Organization of the Self-Evaluation Process

Transcription

1 Organization of the Self-Evaluation Process Napa Valley College (NVC) structured its self-evaluation process and timeline around the model that was used in the self-study. The self-evaluation writing process began with the Accreditation Co-Chairs reviewing the 2014 Accreditation Standards and identifying committees and groups on campus that might serve as resources for each Standard. Each committee received a set of Standards (relevant to their charge) to review and provide suggestions for evidence to help guide the work of the writing teams. The Standards were distributed to twenty-five committees, covering all functions of the College. The input from the committees provided a starting point for each writing team. This initial phase was designed not only to increase efficiencies by relying on existing College structures, but also to prepare the institution for the steps subsequent to the self-evaluation and comprehensive site visit for accreditation by identifying committees that would be responsible for monitoring performance relative to each Standard in order to ensure academic quality, student success, and institutional effectiveness. The process was intended to provide a variety of opportunities for members of the campus community to participate in the self-evaluation process and to build institutional capacity for the future. Coordination of Self-Evaluation Process As the Accreditation Liaison Officer, the Dean of Research, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness served as the administrative co-chair of the accreditation self-evaluation process. The College President invited faculty interested in serving in the position of faculty co-chair to indicate their interest, and he appointed a faculty co-chair in spring 2014, prior to the selfevaluation year. The Accreditation Co-Chairs were responsible for coordinating the selfevaluation process, providing training and support for writing teams, reviewing drafts of the Self-Evaluation Report and providing guidance and suggestions for improvement, providing regular reports to the Accreditation Steering Committee and the Board of Trustees, collecting input on drafts distributed among the campus community, writing sections of the report not assigned to writing teams (e.g., history, organization of self-evaluation, Quality Focus Essay, responses to Eligibility Requirements and accreditation recommendations from 2009), and ensuring that the self-evaluation provides an accurate and fair evaluation of the College. Self-Evaluation Co-Chairs: o Erik Shearer, Professor, Art o Dr. Robyn Wornall, Dean, Research, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness

2 Along with the accreditation co-chairs, members of the Council of Presidents and the President s Cabinet formed the Accreditation Steering Committee. The Council of Presidents includes the College President as well as the presidents of the constituent groups, spanning the Academic Senate, Classified Senate, Administrative Senate, and the Associated Students of NVC. The President s Cabinet includes the three Vice Presidents covering the areas of Instruction, Student Services, and Administrative Services. By virtue of their roles or positions, individual Accreditation Steering Committee members helped ensure that other campus groups and committees received updates on accreditation. In addition to the constituent groups (represented by their respective presidents), the Steering Committee included members of the Planning Committee as well as the four Area Councils (Instruction, Student Services, Administrative Services, and President s Area). Accreditation Steering Committee: o Ken Arnold, President, Administrative Senate o Maria Biddenback, President, Academic Senate o William Cruz, Interim President, ASNVC (spring 2015) o Valerie Exum, President, Classified Senate o Angela Ituriaga, President, ASNVC (fall 2014) o Dr. Ron Kraft, Superintendent/President o Oscar De Haro, Vice President, Student Services o Dr. Terry Giugni, Vice President, Instruction o Dr. Jeanine Hawk, Interim Vice President, Administrative Services o Erik Shearer, Accreditation Co-Chair (faculty) o Dr. Robyn Wornall, Accreditation Co-Chair (administrative) The Accreditation Steering Committee helped identify and recruit writing team participants, received regular updates on the self-evaluation process, served as the primary reviewing body for the second draft of the report, encouraged participation in the review process, helped identify areas for improvement for the Quality Focus Essay and then provided input as the essay was drafted, and helped communicate the results of the self-evaluation process among the campus community. Writing Teams for Self-Evaluation Report Fourteen writing teams were created to prepare drafts of the Self-Evaluation Report. These teams were responsible for compiling evidence in support of the Self-Evaluation Report, writing

3 iterative drafts of the report, meeting with the Accreditation Co-Chairs and Steering Committee to receive input on drafts of the report, revising each draft based on input collected from the campus community, and meeting with visiting team members upon request during the comprehensive site visit (anticipated). The Presidents of the Academic, Classified, and Administrative Senates helped identify members to serve on each writing team. Each writing team was assigned responsibility for a subsection of the Accreditation Standards (e.g., Standard I.A). Two writing teams were assigned to Standard I.B, with one group responsible for the section pertaining to Academic Quality (I.B.1 through I.B.4) and another responsible for the section covering Institutional Effectiveness (I.B.5 through I.B.9). The members of each writing team are identified below. Standard I: Mission, Academic Quality and Institutional Effectiveness, and Integrity Standard I.A: Mission o Joann Stubitsch, Secretary, Upper Valley Campus o Dr. Robyn Wornall, Dean, Research, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness Standard I.B(1): Assuring Academic Quality (Standards I.B.1 I.B.4) o John Dotta, Professor, Photography o Dr. Terry Giugni, Vice President of Instruction, Office of Instruction o Cristine Vasquez, Credit Program Developer, Office of Instruction Standard I.B(2): Assuring Institutional Effectiveness (Standards I.B.5 I.B.9) o Joann Stubitsch, Secretary, Upper Valley Campus o Dr. Robyn Wornall, Dean, Research, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness Standard I.C: Institutional Integrity o Dr. Dan Clemens, Professor, Biology o Katherine Kittel, Secretary, Academic Senate o Faye Smyle, Dean, Office of Instruction Standard II: Student Learning Programs and Support Services Standard II.A: Instructional Programs o Amanda Badgett, Professor, Art History o Dr. Terry Giugni, Vice President of Instruction, Office of Instruction o Lauren Lee, Secretary, Physical Education Standard II.B: Library and Learning Support Services o Stephanie Grohs, Librarian, Professor, Learning Services o Jan Schardt, Learning Resources Assistant, Learning Resources o Rebecca Scott, Dean, Library/Learning Resources Standard II.C: Student Support Services

4 o Oscar De Haro, Vice President of Student Services, Student Services o Jan Schardt, Learning Resources Assistant, Learning Resources Standard III: Resources Standard III.A: Human Resources o Danielle Alexander, Instructional Assistant, Biology o Laura Ecklin, Dean, Human Resources o Ann Gross, Professor, Speech Standard III.B: Physical Resources o Matt Christensen, Director, Facilities o Dr. Bonnie Moore, Professor, Biology o Susan Brinson, Administrative Assistant, Facilities Standard III.C: Technology Resources o Dr. Robert Butler, Dean, Institutional Technology o Dr. Jeanine Hawk, Interim Vice President, Administrative Services o Jose Sanchez, IT Support Specialist, Information Technology Standard III.D: Financial Resources o Jeremy Ecklin, Specialist, Testing and Tutoring Center o Julie Hall, Professor, Business and Computer Studies o Dr. Jeanine Hawk, Interim Vice President, Administrative Services Standard IV: Leadership and Governance Standard IV.A: Decision-Making Roles and Processes o Ken Arnold, Director, College Police o Dr. Nadine Gravett, Professor, Physical Education o Valerie Mull, Financial Aid Officer, Financial Aid/EOPS Standard IV.B: Chief Executive Officer o Maria Biddenback, Professor, Nursing o Chris Farmer, Research Analyst, Research, Planning, & Institutional Effectiveness o Beth Pratt, Director, Small Business Development Center Standard IV.C: Governing Board o Dan Digardi, Chair, Board of Trustees o Lissa Gibbs, Executive Director, Institutional Advancement o Erik Shearer, Professor, Art In order to ensure broad participation in the drafting process, the writing teams with less than three members used additional means to collect input from faculty and staff on initial drafts. For Standards I.A and I.B, the Planning Committee, which includes eight faculty representatives,

5 served as a resource and reviewed early drafts of the sections pertaining to mission, academic quality, and institutional effectiveness. For Standard II.C, the Vice President of Student Services invited staff members with expertise related to specific Standards within II.C to serve as resources and help draft responses. Students were invited to participate in the review process for both the second and third drafts of the report. The ASNVC President participated in the Accreditation Steering Committee s review of the second draft and invited student representatives on campus committees and the ASNVC Board to review and provide feedback on sections of the second draft so that the feedback could be conveyed to the writing teams via the Accreditation Steering Committee. Students were included in the review of the third draft, as part of the broader campus community. A hard copy of the third draft was available for student review in the ASNVC Office. Students were informed at an ASNVC meeting that the draft was available for review, with input welcome. Students could also review final materials as they were posted on the College website (beginning in early May). More than 34 members of the campus community actively participated in drafting the Self- Evaluation Report. Participants were drawn from all organizational areas of the College including Instruction, Student Services, Administrative Services, and the President s Area. Faculty and staff from Academic Support Services were also represented. Faculty from most of the instructional divisions including Art and Humanities, Business and Computer Studies, Health Occupations, Language and Developmental Studies, Physical Education, and Science, Mathematics and Engineering directly participated in the writing process. In addition to the writing team and Steering Committee members identified above, other faculty and staff members helped write portions of the report, reviewed the report and offered suggestions for improvement, and compiled evidence in support of the Self-Evaluation Report. Board of Trustees Involvement The Board of Trustees was regularly informed of the Self-Evaluation process throughout An accreditation update was a standing item on Board agendas. The Accreditation Co- Chairs provided monthly updates at the following meetings: o September 11, 2014 o October 9, 2014 o November 13, 2014 o December 11, 2014 o January 15, 2015 o February 12, 2015

6 o March 12, 2015 o April 9, 2015 o May 14, In addition, a special workshop devoted to accreditation was provided prior to the regular Board of Trustees meeting in January The Board Chair served on the writing team for Standard IV.C, and all Board members reviewed a draft of Standard IV.C in January February 2015 and provided feedback, which was collected at the regular meeting on February 12, Board members had access to the password-protected portion of the College website and were able to review the complete third draft as well as the Quality Focus Essay before the final documents were made available to the public. The Board approved the Self-Evaluation Report at its meeting on June 11, 2015 (anticipated). Timeline Fall 2013: o Ten representatives attended self-evaluation workshop presented by ACCJC staff, San Joaquin Delta College, October 2013 Spring 2014: o College President appointed faculty co-chair o Constituent group presidents identified writing team members o Accreditation Liaison Officer and College President developed budget for self-evaluation o Accreditation Co-Chairs designed self-evaluation process o Accreditation Steering Committee convened Fall 2014: o Two orientation sessions provided for writing teams one by Accreditation Co-Chairs, one by ACCJC staff members (August and September) o Campus committees suggested sources of evidence in support of self-evaluation o Writing teams met, collected evidence, drafted report o Accreditation Co-Chairs met with each writing team o NVC submitted Substantive Change Proposal on Online Instruction to ACCJC (approved November 2014) o Office of Research, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness compiled and analyzed data in support of Self-Evaluation Report o Writing teams submitted first drafts (November 21)

7 o Accreditation Co-Chairs provided feedback on first draft Spring 2015: o Writing teams revised report based on feedback from Accreditation Co-Chairs and submitted second draft (February 12) o Accreditation Co-Chairs drafted responses to Eligibility Requirements 1-5 and 2009 recommendations, a brief history of the College, and summary of the organization of the self-evaluation process o Accreditation Steering Committee reviewed drafts of Eligibility Requirements, responses to 2009 recommendations, history of the College, and organization of the selfevaluation process and offered feedback o Accreditation Steering Committee reviewed second drafts and provided feedback to writing teams: o February 17: Standard I o February 19: Standard II o February 24: Standard IV o February 27: Standard III o Writing teams revised drafts based on feedback from Accreditation Steering Committee and submitted third drafts (March 19) o Third draft posted on College website for review by campus community (passwordprotected) o Feedback on third draft collected from campus community (via electronic forum and three in-person forums held April 7, 8, and 9) o Accreditation Steering Committee identified items to incorporate into Quality Focus Essay o Accreditation Co-Chairs compiled summary of Self-Evaluation Report and shared with campus community identifying three Action Project areas for Quality Focus Essay o Writing teams compiled evidence for Self-Evaluation Report, submitted to Office of Research, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness o Writing teams created final draft of Self-Evaluation Report based on feedback collected through forums o Accreditation Co-Chairs conduct single-voice editing o Fourth draft posted on public portion of College website (beginning May 6) o Accreditation Co-Chairs drafted Quality Focus Essay o Three campus forums were held to share and discuss Action Projects for Quality Focus Essay (April 27, May 5 and 6) o Accreditation Steering Committee reviewed drafts of Quality Focus Essay and offered feedback

8 o Quality Focus Essay posted for review by campus committee (on password-protected portion of website, May 27; on public site, June 3) o Office of Research, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness organized evidence in support of Self-Evaluation Report o All components of Self-Evaluation Report posted on public portion of website (May June) o Presidents of College, Constituent Groups, and Board of Trustees and Accreditation Co- Chairs certified Self-Evaluation Report (May June) o Board of Trustees approved Self-Evaluation Report (anticipated June 11) Summer 2015: o Conduct final edits/revisions o Organize electronic evidence o Incorporate graphics and photographs into Self-Evaluation Report o Produce final report o Order bound copies of Self-Evaluation Report o Post complete Self-Evaluation Report on College website o Send electronic copies of Self-Evaluation Report and accompanying evidence to visiting team members (by July 29) o Send hard copy of Self-Evaluation Report and evidence (in electronic format) to ACCJC (by July 29) o Prepare for comprehensive site visit Fall 2015: o Compile supplemental update to Self-Evaluation Report o Prepare for comprehensive site visit o Comprehensive site visit and exit report (scheduled for September 28 October 1) o Provide feedback to visiting team chair on draft team report o Convene teams and begin implementing plans conveyed in Quality Focus Essay Spring 2016: o ACCJC action on NVC s Self-Evaluation Report o Receive letter from ACCJC communicating action taken at January meeting (anticipated February) o Share results with campus community; post ACCJC letter on College website

9 Conceptual Maps To help structure the work of the writing teams, the Accreditation Co-Chairs created conceptual maps describing how the Standards assigned to each team fit together to ensure effectiveness. A conceptual map was provided for each writing team. The maps were used to communicate expectations conveyed in the Accreditation Standards and ensure that each component was addressed in the Self-Evaluation Report (SER). Most of the maps delineate two categories of Standards those associated with policies (or documentation of processes) and others associated with practices (how the policies are applied and how practices align with policies). Standards within the policy category might be addressed through evidence alone. Within Standard IV.C: Governing Board, there are four policies that each institution should have in place one granting the board s authority to set policy, one pertaining to selection of the CEO, one pertaining to board evaluation, and one pertaining to conflict of interest (as well as a code of ethics). Other Standards within IV.C address responsibilities and practices. In the conceptual map for IV.C, this category is divided into subcategories identifying Standards related to processes, oversight, quality assurance, and communications. Each conceptual map ends with an analysis of effectiveness and identification of gaps leading to an improvement narrative. Upon completion of the SER, the conceptual maps were updated to reflect the results of the evaluation process based on the analysis of effectiveness, identification of gaps, and improvement narrative. Areas that were identified for improvement in the SER were highlighted through the use of shading and dotted lines in the maps. The shaded boxes identify areas for improvement, and the dotted lines linking those boxes to other portions of the map indicate areas of disconnect or weaker linkages. Boxes that are shaded with diagonal lines identify primary sources of the issues identified in the SER. Boxes that are shaded with dots identify areas of secondary concern or secondary effects associated with issues identified as primary sources or areas for concern. The conceptual maps including the embedded analysis of effectiveness are used to introduce each Standard in the SER.