NEASC Phase I Assessment of Effectiveness Standards 1 - 11

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 improvementRemaining 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


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? Re-evaluation committee is needed.


Self-ratings: Priority 1.1 B A 1.2 B A 1.3 B+ B 1.4 C A 1.5 C 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

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……

Some of what we have been doing:


Standards of greatest concern (3-C’s; also 4-B’s)

*WASC worksheet ratings


Key Issues


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 Participants/Contributors Is there a budget

associated with this

plan?

Scope of Plan

Dept Div CCRI

Sample: Facilities Div John Doe/(825-xxxx)

http://www.ccri.edu/fac/stratplan/

Annual

All department section heads and supervisors in the Facilities Div.

Yes

X

Facilities Plan A three year look forward to Division goals, projects, and issues

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.

Planning Survey

An important part of our “NEASC 2014” preparation process.

Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 3:Organization & Governance #1

Board of Governors New Board Future? Legislative /Administration Plans

President & Council 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 #2 Governance, What we did well:

Wrote, vetted, and passed governance system (May 2008) Completed survey of all College committees Conducted successful elections for two years(2008-2010) 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

Lengthy, confusing process over construction Meaningful institutional support lacking

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 2004Many programs had not articulated formal learning outcomesLearning outcomes were not included or were not consistent throughout all sections of each courseNo definition of an educated personNo required general education coreNo consistent assessment process for courses or programs


The Academic Program 2011All academic programs have learning outcomes except oneMany more courses include learning outcomes and it is unknown if they are the same for all sections of courses offeredWe have a definition of an educated personWe have a required general education core for all programsWe have a formal program assessment process and a formal faculty evaluation process


Activities in Progress 2011Determine if all courses include learning outcomes which are consistent for all sections of each courseDetermine how the learning outcomes are assessed for each courseDetermine how the definition of an educated person and general education core are communicated and understood by faculty and studentsDetermine how we know that graduates demonstrate competence in communication, reasoning/critical thinking, and the ability to access the resources for continued development


Activities in Progress 2011Determine improvements that have been made within programs as a result of the assessment processIdentify the rationale (mission) for each programDetermine the extent to which resources available on the 4 campuses are made available to students at satellite locations and in distance learningDetermine the difference in the approval and assessment processes for the credit bearing and non-credit bearing certificate programsDetermine the method(s) used to insure academic integrity in distance learning courses

Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 5: Faculty #1

Instructional technology: 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


Evaluation Review and implementation of student

evaluation instrument Adopted a more consistent approach to

evaluate Adjuncts


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.


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.


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


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


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

1. “Mission” Grade= B 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= 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

Key Issues


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


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.


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.


Standard 8.4 Standard 8.4

Self-Rating: C Priority to Us: s/b A Evidence

X25/R25/S25 Experience

Major Strengths X25/R25/S25

Areas For Improvement Addressing Findings/Experience


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

Strengths and Accomplishments


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

From 2004 and 2009 NEASC Reports


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

Summary

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

Documents

NEASC Phase I Assessment of Effectiveness Standards 1 - 11