NEASC
Phase I
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standards 1 - 11
Goals for Today’s Meeting




Identify Key Issues or Concerns cited by
NEASC over last 10 years
State the 3-5 Key Elements that CCRI feels
it needs to address in each Standard
Assign a Self-Rating to our Effectiveness;
Identify Priority Level
Identify “source of information” for
rating/evaluating
Role of Collective Participation


Using the comment sheet provided, we ask
that everyone provide feedback regarding
each Standard, using the framework
outlined in today’s goals!
Your comments will be submitted
anonymously
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 1 : Mission & Purpose
#1
Strengths/successes since 2004 NEASC visit:
 We have a mission developed by a
comprehensive, diverse college committee.
 “New” comprehensive mission approved 2006.
 Traits within the mission are accurate.
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 1: Mission & Purpose
#2
Challenges/Areas for improvement
 Remaining challenges:
 Lack of acknowledgement, publicity,
visibility and usage college-wide.
 Increasing all of these would increase the
overall importance of the mission within the
everyday workings of the college
community
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 1: Mission & Purpose
#3
New challenges/Areas of improvement:


An institutional vision is mentioned in the
standard. CCRI does not have an approved one.
Changing times may lead to reviewing and
“tweaking” the mission as needed. Should the
tweaking include simplifying the message? Reevaluation committee is needed.
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 1: Mission & Purpose





Self-ratings:
1.1 B
1.2 B
1.3 B+
1.4 C
1.5 C
#4
Priority
A
A
B
A
A
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 1 : Mission & Purpose
#5
Evidence:
 Above based on the fact we have a mission.
 Inferred some information.
 Of the 132 Web pages and print materials
reviewed, only 14% or our “public image” pieces
include some mention or a link to the CCRI
mission statement. Making it tough for the
community to know the elements of the mission.
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 2 : Planning & Evaluation
#1
Some of what we have been doing:







Strategic Plan (SP)
Mgt. Ltr. Tracking
objectives
Inclusive President’s Council
Improved personnel
evaluation systems
MyCCRI communications
True relational database
Acad. Program Review
 Student Learning Outcomes
 Strengthening enterprise
reporting & analytics
 More Transparent data-driven
budget process
 Peer group to gauge
performance (SP)
 Key performance indicators to
track progress
 Others……
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 2 : Planning & Evaluation
#2
Standards of greatest concern (3-C’s; also 4-B’s)
Number
Description
Rating*
Priority*
2.1
Planning is comprehensive, integrated,
participative and communicated
C
A
2.4
Record of planning success re:
implementation
C
A
2.8
Institutional Effectiveness: Maintain a
process for evaluation of planning
effectiveness
C
A
*WASC worksheet ratings
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 2 : Planning & Evaluation
Key Issues
Key
Issues
Description
#2
Evidence or
Comments
1
Many significant planning activities but fragmented;
Need to be continuous & integrated to be
“comprehensive” (SD 2.1)
MP & IT Plan not
integrated with SP;
other “unknown”
activities
2
Implementation (execution/actions) not always aligned Absence of review
with plan (intention); need to improve communications of progress and
(SD 2.4)
metrics
3
Need to establish and maintain an ongoing process to
evaluate planning effectiveness (SD 2.8)
Strategic Goal 4:
Standards &
performance
indicators to assess
*IE of college
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 2 : Planning & Evaluation
#2
Planning Survey
An important part of our “NEASC 2014” preparation process.
Survey Objective:
To prepare an inventory of planning processes that are extant within
CCRI in order to determine extent of planning overlap and
redundancy, if any, which may exist.
Name & Brief
Description of
Planning
Document/Process
Dept/Name/Tel of
Contact/Coordinator
for this plan
Electronic link (if any)
to Plan document.
(URL, Web site, etc)
Frequency
http://www.ccri.edu/fac/stratplan/
Annual
Participants/Contributors
Is there a
budget
associated
with this
plan?
Scope of Plan
Dept
Div
Sample:
Facilities Plan
A three year look
forward to Division
goals, projects, and
issues
Facilities Div
John Doe/(825-xxxx)
All department section heads
and supervisors in the
Facilities Div.
Yes
X
CCRI
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 3:Organization & Governance
 Board of Governors



New Board
Future? Legislative /Administration Plans
President & Council



#1
President is also the Commissioner
Faculty union president now on council
Administration



Physically decentralized; administratively centralized
No full-time administrator on each campus
Two vacant dean positions
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 3:Organization & Governance
 Governance, What we did well:




#2
Wrote, vetted, and passed governance system (May
2008)
Completed survey of all College committees
Conducted successful elections for two years(20082010)
Sponsored several activities




“Got Issues?” campaign
Issues of Concern form developed, process established
Forum on Open Door Admissions at Professional
Development Day
Facilities Survey
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 3:Organization & Governance

#3
Governance, What we did not do so well:

Website not functional


Meaningful institutional support lacking


Lengthy, confusing process over construction
No budget, no incentive to participants
System lacks full scale participation


Community does not understand system
Misperception about nature and scope of system
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 4: The Academic Program
#1
The Academic Program in 2004





Many programs had not articulated formal learning
outcomes
Learning outcomes were not included or were not
consistent throughout all sections of each course
No definition of an educated person
No required general education core
No consistent assessment process for courses or
programs
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 4: The Academic Program
#2
The Academic Program 2011





All academic programs have learning outcomes except one
Many more courses include learning outcomes and it is
unknown if they are the same for all sections of courses
offered
We have a definition of an educated person
We have a required general education core for all programs
We have a formal program assessment process and a
formal faculty evaluation process
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 4: The Academic Program
#3
Activities in Progress 2011




Determine if all courses include learning outcomes which
are consistent for all sections of each course
Determine how the learning outcomes are assessed for
each course
Determine how the definition of an educated person and
general education core are communicated and understood
by faculty and students
Determine how we know that graduates demonstrate
competence in communication, reasoning/critical thinking,
and the ability to access the resources for continued
development
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 4: The Academic Program
#4
Activities in Progress 2011





Determine improvements that have been made within programs as a
result of the assessment process
Identify the rationale (mission) for each program
Determine the extent to which resources available on the 4 campuses
are made available to students at satellite locations and in distance
learning
Determine the difference in the approval and assessment processes for
the credit bearing and non-credit bearing certificate programs
Determine the method(s) used to insure academic integrity in distance
learning courses
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 5: Faculty
Instructional technology:








#1
Ensuring faculty competent in use of technology to
support teaching responsibilities. New resources
include:
Distance learning/Blackboard resources
Centers for Instructional Technology
Instructional Support Team
Interactive Video Conferencing
Classroom and Event Technology
Electronic Classrooms
New Employee Orientation to Information Technology
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 5: Faculty
#2
Evaluation


Review and implementation of student evaluation
instrument
Adopted a more consistent approach to evaluate
Adjuncts
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 5: Faculty
#3
College Governance Structure


Adopted new model which ensures faculty
understanding and participation in committee
system processes
Improved communication via college wide events,
meetings, etc.
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 5: Faculty
#4
Banner system:
a review and standardization of course hours
throughout the curriculum.


Addressed inconsistencies in the number of
classroom hours.
More systematic approach to enforce standards
across the board for faculty load and overload.
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 5: Faculty
#5
Areas to be addressed:

Cultural competence: based upon diversity of
student population, faculty ranks should diversify.
Steps to enhance pool of minority applicants.

Strategies to support adjunct faculty (contracts,
orientation, faculty mentoring system)
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 6: Students

#1
Generally speaking, the College
effectively meets the standards for
Admissions, Retention and Graduation,
Student Services, and Institutional
Effectiveness. Where the College falls
short is illustrated below.
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 6: Students
#2
Admissions
 6.2 Academic Standing Policy not in catalog
 6.3 &6.4 AccuPlacer insufficient to identify
needs at lowest end of necessary supports.
Insufficient supports in place for students
with academic deficiencies
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 6: Students
#3
Retention and Graduation
 6.8 Institutional goals for retention and
graduation non-existent or not well
disseminated.
 6.9 Data on retention, graduation and other
measures of student success may not be
reviewed in the context of institutional or
departmental planning and improve
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 6: Students
#4
Student Services






6.10 Response to student needs is not pro-active. Mission of
Student Affairs not publicly available.
6.11 Availability of services for Distance Learning students or
via electronic means not universally available.
6.17 Training opportunities hampered by staff and budget cuts.
Facilities, technology and funding are inadequate for current
level of services.
6.18 Ethical standards not publicized.
6.19 Records retention policy unclear
6.20 Co-curricular goals?
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 7: Library & Information Resources

#1
Strengths since last NEASC visit







Library renovation
Electronic classrooms
Wireless infrastructure
Blackboard
Banner (new implementation)
DL growth
Institutional and educational planning helps encourage
information resources and technology to be integrated
into the student educational experiences
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 7: Library & Information Resources
#2
Key Issues
1. “Mission”

While NEASC suggests inclusion of information literacy skills in
the definition of an educated person, it is not in CCRI's newest
definition; strategic plan merely implies acquisition
2. “Support”



Grade= B
Grade= C
Absence of a comprehensive plan to provide adequate user
support (“services are reactionary rather than proactive”)
Not adequate time for staff to learn new technologies nor time
for them to create documentation and train faculty
No time for researching/ supporting appropriate new tools for
instructional technology
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 7: Library & Information Resources
#3
2. (“Support” continued)


Consistent funds for resources but incongruency between funding
available and people dedicated actually to implement those
initiatives.
Under resourced areas, generally IT support services (i.e., Help
Desk)
3. “Assessment”



Grade= C
Lack of measurable criteria of competencies for teaching online
No mechanism in place to gather student perception about the
quality and efficacy of instructional technology
No objective way to measure if technology is promoting better
student success
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 7: Library & Information Resources
#4
3. (“Assessment” Continued)

No mechanism in place to assess whether students
demonstrate proficiency with information resources
and technology….nor for attaining appropriate level of
proficiency for their program
 Not all programs/courses have published learning
outcomes.
 Learning outcomes do not address information
literacy and technology for all students. (English
1010 and Speech 1100 do.)
 Strategic plan mentions “mapping” curriculum
to definition of an educated person—no evidence
that these maps exist.
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 7: Library & Information Resources
#5
3. (“Assessment” continued)

A lack of measurable course objectives makes it
impossible to determine either levels of competence or
levels of growth in a student's ability to assess and use
research/reference materials.
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 8: Physical & Technological Resources

#1
Standard 8.4
 The institution undertakes physical resource
planning linked to academic and student
services, support functions, and financial
planning.
 Space planning occurs on a regular basis as part
of physical resource evaluation and planning,
and is consistent with the mission and purposes
of the institution.
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 8: Physical & Technological Resources

Standard 8.4

Standard 8.4



Self-Rating: C
Priority to Us: s/b A
Evidence



Major Strengths


X25/R25/S25
Experience
X25/R25/S25
Areas For Improvement

Addressing Findings/Experience
#2
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 8: Physical & Technological Resources




#3
Continuing upgrade and maintenance of the network
infrastructure to support existing and future bandwidth
requirements for the next decade
Aggressive implementation of highly available, fault
tolerant, redundant systems to ensure that essential services
are accessible and pervasive always
Virtual desktop initiative to develop a sustainable model
for delivering desktop services and information anytime,
anywhere to constituents based upon their role
Vigorous creation of an enterprise-wide academic analytics
agenda for informed business decision making.
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 8: Physical & Technological Resources




#4
Vibrant launch of a convenient, highly-responsive, multimedia
streaming service delivering digital content to all learners,
both internal and external to the campus
Unwavering pursuit of resource conservation programs,
including cooling, print management and power distribution
through virtual machines
Cultivation and provisioning of a “warm” site on the Flanagan
campus for disaster recovery and business continuity
Measured adoption of those “cloud” services enhancing and
improving service delivery for constituents
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 9: Financial Resources
#1

10/2004 interim finding = ensure that
strategic planning is linked to budgeting

3/25/2009 interim finding = address
resource challenges incurred by reduced
state $’s; strengthen engagement of faculty
& staff in using data for planning & decision
making
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 9: Financial Resources



#2
BRC implemented & merged w/ SPC
Used web to ease availability of fiscal
information & budget process-but is it used?
Include in upcoming survey
Answers to the core questions on which SP
was based have not been clearly
communicated to college at large
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 9: Financial Resources


#3
Data collection benchmarks id’d in SP for
decision making need to be populated &
peer & other external validation measures
need to be selected
Need a mechanism by which data standards
are agreed upon, universally available &
presented
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 9: Financial Resources



#4
Use data to address divisional/cultural
differences
Use data to better manage resources & align
expenditures to missions/goals
Sufficient strategic alignment of institutional
goals, resources & divisional actions?
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 10: Public Disclosure


#1
For our Fifth-Year Report, NEASC raised
assessment of student learning and
measurement of student success as issues
for CCRI, which implicate consideration
10.12 to the extent that we make public
statements or promises about them
Key issues are not in order of importance
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 10: Public Disclosure
#2
Key Issue #1:
Delivering accurate and timely answers to
questions




Self-Rating: A-C (depending on topic)
Evidence: Largely (and perhaps inevitably)
anecdotal
Complicating factors: (i) Dearth of written
policies across the institution; and (ii) the
growing importance of social media
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 10: Public Disclosure
#3
Key Issue #2:
Revising, and maintaining the currency of,
OES and financial aid Web resources




Self-Rating: B
Evidence: Ongoing staff review of present
functionality in light of student inquiries
Complicating factor: Seemingly endless
ferment in federal financial aid programs
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 10: Public Disclosure
#4
Key Issue #3:
Organizing and designing CCRI’s information
resources around what we want students to
know



Self-Rating: A-C (depending on topic)
Evidence: Volume of questions with answers
that (we think) are readily available in print or
on the Web, but is higher than one would
expect even from a spoon-fed population
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 10: Public Disclosure
#5
Key Issue #4:
Keeping CCRI’s Web site (ccri.edu) and portal
(MyCCRI) current and user-friendly




Self-Rating: A-C (depending on topic)
Evidence: Same as Key Issues #1 and #3
Complicating factor: Staffing constraints in
securing the continuous assistance of content,
communications and IT experts
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 11 : Integrity
#1
Strengths and Accomplishments







Breadth of policies available from federal, state, BOG, and contractual
documents
Print and online materials have been updated
Success Centers for students established
Access to information about transfer opportunities and processes
readily available to students
Organizational structure for governance established
Opening Day Convocation, Professional Development Day, and
annual retreats established
All job postings for permanent positions are readily available to the
public online
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 11 : Integrity
From 2004 and 2009 NEASC Reports
#2
1.
Adjunct Faculty: no standard orientation; no ongoing evaluative review of
handbook/website to monitor effectiveness
2.
CCRI Code of Ethics not updated or aligned with Mission Statement
3.
Perception (in public media) of favoritism in hiring remains; staff diversity
has improved, diversity among faculty remains low
4.
Key committee agendas and minutes not readily available online
5.
Committee system within governance structure not working as designed to
strengthen greater communication, input, and accountability; no evaluation of
new governance system occurred at end of 2008-2009 academic year
6.
Process of solicitation and review of recommendations for fiscal efficiencies
is inconsistent and ineffective
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 11 : Integrity
#3
Summary




Communications

Committee agenda and minutes not readily available online

No standard orientation, handbook, or policies for adjuncts
Policies and Implementation

No college-wide policy manual
Governance

Committee structure not working as designed
Diversity

Lack of diversity among FT and adjunct faculty

Perception of unfair hiring remains
What Next?



Assemble feedback, distribute to
Committees
Participate in individual meetings by
Standard to review information available
Discuss how to set institutional priorities for
each Standard
Next Meeting: January 12, 2011



Each Committee will identify 3-5 top
priorities to improve our effectiveness
Committee-of-the-Whole will discuss and
attempt to rank what is most important for
the College as a whole
Group will “vote by dots” to identify our
top priorities