton College, the School of
Continuing Education, representatives of the constituent groups, and other members of District staff. Issues
can be raised by any of these representatives regarding
District processes and procedures, which are subject to
discussion and revision as a result of this dialogue.
None.
As noted earlier, the Board of Trustees conducts an annual assessment of its own performance and makes the
results of that assessment generally available. At each
Board meeting, resource table representatives have an
opportunity to address the Board regarding any issues
related to the District’s decision-making structure and
procedures. Representing the District Management
Group, the three Senates, the two collective bargaining units for the full-time and adjunct faculty, and the
collective bargaining unit for the classified staff, these
individuals have the opportunity to comment either on
general conditions or specific actions. In addition, time
is devoted during each Board meeting for public comments regarding District matters.
11.2
Several of the District’s offices are evaluated by external agencies. The Office of Finance and Facilities
must undergo an annual audit (11.20); any findings
or exceptions are reported publicly and must be addressed. District Information Services are required to
report significant data across the spectrum of District
activities to the State Chancellor’s Office. Any failure
to do so would result in immediate feedback from the
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office.
11.8North Orange County Community College District
descriptive flyer for Cypress College President, July
2007
264
Reference Documents
11.1NOCCCD Board Policies, Administrative Procedures
and Administrative Guide — www.nocccd.edu/Policies/PoliciesAndProcedures.htm
Education Code §70902 et al.
11.3California Code of Regulations, Title 5, §51004
et al. — www.cccco.edu/Portals/4/Executive/
Board/2010_agendas/jan_10/Procedures_and_
Standing_Orders_2010_(1).doc
11.4Procedures and Standing Orders of the Board of
Governors, Art. 3, §331 et al.
11.5Board of Trustees Meeting Agenda, Minutes and
Archives — www.nocccd.edu/Trustees/MtgMinutesArchive2009.htm)
11.6
Cypress College Server (J: drive)
11.72009 Assessment of the Board of Trustees — April
2009
11.9BP/AP 3100 Organizational Structure includding
Cypress College 2009-10 Organizational Chart
11.10President’s Advisory Cabinet Minutes – 12/06/07
and 12/20/07 — J:\President’s Advisory Cabinet
11.112008-2011 Cypress College Strategic Plan —www.
Cypress College
cypresscollege.edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/
pdocuments.aspx
11.12President’s Advisory Cabinet Guidelines – Rev.
9/17/09 — J:\President’s Advisory Cabinet
11.13Cypress College Opening Day Agendas — 20072010
11.14Cypress College Management Team Agendas —
2007-2010
11.32News from the Board of Trustees — www.nocccd.
edu/Trustees/NewsFromBofT1011.htm
11.33Board Meeting Minutes — www.nocccd.edu/Trustees/MtgMinutesArchive2010.htm and J:\Board
Agenda
11.34 District Quarterly
11.35Organizational Structure (Found in Introductory
Documents of this Self Study)
11.15Cypress College Leadership Team Agendas —
2007-2010
11.16College High School Superintendents/Principals
Breakfast Agendas — 2007-2010
11.17Cypress College Business & Community Leaders
Forum Agendas — 2007-2010
11.18District Strategic Plan — www.cypresscollege.edu/
about/InstitutionalResearch/pdocuments.aspx
11.19NOCCCD CCSF 311Q — www.nocccd.edu/Departments/FandF/FinanceFacilities.htm
11.20NOCCCD Annual Audit Reports — www.nocccd.
edu/Departments/FandF/FinanceFacilities.htm
11.21NOCCCD CCSF 311 Annual Report — www.
nocccd.edu/Departments/FandF/FinanceFacilities.
htm
11.22NOCCCD Actuarial Report, 2009 — www.nocccd.
edu/Departments/FandF/FinanceFacilities.htm
11.23NOCCCD Board Agenda [Containing Measure X
Approval; Exec. Admin. Aide to Chancellor]
11.24District Planning Council Minutes, February, 2010
— J:\Chancellor’s Cabinet District Planning Council
Summaries-Minutes
11.25DPC/Chancellor’s Cabinet Minutes — J:\Chancellor’s Cabinet District Planning Council SummariesMinutes
11.26 Board Assessment Summary, Trustee Responses
11.27Board Assessment Summary, Resource Table &
Audience Responses
11.28Campus Climate Survey — www.cypresscollege.
edu/about/InstitutionalResearch/rsurveys.aspx
11.29NOCCCD Functional Map (Found at the end of
Introductory Documents section of this Self Study)
11.30Facilities Bond — www.nocccd.edu/Departments/
FandF/FacilitiesBond/FacilitiesBondInfo.htm
11.31 District Educational and Facilities Master Plan
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
265
Summary of
Planning Agendas
After reviewing the planning agendas suggested by the
subcommittees, an evaluation was made to differentiate between on-going activities and future planning
agendas. Similar items were merged and duplications
were eliminated to arrive at the following list of nine
items.
1.Evaluate the effectiveness of the College’s programs and services to determine their impact on success of
various student groups. The findings
will be used to develop, modify, and/
or continue services that best serve
the college’s evolving diverse student
population.
2.Develop ways to improve information dissemination among various
employee groups on campus with the
ultimate goal of improving participation, providing the rationale behind
decisions, and expanding opportunities to engage in the decision-making
process.
3.Develop and implement a process
in TracDat that clearly establishes
the link between Student Learning
Outcomes (SLO) and Administrative
Unit Outcomes (AUO) assessment
results with program review, planning
and budgeting, as well as align them
with strategic directions in order to
improve student success.
4.Develop and evaluate a method
based on mapping the course SLOs
to GE & Basic Skills PLOs to assess
the GE outcomes.
5.Collaborate at Chancellor’s Cabinet
to complete the development and
adoption of an appropriate and effective educational program development and educational program dis-
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
continuance policy as directed in AP
2510.
6.Improve efficiency of the technological infrastructure and adoption process by working with instructional
units to research and maintain a bestfit list of products as needed and resources allow.
7.Identify and address training needs to
improve use of technology by faculty,
administrators, staff, and students.
8.Promote activities that will engage
employees and students from diverse
groups, that will advance a supportive climate, and that will encourage
the meaningful consideration of a variety of perspectives and opinions.
267
Institutional Self Study — Spring 2011
269
N
ORANGETHORPE
91
9200 Valley View St.
Cypress, CA
90630
(714) 484-7000
CypressCollege.edu
KATELLA
405
CYPRESS
COLLEGE
BEACH BLVD.
605
VALLEY VIEW
LINCOLN
5
22
Cypress College is located near the intersection of Valley View
Street and Lincoln Avenue. Entrances to the campus are available
from Valley View and Holder streets and on Orange Avenue.
Entrance Streets are named Cypress College West, Cypress College
South and Cypress College East. College Circle Drive is a one-way
street, circling the campus in a counter-clockwise direction.
270
Cypress College