Accreditation Interim Report

page 1

INTERIM REPORT

Prepared fen the Accrediting Commission fen Community and Junior Colleges

Western Association of Schools and Colleges

by

LEEWARD COMMUNITY COLLEGE

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII

96-045 Ala Ike

Pearl City, HI 96782-3393

October 7, 2002

Mark Silliman, Provost

Leeward Community College

Joyce S .Tsunoda

Senior Vice President, University of Hawaii, and

ChancEllen fen Community Colleges

DEanE NEubauEr

Interim Vice President fen Academic Affairs

University of Hawaii

BE A

. Kobayashi

Chairperson, Board of Regents (en designee)

University of Hawaii

LCC 2002 Interim Report Page 1 of 12

INTERIM REPORT

Leeward Community College, University of Hawaii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Statement on Report Preparation …………………………………………………………….1

Response to the Request of the Commission in the Action Letter………………………...4

Curriculum Revision and Review……………………………………………………………...4

Campus Council Constituency Roles and Governance…………………………………….6

Administrative Instability and Turnover……………………………………………………….7

Supporting Documents………………………………………………………………………..12

STATEMENT ON REPORT PREPARATION

Background.

By letter dated January 19, 2001, the Accrediting Commission for

Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) reaffirmed the accreditation of Leeward

Community College, University of Hawaii, with a requirement that the College submit an

Interim Report by November 1, 2002. The action to reaffirm accreditation was taken by

the Commission after it had reviewed the College’s Institutional Self Study and the

report of the accreditation evaluation team which had visited the College in October

2000.

The next comprehensive accreditation evaluation of the College is scheduled for

academic year 2006-2007. The Midterm Report required of all ACCJC-accredited

colleges is due by November 1, 2003.

Although the visiting team’s Evaluation Report contained eight recommendations, the

Interim Report is to focus on the three recommendations enumerated later in this report.

Preparation of Interim Report.

The preparation, review, and approval of the Interim

Report has had broad-based campus participation.

During Spring 2001, to ensure broad-based involvement from the outset, Provost Mark

Silliman (then Interim Provost) took the following actions to establish a structure and

process to implement the eight formal recommendations made by the accreditation

evaluation team, as well as the related concerns and action plans identified by the

College in our own Institutional Self Study.

In February 2001, the Provost proposed the establishment of eight Accreditation

Implementation Committees (AICs) to respectively address the eight accreditation

recommendations and the related College-identified concerns. He sought input on that

proposal from his administrative staff, the then Accreditation Liaison Officer, and the

Executive Committees of both the Faculty Senate and the Campus Council, a

governance body comprised of representatives from all major campus constituencies.

LCC 2002 Interim Report Page 2 of 12

One of the proposed AICs was deemed unnecessary. The recommendation relating to

the safety and storage of student records has been addressed by the Dean of Student

Services and the Registrar without a special committee.

The memberships of the proposed AICs differed according to the nature and substance

of the accreditation recommendation each AIC was to review and implement. However,

their memberships were intentionally constituted so as to ensure broad-based

involvement and representation from all applicable campus units and constituencies.

In March 2001, the Provost disseminated campus-wide the list of the AICs and their

proposed memberships through a mass e-mail and the electronic weekly campus

Bulletin. The announcement also solicited volunteers for the membership slots not

restricted to particular positions or offices.

After some delay following the faculty strike in April, the membership appointments and

the charges to each AIC were finalized by the Provost over the summer. On August 27,

2001, the Provost issued the official “appointment-and-charge memo” to each AIC. A

sample memorandum, the one issued to the Accreditation Implementation Committee

on Curriculum Revision and Review, is included in the “Supporting Documents” section

of this report.

The seven Accreditation Implementation Committees are as follows: Curriculum

Revision and Review, Campus Council Constituency Roles and Governance,

Administrative Instability and Turnover, Degrees and Certificates (Learning Outcomes

and General Education Component), Program Reviews/Program Health Indicators,

Placement Testing Impacts, and Strategic Planning for Technology and

Information/Learning Resources.

To help oversee, monitor, and coordinate the timely addressing and implementation of

the accreditation recommendations, the Provost established the Accreditation

Implementation Oversight Committee in Fall 2001 and called its first meeting on

November 26, 2001. Chaired by the Provost, the Oversight Committee is comprised of

the Chairs or Co-Chairs and Vice Chairs of the seven Accreditation Implementation

Committees, together with the College’s Accreditation Liaison Officer, Institutional

Research Analyst, and (as an ex-officio member) the Leeward CC faculty member who

is an ACCJC Commissioner.

____________________________________________________________________

A number of membership slots were designated for the holders or occupiers of particular positions or

offices (such as Curriculum Committee Chair, Division Chair, Discipline or Program Coordinator, or Dean

of Instruction). Other slots were intended to ensure expertise in more specific areas helpful or necessary

to the AIC’s work (such as Curriculum Central specialist or Information Technology Specialist). A number

of slots were assigned to ensure representation from applicable campus constituency groups (such as the

Faculty Senate, Campus Council, Clerical Staff Council, Administrative, Professional and Technical (APT

Employee) Group, and Student Government), or from particular organizational units (such as the Student

Services Division). Appointments to such “representation slots” were made after requesting nominations

or recommendations from the affected constituency groups or organizational units.

LCC 2002 Interim Report Page 3 of 12

The Interim Report was compiled and edited by Clement Fujimoto, a part-time assistant

to the Provost. A retired faculty member, Mr. Fujimoto is knowledgeable about the

College and the accreditation process.

The content of this Interim Report is based largely on the latest “Progress Reports”

(included in the “Supporting Documents” section) issued by the following three

Accreditation Implementation Committees (AICs) charged with reviewing and

implementing the three recommendations required to be reported on in this report:

Curriculum Revision and Review, Campus Council Constituency Roles and

Governance, and Administrative Instability and Turnover. As a result, these

Committees in effect have played an important and substantial role in the preparation of

the Interim Report. The memberships of these three AICs are therefore included in the

“Supporting Documents” section and illustrate the broad-based representation on these

Committees.

Notwithstanding that the content of the Interim Report necessarily draws heavily from

the reports of the three AICs cited above, where applicable, this report also incorporates

facts, developments, observations, and analyses gleaned from other sources on

campus and within the University of Hawaii system (e.g., actions taken by the UH

President and the UH Board of Regents). This is particularly evident in the section

below relating to administrative instability and turnover where significant information

about changed circumstances and developments since the last accreditation visit is

reported.

With respect to the review and approval of the Interim Report, the following campus

entities were involved in that review:

1. In late Spring 2002, the members of the Faculty Senate and the Campus Council

were sent electronic copies of the then latest Progress Reports of the three

above-cited AICs for their respective collective review and comment.

2. In late August 2002, the Accreditation Implementation Oversight Committee

reviewed and gave revision input on the first draft of the Interim Report.

3. At the end of August 2002, the members of the Faculty Senate and the Campus

Council were sent electronic copies of the second draft of the Interim Report for

their respective collective review and comment.

4. In early October, the final draft from the campus of the Interim Report was

transmitted to the Chancellor for Community Colleges, University of Hawaii (UH),

and then from the Chancellor to the UH Interim Vice President for Academic

Affairs and the Chairperson of the UH Board of Regents for their respective

approval signatures which appear on the cover sheet of this Report.

Additionally, the members of the administrative staff were also transmitted copies of

each Progress Report and each draft of the Interim Report and were also invited to give

their input to the Provost.

LCC 2002 Interim Report Page 4 of 12

To keep the entire campus community informed about the progress and developments

in addressing and implementing the various accreditation recommendations, the

minutes and the periodic progress reports of the seven Accreditation Implementation

Committees are being posted on the College’s accreditation website. Also posted are

key accreditation documents, such as the College’s Institutional Self Study and the

visiting team’s Evaluation Report.

RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION IN THE

ACTION LETTER

In its action letter dated January 19, 2001, which reaffirmed the College’s accreditation,

the Accrediting Commission indicated that the Interim Report should focus on the

following three recommendations made by the October 2000 visiting team in its

accreditation Evaluation Report:

1. That curriculum review and revision be made a systematic and cyclical process

with the goal of assuring academic rigor and integrity in all courses and

programs.

2. That the College clearly define the role of all constituencies on the Campus

Council.

3. That the College analyze factors that may be contributing to administrative

instability and turnover and develop appropriate local responses.

In accordance with the ACCJC guidelines relating to the format and content of Interim

Reports, the College will identify and discuss below each of the recommendations or

concerns identified by the Commission in its action letter. For each recommendation or

area of concern, the College will describe the progress in each area, analyze the results

obtained to date, and indicate what additional plans or action the College will take. As

applicable, information about changes since the last accreditation visit will be provided

as context for understanding the specific areas about which the report has been

requested.

Curriculum Revision and Review

In this area, the visiting team expressed the following concerns in its Evaluation Report:

“The process of documenting the development of curriculum appears to have been

made more consistent and systematic with the creation of a Curriculum Central [on-line]

database, [which enables the creation—in a more uniform way per a standardized,

programmed template—of new core outlines for new courses and the modification or

deletion of existing courses and core outlines, and] which permits [the] viewing of

outlines as well as tracking the course approval process. However, the College’s

written response states that while courses are reviewed as they are developed and

modified, there is no systematic review of courses once they are taught repeatedly. A

comparative review of sample Core Outlines and corresponding [instructor course]

syllabi suggests that there are substantive inconsistencies between the outline (as the

LCC 2002 Interim Report Page 5 of 12

prescriptive document) and the syllabus (as the descriptive document). The

recommendation of the previous [1994] team that curriculum documentation

and review

be made systematic and consistent is still valid with respect to the regular review of both

established Core Outlines and individual course syllabi.”

visiting team as follows:

“critical curriculum information was not consistently described in the Core Outlines”;

“there continues to be no formal system, policy, or practice to ensure consistency of

course content, objectives, and standards from the time it is approved to the present”;

“…division chairs should ensure that all syllabi are regularly compared with their

relevant [Core] Outline to provide assurance that the objectives and student

competencies for all sections of a given course, wherever and by whomever offered, are

consistent with the outline of record for that course”; and “Periodic review of established

Core Outlines should be formalized and institutionalized to assure the currency and

continued appropriateness of curriculum content, instructional methods, course

activities and objectives, and student competencies.”

The College’s Accreditation Implementation Committee on Curriculum Revision and

Review has made significant progress in addressing the above cited concerns and

implementing the visiting team’s recommendation that curriculum review and revision be

made a systematic and cyclical process. See the Committee’s attached September

2002 Progress Report. As indicated in that section of its report headed “Proposal of a

solution”:

“The college will establish a policy and procedures that institutionalizes a process for

the systematic and cyclical review of core outlines and course syllabi and that centers

on the role of the faculty in examining and maintaining the courses in their disciplines.

“At the end of the review, all core outlines will be complete, all individual course syllabi

will have as their focus measurable student outcomes, the college will have a written

Curriculum Review process that will include a system for refining and evaluating the

process, and the college will have established timelines for ongoing curriculum review.”

Attached to the Committee’s Progress Report is a draft of proposed policy and

procedures to institutionalize and formalize curriculum revision and review at the

College. As of this writing, the Committee is somewhat behind schedule and did not

refine and revise the proposed policy and procedures during Summer 2002. However,

it is doing so this Fall 2002, and also plans to hold campus forums on the proposed

policy and procedures during the Fall semester and to thereafter present the proposed

policy to the Curriculum Committee and Faculty Senate for review and approval. The

College is working towards having the policy fully approved by the end of Spring 2003

or during Fall 2003.

Once approved, the College believes that the good-faith and consistent implementation

of the policy and procedures will be an important factor in assuring academic rigor and

integrity in our courses and programs. The policy and procedures should promote

LCC 2002 Interim Report Page 6 of 12

useful and necessary dialogue among discipline and Division faculty on such issues as

course content and objectives, student competencies and learning outcomes, course

activities, and instructional methods.

Campus Council Constituency Roles and Governance

In this area, the October 2000 visiting team first cited the recommendation of the 1994

visiting team relating to governance and then made a follow-up recommendation

relating to the roles of the various constituencies on the Campus Council.

The 1994 team had recommended “that the college develop and implement a written

policy which articulates a decision making process which includes persons in the

process who will be affected by the decisions and clearly states the role and

participation of faculty, support staff and students on College governing, policy making,

planning, staff budgeting, and special purpose bodies.”

In this regard, the October 2000 visiting team stated as follows:

“The college set up the Campus Council, a representative governance body in

response, and established a Charter and By-laws for the body. This was a major effort,

and the college should be commended for its work. However, at the time of the team

visit, there was considerable tension on campus regarding the roles of constituent

groups in the Campus Council. The Faculty Senate was circulating a policy [shared

governance policy draft] that would put all academic matters, as well as budgeting and

planning, under their purview. Other segments of the college felt that this change would

be tantamount to excluding them from college governance. This issue dominated

college meetings at the time of the accreditation review, and it was clear to the team

that the problem that led to the 1994 recommendation has not yet been put to rest.”

In another part of its report, the 2000 visiting team indicated that “…the role of the

faculty in governance has been contentious. Some on the Faculty Senate view their

roles as guardian of academic issues to include personnel, budget and planning

decisions. This view is in conflict with the representative organization of the Campus

Council. This issue, which must be addressed internally, was a major point of

discussion during the team visit.”

In the context of the foregoing, the 2000 visiting team indicated that it was therefore

recommending “that the college clearly define the role of all constituencies on the

Campus Council.”

To address this recommendation, the Accreditation Implementation Committee on

Campus Council Constituency Roles and Governance has completed proposed drafts

of the following shared governance documents: Leeward CC Shared Governance

Policy, Leeward CC Principles of Shared Governance, and a description of the

respective roles of the various constituencies on the Leeward CC Campus Council and

how the Campus Council and the Faculty Senate relate to each other. See the

Committee’s attached April 12, 2002 Progress Report to which are attached the three

proposed draft documents.

LCC 2002 Interim Report Page 7 of 12

As indicated in its Progress Report, the Committee, during Fall 2002, will present the

three proposed documents to the various campus constituencies for their review and

approval. During Spring 2003, the Committee is hopeful that the three documents will

be approved by the Faculty Senate, the Campus Council, and Provost by May 2003.

As stated by the Committee in its report, “Shared governance becomes a reality when

individuals both understand the decision-making processes and engage themselves in

those processes in a creative, meaningful, and collegial manner. Once approved, the

College will publicize and promote the shared governance policy and shared

governance principles….”

As of this writing, it remains to be seen whether the three shared governance

documents will be approved as proposed or in amended form and by May 2003 as

projected above. The nature and intensity of campus discussion and debate on the

proposals and the relevant issues are also difficult to predict. However, the College is

making a good-faith effort to address the subject recommendation and is hopeful that

the dialogue on the issues will be collegial, mutually informative, and beneficial to the

various constituencies and the College as a whole.

It should be noted that the attached, proposed Shared Governance Policy is different

from the policy draft mentioned in the report of the October 2000 visiting team (as being

circulated by the Faculty Senate) and is differently authored. The attached draft is not

being proposed by just one constituency or governance group. Rather, it is the product

of a broad-based committee—the Accreditation Implementation Committee on Campus

Council Constituency Roles and Governance—which is comprised of representatives

from all of the major campus constituencies.

Administrative Instability and Turnover

The October 2000 visiting team recommended “that the college analyze factors that

may be contributing to administrative instability and turnover and develop appropriate

local responses.”

In making this recommendation, the visiting team first made reference to the following

the College and System stabilize the administrative staff of the College to insure the

continuity and effectiveness of leadership, as well as limiting the disruption to the

operating and planning procedures caused by the frequent changes in the

administrative staff.”

In the College’s own response to the 1994 recommendation in our Institutional Self

Study for Reaffirmation of Accreditation, September 2000, at page 39, we stated in

pertinent part as follows:

“…The current vacancy in this position [of Provost after Sharon Narimatsu had vacated

the position on June 16, 2000] is as disturbing to the campus community as it no doubt

is to the University System administrators. Exogenous factors, including budget

LCC 2002 Interim Report Page 8 of 12

constraints, declining enrollments, and the uncertain prospects for the health of Hawaii’s

economy and the State government’s return to fiscal well being all have contributed to

the pressures that impinge upon administrators. Internal factors that deplete the energy

and will power of the administration may be most closely related to the small number of

administrative positions at the LCC campus.

Whatever the case, the College’s

response to this recommendation at this time is that the problems that prompted

it have apparently not been adequately addressed.

” [Emphasis added.]

In its report, the 2000 visiting team noted in part as follows:

“The past few years have seen continued instability and consistent administrative

turnover at Leeward Community College. Presently [Fall 2000] there is an Interim

Provost [Dr. Mark Silliman], Acting Dean of Instruction, and Acting Assistant Dean of

Instruction. In the last few years, the College has had three provosts. ….”

In another part of its report, as preface to its recommendation quoted above, the

October 2000 visiting team indicated as follows:

“…While the college was asked to take steps to stabilize the administrative staff, the

college still suffers from the effects of frequent turnover. While the team recognizes that

colleges are human organizations, and no one can guarantee that people will remain in

administrative positions for extended periods of time, the self study indicated awareness

that the small number of administrators led to a depletion of ‘energy and will power.’

The team also noted that the administrative evaluation system is unclear, and

administrators typically do not receive any information or documentation regarding their

evaluation once it is completed which suggests a lack of constructive feedback that

would assist in their professional growth. External factors, which are often beyond the

college’s control (including systemwide budget constraints, declining enrollments, and

the uncertain state economy) may also play a role in administrative instability.

However, the college cannot ignore this disturbing trend. It has had three provosts in

three years, and many top administrative positions are held by interim appointments.

The team felt that it would be in the college’s interests to analyze the local factors that

lead to high administrative turnover, and develop constructive strategies in response.

….”

In a later part of its report, the visiting team reiterated, “…the self study identified that

there may be factors within the control of the college that contribute to ‘a loss of

willpower’ and burnout. It is clear that the college should address those local issues.”

In its Progress Report of September 2002 (copy included in the “Supporting

Documents” section), the Accreditation Implementation Committee on Administrative

Instability and Turnover has made a number of recommendations or proposed a

number of solutions intended to alleviate the problem of administrative turnover and to

address the concerns of the visiting team as described above. Not all of the

recommendations are within the control or the sole control of the College.

The proposed solutions or recommendations relate to providing administrators with the

following: pay increases; insurance coverage for professional liability; appropriate on-

LCC 2002 Interim Report Page 9 of 12

the-job training or administrative internships for would-be administrators from the faculty

or staff; more meaningful and helpful evaluations and feedback for professional growth

and improvement; opportunities and funding to attend conferences which will benefit the

College as well as the administrator; and relief from heavy workloads and stressful

working conditions through additional staffing, permanent or temporary, such as the

ones mentioned in the Committee’s report.

Although outside the College’s control, two of the recommendations above are being

implemented at the University of Hawaii system level. At its meeting on October 19,

2001, the UH Board of Regents approved UH President Evan Dobelle’s proposal for an

amended executive compensation plan and policy which would index the salaries of

executive employees in the UH System to a national benchmark, the annual College

and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR)

Administration Compensation Survey, or other appropriate equivalent salary survey.

Over a five-year period, effective July 1, 2002, the salaries of executive employees who

are underpaid in relation to the national salary benchmark will have their pay increased

incrementally (as applicable) to the 20

percentile salary amount and thereafter to the

percentile level and thereafter to the median salary level, “provided they have been

evaluated above the fully satisfactory level.”

Executive personnel includes community college provosts, but does not include the

managerial classification of community college deans, assistant deans, and directors.

However, on February 22, 2002, the UH Board of Regents also approved a new

compensation plan and policy for managerial employees. Under the plan, the salaries

of managerial personnel would also be indexed to the same national benchmark and

would also be incrementally increased or adjusted (as applicable), effective July 1,

2002.

Recently, it was also announced that UH employees, including executive and

managerial employees, will be covered under UH-purchased liability insurance.

However, details as to what is covered and not covered under the policy have yet to be

provided.

Relevant to the issue of providing relief from heavy administrative workloads through

additional staffing or positions, the College’s Strategic Plan, 2002-2007, includes goals

and objectives the implementation of which requires the establishment of new

administrative positions. For example, under the goal of “Improve educational

effectiveness,” and the objective thereunder to “Improve, broaden scope of

assessment,” an Office of Assessment and Strategic Planning would be established. It

would be headed by a Director who would be responsible for institutional research,

program assessment, student outcomes assessment, and strategic planning. However,

it remains to be seen whether the College will be successful in having such positions

established and funded through the budget process and where such positions would be

assigned or accommodated in any potential reorganization or restructuring of the

College.

LCC 2002 Interim Report Page 10 of 12

Regarding opportunities and funding for administrators to attend conferences which will

benefit both the College and the administrator, the Provost has been encouraging

current administrators to attend one conference each year related to their professional

development goals. However, such attendance is subject to the availability of travel

funds and any travel restrictions which may be imposed by the UH system.

With respect to improving the evaluation process for administrators, the Provost in the

last two years has improved the usefulness of the annual evaluations of his

administrative staff by providing them with written assessments of their strengths and

weaknesses and by sharing with each administrator more specifics from the evaluations

submitted on that administrator. Likewise, it would be helpful to the Provost in the future

if he receives similarly useful annual evaluations with sufficient, constructive feedback

for professional growth and improvement.

Instability and Turnover believes that the evaluation of all campus administrators,

whether of the Provost by the executive to whom he reports or of the deans, assistant

deans, and directors by the Provost to whom they report, could be made more

meaningful and helpful if the administrators being evaluated are informed as to the

general composition of the evaluator group and the rationale for that composition.

It should be noted that, since the time of the accreditation team’s visit in October 2000,

UH President Evan Dobelle has taken some actions which may have significant impact,

as yet not fully known or realized, on the issue of administrative turnover at the various

UH campuses and in administrative offices such as the Office of the Chancellor for

Community Colleges. On December 10, 2001, President Dobelle mailed a notice of

termination letter to all 205 UH employees in executive and managerial positions. The

key sentence read as follows: “…unless you receive notice to the contrary from now

until the close of business December 16, 2002, your Executive/Managerial (E/M)

appointment will end effective the close of business December 16, 2002.” In a separate

statement, the President indicated that he “needs the flexibility to restructure and realign

personnel to best meet the needs of the institution.” The letter indicated that “There

may be reorganizations within or across the academic and administrative units,…early

retirement incentives, or direct elimination of certain positions…” or a combination of

alternatives. He has given indications that community college Provosts may be

redesignated as Chancellors and may report directly to him.

As of this writing, out of seven total administrators at Leeward CC, three hold

“permanent” appointments (the Provost [the former Dean of Instruction], Assistant Dean

for Academic Services, and Director of Administrative Services); two serve in acting

capacities (the Assistant Dean of Instruction and Dean of Student Services), substituting

for the permanent appointee or incumbent who is temporarily serving in another position

or on temporary special assignment); and two serve in interim capacities (the Dean of

Instruction, who is the permanent Assistant Dean of Instruction, and the Director of the

Office of Continuing Education and Training) where the genuine vacancy in each of

those positions has not yet been filled. The latter Director’s position became vacant

fairly recently on 6/1/02.

LCC 2002 Interim Report Page 11 of 12

However, because of the uncertainty over executive-managerial appointments beyond

December 16, 2002, and the fact that recent executive-managerial appointments--with

isolated exceptions for executives at the highest level (e.g., the new UH Manoa

Chancellor)--have been approved but with an ending or termination date of December

16, 2002, the Provost has been reluctant to advertise and fill the two interim positions

on a “permanent” basis until the UH President has taken the personnel and related

actions which resolve the uncertainty.

In some respects, the local factors that may be contributing to, or which may have

contributed to administrative instability and turnover in the past, are being

overshadowed at least temporarily by the initiatives, changes, and potential changes

emanating from the University President.

During Fall 2002, the Accreditation Implementation Committee on Administrative

Instability and Turnover will be reconvened by the committee chair to determine any

additional issues that the Committee may wish to address and to assess the UH System

situation with respect to personnel actions taken or to be taken by the UH President

regarding executive-managerial staff and any organizational or administrative

restructurings that may be undertaken by the UH President.

LCC 2002 Interim Report Page 12 of 12

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Sample appointment-and-charge memorandum, dated August 27, 2001, to

the AIC on Curriculum Revision and Review, one of the seven Accreditation

Implementation Committees established to address and implement the formal

recommendations made by the ACCJC accreditation evaluation team which

visited Leeward Community College in October 2000.

Membership listing of the three Accreditation Implementation Committees on

Curriculum Revision and Review; Campus Council Constituency Roles and

Governance; and Administrative Instability and Turnover.

September 10, 2002 Progress Report of the Accreditation Implementation

Committee on Curriculum Revision and Review, including the attachment to

that Report: Policy and Procedures Proposal for Curriculum Revision and

Review (DRAFT)

April 12, 2002 Progress Report of the Accreditation Implementation

Committee on Campus Council Constituency Roles and Governance,

including the three attachments to that Report:

a. Leeward CC Shared Governance Policy (DRAFT)

b. Leeward CC Principles of Shared Governance (DRAFT)

c. Description of the respective roles of the various constituencies on the

Leeward CC Campus Council (DRAFT)

September 18, 2002 Progress Report of the Accreditation Implementation

Committee on Administrative Instability and Turnover.

Supporting Document 1 – Page 1 of 4

August 27, 2001

MEMORANDUM

TO:

Members of the Accreditation Implementation Committee on

Curriculum Revision and Review

Acting Dean of Instruction: Douglas Dykstra; CONVENOR

Curriculum Committee Chair: Nancy Buchanan

2nd Curriculum Committee representative: Paul Lococo

Curriculum Central specialist: Barbara Hotta

Division Chairs of all 6 instructional Divisions (or their designees):

Arts & Humanities: James West

Business Technology: Shelley Ota

Language Arts: Kay Caldwell

Mathematics & Natural Sciences: Manny Cabral

Social Sciences: Donald Thomson

Vocational-Technical: Robert Hochstein

Student Services Division Chair (or designee): Stuart Uesato

Selected Discipline or Program Representatives or Coordinators (one from

each of the 6 instructional Divisions):

Arts & Humanities: Patricia Kennedy

Business Technology: Jean Hara

Mathematics & Natural Sciences: Michael Bauer

Language Arts: Gail Levy

Social Sciences: Grace Miller

Vocational Technology: Fern Tomisato

FROM:

Mark Silliman, Provost

SUBJECT:

ACCREDITATION IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE ON

CURRICULUM REVISION AND REVIEW

Thank you for serving on this Committee.

Principal charge

. The principal charge to this Committee on Curriculum Revision and Review

is to review and implement the recommendation quoted below made in the report of the

accreditation evaluation team which visited Leeward Community College in October 2000. That

report in effect was ratified in January 2001 by the Accrediting Commission for Community

and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, when it reaffirmed the

College's accreditation.

Supporting Document 1 – Page 2 of 4

The applicable accreditation recommendation reads:

"The team recommends that curriculum review and revision be made a systematic and cyclical

process with the goal of assuring academic rigor and integrity in all courses and programs

(Standards 4D.2, 4D.6)."

For a discussion of the concerns and issues relating to this recommendation, see the visiting

team's Evaluation Report at pages 5-6, 18, 21, and 22. The related recommendation of the

earlier, 1994 visiting team is quoted on page 18: "The team recommends that curriculum

documentation and review become systematic and consistent in order to ensure that variations

are in the realm of professional latitude rather than substantive and qualitative in nature as at

present."

In assessing the College's written response to the above-quoted previous team's recommendation,

the October 2000 visiting team indicated, on page 18, as follows:

"The process of documenting the development of curriculum appears to have been made more

consistent and systematic with the creation of a Curriculum Central database, which permits

viewing of outlines and instructors' syllabi as well as tracking the course approval process.

However, the College's written response states that while courses are reviewed as they are

developed and modified, there is no systematic review of courses once they are taught

repeatedly. A comparative review of sample Core Outlines and corresponding syllabi suggests

that there are substantive inconsistencies between the outline (as the prescriptive document) and

the syllabus (as the descriptive document). The recommendation of the previous team that

curriculum document[tation] and review be made systematic and consistent is still valid with

respect to the regular review of both established Core Outlines and individual course syllabi."

While commending the College for the development of Core Outlines and the establishment of

an on-line database for such outlines (Curriculum Central), the October 2000 visiting team was

concerned, among other things, with the following: "critical curriculum information was not

consistently described in the Core Outlines"; "there continues to be no formal system, policy, or

practice to ensure consistency of course content, objectives, and standards from the time it is

approved to the present"; ...division chairs should ensure that all syllabi are regularly compared

with their relevant [Core] Outline to provide assurance that the objectives and student

competencies for all sections of a given course, wherever and by whomever offered, are

consistent with the outline of record for that course"; and "Periodic review of established Core

Outlines should be formalized and institutionalized to assure the currency and continued

appropriateness of curriculum content, instructional methods, course activities and objectives,

and student competencies."

Secondary charge.

The secondary charge to this Committee is to address those concerns, action

plans, and directions for the future identified by the College in our own Institutional Self Study

which relate to the recommendation above and/or to Standards 4D.2 and 4D.6.* The Committee

is asked to review the Self Study to determine if there are applicable College-identified concerns,

action plans, and directions for the future.

Supporting Document 1 – Page 3 of 4

(*Standard 4 relates to Educational Programs, and Standard 4D relates to Curriculum and

Instruction. Standard 4D.2 provides: "The institution ensures the quality of instruction,

academic rigor, and educational effectiveness of all of its courses and programs regardless of

service location or instructional delivery method." Standard 4D.6 provides: "The institution

provides evidence that all courses and programs--both credit and non-credit--whether conducted

on or off-campus by traditional or non-traditional delivery systems, are designed, approved,

administered, and periodically evaluated under established institutional procedures. This

provision applies to continuing and community education, contract and other special programs

conducted in the name of the institution.")

Interim Report.

As indicated in the letter of January 19, 2001 from the Accrediting

Commission (ACCJC) to the College, an Interim Report on this recommendation (and two other

follow-up recommendations stemming from the 1994 accreditation evaluation report) is due by

November 1, 2002. The October 2000 visiting team felt that "these [three follow-up or

carryover] recommendations, which are being reinforced in this report, should be considered

major issues at the college and should receive priority attention."

Midterm Report.

In addition, a Midterm Report is due the year following by November 1,

2003. The Midterm Report must "indicate progress toward meeting the evaluation team's

recommendations and forecast where the college expects to be by the time of the next

comprehensive evaluation" in Fall 2006. Additionally, the Midterm Report "also includes a

summary of progress on college identified concerns as expressed in the self study" which did not

result in team recommendations.

Timetable; Committee plan of action.

To avoid a deadline rush and to allow time for review

and revision, my goal is to have a draft of the College's Interim Report and the Midterm Report

written during the respective summer preceding each November deadline. Although the

recommendation relating to curriculum revision and review need not be fully resolved or

implemented by November 1, 2002, the goal is to have made substantial progress by that time, or

by the end of the Spring 2002 semester.

With these goals and due dates in mind, the Committee is asked to develop a plan of action and

timetable for its own work. If the Committee decides to recommend a "formal system, policy, or

practice" to more permanently address the visiting team's concerns and to "formalize and

institutionalize" the "periodic review of established Core Outlines," it would be helpful and to

the College's credit if such a draft policy and procedure could be included in the Interim Report.

Progress reports; final report.

I would appreciate periodic progress reports or a copy of

Committee minutes or notes which I will share with the Accreditation Implementation Oversight

Committee (to consist mainly of the chairs of the seven Accreditation Implementation

Committees) and/or the College community. Please submit to the Provost the final report of

the Committee--to include its principal findings, recommendations, and/or implementation

actions taken on both the primary and secondary charges to the Committee--with due regard to

the timetable above and the submission deadlines for the Interim and Midterm Reports to the

Accrediting Commission. The final report will be shared with the campus community.

Supporting Document 1 – Page 4 of 4

Election of Committee officers.

At its first meeting, each Accreditation Implementation

Committee should elect its own Chair, at least one Vice Chair, and at least one Recorder. If

there are any problems which arise in the course of the Committee's work, I would be happy to

confer with and assist the Committee Chair.

Thank you for your service to the College. The broader goal of addressing and implementing or

resolving accreditation recommendations is to improve the College's programs, services,

policies, and processes.

Supporting Document 2 – Page 1 of 2

MEMBERSHIP LISTING

(as of academic year 2001-2002)

Accreditation Implementation Committee on Curriculum Revision and Review

Acting Assistant Dean of Instruction: Bernadette Howard,

Co-Chair

Curriculum Committee Chair: Nancy Buchanan

2nd Curriculum Committee representative: Paul Lococo

Curriculum Central specialist: Barbara Hotta

Division Chairs of all 6 instructional Divisions (or their designees):

Arts & Humanities: James West

Business Technology: Shelley Ota

Language Arts: Kay Caldwell

Mathematics & Natural Sciences: Manny Cabral

Social Sciences: Donald Thomson

Vocational-Technical: Robert Hochstein

Student Services Division Chair (or designee): Stuart Uesato

Selected Discipline or Program Representatives or Coordinators

(one from each of the 6 instructional Divisions):

Arts & Humanities: Patricia Kennedy,

Co-Chair

Business Technology: Jean Hara,

Recorder

Mathematics & Natural Sciences: Michael Bauer

Language Arts: Gail Levy

Social Sciences: Grace Miller,

Second Recorder

Vocational Technology: Fern Tomisato

Language Arts: Leslie Munro

Accreditation Implementation Committee on Campus Council Constituency

Roles and Governance

Administration Representative: Clifford Togo

Faculty Senate Chair: James Goodman

Clerical Staff Council representative: Terry Richter;

Vice Chair

APT Group representative: Dale Hood;

Chair

Auxiliary Services Officer: Derrick Uyeda

ASLCC President (or designee): David Donaldson

Division Chair representative: James West;

Co-Recorder

Academic Support/Services faculty represent