Template for Team Responses to the Accreditation Standards
1. Review the Specific Standard Section
|
Standard IV: Leadership and Governance
The institution recognizes and utilizes the contributions of leadership throughout the organization for continuous improvement of the institution. Governance roles are designed to facilitate decisions that support student learning programs and services and improve institutional effectiveness, while acknowledging the designated responsibilities of the governing board and the chief administrator.
A. Decision-Making Roles and Processes
The institution recognizes that ethical and effective leadership throughout the organization enables the institution to identify institutional values, set and achieve goals, learn, and improve.
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.
|
2. List of Team Members working on this Standard
|
All of us!- Ron will edit our notes from our brainstorm and add them to this Miki site- Everyone else can now contrbute.
|
3. Read and Review Self-Study Questions and Suggested Source of Evidence
Major reference source for analyzing accreditation standards:
“Accreditation Commission Self Study Guidelines, August 2004, Guide to Evaluating Institutions”
http://www.ohlone.edu/org/instruction/docs/200408accredcomm-guidetoevaluatinginstitutions.pdf
4. Locate and Review the Evidence. Include Suggested Sources of Evidence from the “Guide to Evaluating Institutions” as well as additional engagement activities conducted by your Team, such as team meetings, special meetings of existing groups, special focus groups, open forums, surveys, etc…)
|
List of evidence being reviewed and engagement activities being conducted:
Initiation of broadened shared governance, Development of College Council, Addition of funds to support task force initiatives sources of evidence include shared governance documents faculty senate, CC minutes and Board minutes.
Presidents forums, college wide goals forum, review of college wide construction and asset management priorities
This is the input from the 3/9/07 mtg-
List of evidence being reviewed and engagement activities being conducted:
Campus Forum on Values –Campus and Community 3years ago
Mission Statement/ Vision Values statement
Minutes from Board, CC, Faculty Senate- on acceptance of the mission Statement
Learning College descriptions – website resource describing LC
Union involvement ( CSEA, UFO, SEIU- Classified Senate dissolutrion)
Shared Governance- ED CODE-
Mostly focused on FACULTY/ it maintains that the faculty is solely responsible for the academic
Mission
Data collection tasks-
We need to research the issues of UFO and Faculty Senate with the Faculty Leadership, we need to ask for some information regarding why we have a UFO and faculty Senate but not a CSEA/ SEIU and classified senate- why the two models?
SEIU-
16 week calendar story- read rons story! On the accreditation site
College council development story
Deans positions- how are DDAS- and became a group that the president met s with monthly. This is looking at the structure that supports "middle management" vs Administratrion
An increase of the presense of students on all college committees including College Council, Hiring, Board and planning large campus events. --- The students were granted an advisory vote status on the Board making them one of a minority of student associations to have such power.
The role of adjuncts? Concerns and Advances-
Smoking Policy – story lets encourage Sally Bratton
Arming Officers- Doug and Ben? Campus Dialog
So… who do we need to see-
CC
Faculty Senate
CSEA
SEIU
Bob Bradshaw
Bennett Openhiem
ASOC
Linda Evers
Cabinet
Next meeting we will need to make appointments with each group and make assignments for each.
|
5. Descriptive Summary
Draft a brief one or two paragraph description of what the College is doing to meet the standard.
|
In 2003, a campus forum was held that included the entire campus community in a brainstorming effort on developing, and focusing the colleges values. This effort resulted in the revision and revitalization of the campus mission statement and core values. At the same time, a college council was developed to channel all shared governance efforts through one body. The college was able then to focus its committee and communication structure around a finite set of at first 6 and later expanded to 7 ( Stewardship and sustainability )goals. With this structure in place, campus work teams, committees and individuals have a greater ability to engauge accross the college departments and divisions.
The campus committe structure was then redesigned to allign with the goals. during the first year all campus committees were redeployed as task forces that reexamined their structure and submitted suggestions for ongoing structural change. At the end of the first year, the College Council and Faculty Senate streamlined the structure into campus committees which exsist...
This restructing process was developed and implemented through a broad shared governance process with involved
College Council, faculty Senate, CSEA, SEIU, UFO as well as divisioanl ( dean) and Vice President involvement.
At the same time as this restructuring and refocusing, two major building projects have been in process allowing for a great deal of input from faculty, staff and students in terms of adjancencies, different and more effient ways to deliver services and and a review of current job classifications with the CSEA union.
|
6. Integration Review
Is there an expression of our College Values? Is there a contribution to our College Goals? Is there an expression of the Accreditation Themes?
|
Real connections now exsist between the college mission and core values, strategic plans and the exsistance and operation of committees. The seven key goals flow into all the major task related committees and also serve as points from which standing committees now focus enregy.
|
7. Self Evaluation
Provide a rating of how well the College is addressing the specific standard using this scoring rubric:
1. Superior: College has worked in this area and considerable improvement is noted- we would rate the colleg superior in this category!
2. Satisfactory: College has taken some actions to address the area and some improvement is noted.
3. Needs Improvement: College has not adequately addressed the area.
Rating:
Draft a one or two paragraph explanation for this rating based upon your assessment of the College’s activities in relation to the standard. Pay particular attention to the quality of our involvement and interventions since the last WASC self-study report.
8. Planning Agenda
If the assessment process does not identify areas in need of change, simply state, No Plan Required
If the assessment process identifies areas in need of change, a planning agenda for improvement should be developed. The planning agenda should identify the activities and processes the institution should implement, or is implementing, to produce improvement. How will these plans be incorporated into the evaluation and planning processes of the institution? How will the outcomes of this planning agenda improve student learning and foster institutional improvement in general.
|
No plan required except to continue the efforts already begun and continue to define the organizational chart of decision making and shared governance and input as the organization chnages.
|
Adapted from: “Self Study Manual,” August 2006, A Publication of the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges Western Association of Schools and Colleges; and City College of San Francisco Self-Study Template
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.