OCTOBER 1, Recommendation 1 In order to fully meet the Standard, the college must specify its goals on all its master plans and its annual plans in measurable terms so that the degree to which they are achieved can be assessed, discussed, and applied to decisions regarding improvement of institutional effectiveness. 2006 Recommendation 5 The college should develop a sustainable reiterated cycle of integrated planning, resource allocation, plan implementation and evaluation by strengthening its information collection and dissemination for program review, and concentrating on implementation of the master plan and its ambitious planning agenda. Specify measurable goals on Technology and Facilities Master plans. Specify measurable goals on all annual plans in West s Program Review process. Planning and Resource Allocation Facilities: VP AS/ Workgroup of the Facilities Committee Technology: VP AA/ Workgroup of the Technology Committee Dean, Research & Planning October, Spring : Technology Master Plan goal evaluation workgroups formed to establish implementation matrices. July : Facilities workgroup formed to establish measurable outcomes. September, : Technology workgroups undertake to establish measurable outcomes. Workgroups record actions on a matrix, keep minutes, and report to their committees. September : Program Review instrument revised, approved by Academic Senate so that the fall Program Review will call for measurable goals in all plans. Continue to use our cycle of integrated planning, resource allocation, plan implementation and evaluation including: Aligning plans Strengthening information collection and dissemination, such as Program Review assessing our levels of achievement discussing our plans and our progress using results to make decisions leading to institutional improvement. documenting progress on implementation matrices. Revise master plans to integrate systematically-collected data, such as Program Reviews, environmental scans. Refine measurable goals in Educational and Student Services plans. Draft of September 26,
OCTOBER 1, Recommendation 2 Develop and implement a formal, organized process that is regularly evaluated for assuring quality of data and assessment definitions, interpretation, and application that builds upon the established governance and planning system. This will further college efforts to develop a process where decisions are based on a culture of evidence that results in cohesive planning, evaluation, improvement and re-evaluation. Evaluate the planning process to assure: quality of data that assessment is defined, interpreted and the results applied Revise the Program Review instrument and validation process, including evaluation rubrics. Develop and use rubrics for the prioritization process. Dean, Research & Planning/ Planning Committee December July : Reviewed comparable colleges planning processes September : Planning and Program Review committees incorporated into Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Committee September : Program review validation strengthened to include cross-divisional review/assessment. September : Program review instrument revised to require unit evaluation of the effective use of their resources. Use the evaluation and planning processes built on the established governance and planning system. Use evidence in these processes. Continue to evaluate our processes and to refine them so that decisions are based on a culture of evidence that results in cohesive planning, evaluation, improvement and re-evaluation Provide handbooks for program review and for shared governance/planning that include data definitions. Recommendation 7 In order to meet the standard, the team recommends that the college integrate planning, evaluation, and resource allocation decision making in order to systematically assess the effective use of its financial resources and use the results of the evaluation as the basis for institutional Update Shared Governance and Planning Handbook to include data definitions. Adjust our planning processes to fully integrate planning, evaluation and budgeting. Dean, Research and Planning/ VP AS, Planning Committee March 2013 September : Drafted prioritization rubric. September : Program review instrument revised to require unit evaluation of the effective use of their resources and to include planning for reduced resources. Assess our use of financial resources systematically: In Fall, develop a process to systematically assess the planning and budgeting processes at West using quantitative and qualitative data and use it in spring 2013. Discuss the results of the assessment and implement improvements to the process. Conduct process assessment in May 2013; design and implement Draft of September 26,
OCTOBER 1, improvement and effectiveness in a manner that assures financial stability for the institution. improvements during summer/fall 2013. Use these assessments to improve West and its effectiveness. 2006 Recommendation 3 The college should implement a viable plan to operate in a fiscally responsible fashion that aligns its programs and services with its revenue allocation to achieve sustainable fiscal stability. Recommendation 3 As noted by the 2006 team and in order to fully meet the Standards and facilitate the college's achievement of commission expectations of proficiency by AY -13, the team recommends that the college identify student learning outcomes that are related to course objectives for all courses; evaluate all courses and programs through an on-going systematic review of the relevance, appropriateness, and achievement of student learning outcomes, currency, and future needs and plans; and conduct authentic assessment of student Draft of September 26, Identify course SLOs for all courses. Conduct authentic assessment of student achievement at course, program and institutional levels. Dean of Teaching and Learning, SLO Coordinator Student Learning Outcomes August : Identified al1 courses needing course SLOs August and ongoing: Conduct workshops for faculty on defining course SLOs. September : Adopted an addendum to the COR document to streamline the addition of course SLOS. September : Presented timeline to Academic Senate calling for faculty to develop course SLOs by and then to conduct course SLO assessments. Evaluate all courses and programs for: SLO relevance and appropriateness Achievement of SLOs Currency Conduct authentic assessment of student achievement at the course, program, and institutional levels. Incorporate SLO assessment into Program Review to link assessment with planning and resource requests. Use results of assessment to improve student learning.
OCTOBER 1, achievement at the course, program, and institutional levels in order to improve student learning. Recommendation 4 In order to fully meet the Standards, the team recommends that the college review and revise as necessary its developed student learning and service level outcomes to assure that they are measured in both quantitative and qualitative terms. These measures should be adequate for evaluating whether services are meeting identified student needs so that results can be used to improve the delivery of support services. And 2006 recommendation 6 The college should periodically review its staffing priorities, hours of operations, and counseling priorities to ensure that what is delivered is consistent with program review, of acceptable quality, and aligns with the mission and values of the college. Review SLOs and Service Level Outcomes. Revise as needed to make them quantitatively and qualitatively measurable. Associate Dean of Student Services and VP of Administrative Services / Dean of Teaching and Learning, SLO Coordinator, SLO Workgroup June : Formed student services think tank to review existing SLOs structure for the division. July : Revised Divisional SLOs for Student Services. July : Developed a timeline for assessing SLOs (two per year on a three year cycle). July : Revised department level SLOs for the child development center, DSPS, international and outreach (other departments to finish by ). July : Identified quantitative and/or qualitative measurements for SLOs in the child development center, DSPS, international and outreach (other departments to finish by ). August : Developed standard automated SLO template to capture the division and department SLO, the Measure SLO and Service Level Outcomes. Determine whether services are meeting student needs. Improve student service delivery. Draft of September 26,
OCTOBER 1, measurement used, and the results. Incorporate the SLOs into the program s program reviews ( ) College Catalog Recommendation 5 In order to fully meet the Standard, the college should include both an academic freedom statement, as well as a statement on the acceptance of transfer credit in its next catalog. In the -2014 catalog, include: an academic freedom statement a statement on the acceptance of transfer credit. September Library February : Addendum to 2010- catalog posted online. Statements have been included in the -2014catalog, at press. Keep these statements in future editions of the catalog. Draft of September 26,
OCTOBER 1, Recommendation 6 In order to address recommendations made by two previous visiting teams and to meet Standards, the college should develop a consistent, sustainable and sufficient funding stream to develop quantity, quality, depth, and currency in Library resources and services. Moreover, the college should take necessary steps to evaluate and correct security measures to protect the Library collection. Identify enough consistent, sustainable funding for the library. Secure the library collection. Dean of Academic Affairs Library chairperson March 2013 August : The Library chairperson met with the dean and with the VP AA to discuss: Physical and electronic security Creating a working group and set meeting schedule. September : Requested one-time infusion of District resources to update library collections. Provide enough consistent, sustainable funding for the library. Use the Program Review and other planning processes to assess library needs. Maintain physical and electronic security measures for the library collection. 2006 Recommendation 7 The college should address the inadequacy of its library collections. Participation 2006 Recommendation 13 All college personnel should identify ways to increase participation in governance and develop trust throughout the institution by conducting meaningful, timely dialogue that acknowledges different perspectives and ideas for making informed decisions. Dean of Academic Affairs and Academic Senate Secretary July : Formed working group with administration faculty co-chairs and staff and student members. August : At membership meeting, classified staff leaders urged members to serve on committees. Documenting participation levels of faculty and staff. Provide handbooks for program review and for shared governance/planning. Draft of September 26,