ProgReport_Oct05FINAL

University of Hawai‘i

Leeward Community College
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I
SECTION II
1. ��
Attachments
UHCCP #5.202

PROGRESS

REPORT

Prepared

for

the Accrediting Commission

for

Gommunity

and Junior Colleges

Western Association of Schools and Golleges

Leeward Community Gollege

University

Hawai'i

96-045

Ala'lke

Pearl

Gity,

Hl 96782-3393

September

16, 2005

David McClain

lnterim President

University

Hawai'i

Chairperson,

Board of Regents

University

Hawai'i

Leeward Community

College

University

of Hawai'i

University of Hawai‘i

Leeward Community College

Leeward Community College Progress Report

and

Report on the Substantive Change Request Related to the System

Reorganization and Other Commission Recommendations

submitted to the

Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC)

October15, 2005

page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION I

Background on Campus Response

page 3

Background on System Response

page 4

Statement on Report Preparation

page 5

SECTION II

Response to the Requests of the Commission in the Action Letter:

A. Recommendation 2:

Policies and Procedures to Ensure Institutional Effectiveness and Program Review

System Response

page 6

Campus response

page 7

B. Recommendation 6:

Function and Authority of Associate Vice Presidents and Staff

page 11

C. Recommendation 7:

System and Board Support for Student Learning Programs and Services

page 12

ATTACHMENTS

page 15

page 3

SECTION I

BACKGROUND: Campus Response

In an action letter dated June 28, 2005, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges

(ACCJC) of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges accepted Leeward Community College’s

Progress Report and removed the College from “Warning” with the requirement that the College complete a

Progress Report by October 15, 2005 to be followed by a visit by Commission representatives. (See

Attachment A

or the website, http://www.lcc.hawaii.edu/ac2006/ter/ACCJC_letter_050628.pdf ).

The action letter contained three “University of Hawai‘i System Recommendations” to be addressed in the

next Progress Report. These recommendations are enumerated below.

By consensus of the UH Vice President for Community Colleges and the Chancellors of the seven UHCCs,

the seven colleges, in their respective Progress Reports, would address any campus-specific recommendations

contained in their respective action letters and also incorporate the UH System’s response to the three UH

System recommendations.

Leeward Community College, which did not have campus-specific recommendations, is providing an

update on additional progress to date in the area of program review, as well as responses to the UH System’s

recommendations.

The three UH System recommendations addressed in the Progress Report are the following:

Recommendation 2:

The team recommends that the UH Community Colleges develop

policies and procedures to ensure:

• That the community colleges engage in regular assessment of institutional effectiveness, including

programs review;

• That the community college system as well as each college set priorities for implementing plans for

improvement that are based on analysis of research data;

• That the colleges and the UHCC system incorporate these priorities into resource distribution

processes and decisions;

• That the colleges and the UHCC system develop and employ a methodology for assessing

overall institutional effectiveness and progress toward meeting goals expressed through plans for

improvements; and

• That the colleges and the UHCC system report regularly to internal constituencies and the Board on

this progress. Standards I.B, II.A.1and 2, II.B.3.a, II.B.4, II.C.l.e, II.C.2, III.A.6, III.B.2.b, III.C.1 and

2, III.D.l.a, IV.B.2.b, and the Preamble to the Standards)

Recommendation 6:

The UH Community Colleges and the University of Hawai‘i system should identify more

clearly the community college system functions and authority assigned to the two Associate Vice President offices

and staff, and communicate those to the colleges and the University Systemwide Support. Both organizations must

then design workflow and decision-making processes that allow the Community College System-wide support staff

to provide support and delegated authority in areas of academic planning, administrative (including personnel) and

fiscal operations. (Standards IV.A.5, IIIA.3, 1B)

Recommendation 7:

The UH Community Colleges should identify and implement the means to ensure that

the Community College governance system at the system head and board levels meets accreditation standards by

developing and implementing policies and processes that ensure the quality, integrity, and effectiveness of the student

learning programs and services. (Standards IVB, all)

page 4

BACKGROUND: System Response

As part of a university system administrative reorganization, the University of Hawai`i Board of Regents

(BOR) received a proposal in November 2002 that included the elimination of the Office of the Chancellor

for Community Colleges. This reorganization proposal was approved by the BOR in December 2002 and

approved by the ACCJC through its Substantive Change approval process in April 2003.

As part of the action approving the reorganization, the ACCJC requested a series of reports (August 1, 2003;

November 1, 2003; April 1, 2004; November 1, 2004; and April 1, 2005) detailing various aspects of the

implementation of the reorganization. In January 2005, the Commission placed six of the seven colleges on

warning because of concerns expressed over system level governance issues and inconsistent development of

program review and assessment policies and practices. In June 2005, the Commission removed four colleges

from warning status. Those colleges remaining on warning were asked to submit progress reports on campus

specific concerns and all campuses were asked to submit a report by

October 15, 2005

that describes system

progress on recommendations related to program review and assessment, system organization, and Board

governance.

As detailed below, in June 2005 the University of Hawai‘i Board of Regents approved a reorganization of

the community colleges, including the creation of a Vice-President of Community Colleges and the re-

consolidation of the academic and administrative support units for the community colleges.

page 5

STATEMENT ON REPORT PREPARATION

Background

Upon receipt of the Commission’s June action letter, Interim Chancellor Peter Quigley informed the campus

community about the Commission’s decision to remove the College from Warning status. He articulated the

need for a Progress Report in October 2005 to fully address and resolve the recommendations and related

concerns contained in the action letter.

The ACCJC action letter dated June 28, 2005 and the evaluation report of the ACCJC visiting team were

distributed in pdf format via e-mail to the campus community (

Attachment B).

In July, the Council of

Chancellors met to decide on future actions.

Process of Report Preparation

The System response to Recommendations 2, 6, and 7 was prepared by Vice President of Community

Colleges John Morton. The preparation of the Progress Report relied on input from the College’s

administrative team, the Assessment Coordinator, the Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO), the Strategic Plan

Coordinator, and faculty and staff involved in program and area assessments. Their collective work played a

pivotal role in providing the necessary information and documents required for the preparation and writing

of these sections of the report.

Report Writing

The System response to Recommendations 2, 6, and 7 were received from the Office of the UHCC Vice

President and are included verbatim.

The principal writers of the LCC Response were Bob Asato, ALO; Lani Uyeno, Strategic Planner; Kathy Hill,

Assessment Coordinator; with supervision by Peter Quigley, Interim Chancellor.

Review and Approval of Report

In August 2005, the campus constituencies were notified of the September 21 deadline for a review of the

Progress Report. Both the Faculty Senate and the Campus Council were advised of the short timeline and

the need to expedite the process due to the internal deadline for Board of Regent’s approval. The Acting

Chancellor distributed a draft of the report for review via email and feedback from the College governance

groups. The Campus Council reviewed the report on September 12, 2005 and the Faculty Senate reviewed

the report on September 14, 2005. Revisions were made in response to the feedback from the governance

groups.

Interim Chancellor Peter Quigley certifies this Statement on Report Preparation through his signature on the

Cover Sheet of this Report.

page 6

SECTION II

RESPONSES TO COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

SECTION II A: Responses to Recommendation 2

Recommendation 2

: The team recommends that the UH Community Colleges develop policies

and procedures to ensure:

• That the community colleges engage in regular assessment of institutional effectiveness, including

programs review;

• That the community college system as well as each college set priorities for implementing plans for

improvement that are based on analysis of research data;

• That the colleges and the UHCC system incorporate these priorities into resource distribution

processes and decisions;

• That the colleges and the UHCC system develop and employ a methodology for assessing

overall institutional effectiveness and progress toward meeting goals expressed through plans for

improvements; and

• That the colleges and the UHCC system report regularly to internal constituencies and the Board

on this progress. Standards I.B, II.A.1 and 2, II.B.3.a, II.B.4, II.C.l.e, II.C.2, III.A.6, III.B.2.b, III.C.1

and 2, III.D.l.a, IV.B.2.b, and the Preamble to the Standards)

SYSTEM RESPONSE

In addition to continued improvements on each campus, the following system-wide actions have taken place

to ensure an integrated approach to regular assessment, including program review, and subsequent use of this

assessment information in planning and resource distribution:

a. On August 4, 2005, the Chancellors of all seven colleges adopted a recommendation from the chief

academic officers that established common measures for academic program review. While colleges

can expand on these measures for planning and resource allocation questions at the college level, the

common information, including common data definition and source, will provide a comparative

baseline of data for system-level decisions. On September 8, 2005, the Chancellors adopted common

measures for all administrative and student services programs. Following the process used for the self

study demographic information and achievement data (DIAD) template, the IR Cadre can identify,

define, and tailor data requirements from system IRO products which meet standards of good evidence.

b. The previously agreed upon principles related to program review (see the April 1, 2005, progress

report) and the common measures identified above were promulgated as community college system

policy and procedures on September 15, 2005. A copy of the policy and procedures, including the

common measures, is included in

Attachment C

c. A high priority item was included in the community colleges supplemental budget request for

consideration by the Board of Regents and subsequently the State Legislature. The budget request, if

approved, would strengthen the staff supporting program review and assessment at the colleges and also

create a program improvement fund that could facilitate continuous quality improvement as identified

in program review and planning. A copy of the budget request is included as

Attachment D

d. Work continues on creating a web-based access system for the program review and planning

information so that all interested parties may review the assessment results of each program.

page 7

e. Work continues with the University system Institutional Research Office to create a more responsive

environment for consistent, regular, and timely reports as well as ad hoc data query and for better

business intelligence using data warehouses for student, faculty, and financial information.

f. Through the Board’s newly expanded Community College Committee, the Board of Regents

will receive a regular briefing on program review and assessment, as well as on related program

improvement plans and budget requests. More details are provided below in the response to

Recommendation 7.

CAMPUS RESPONSE

Leeward Community College’s Program Review process continues to be the vehicle by which the campus

assesses institutional effectiveness. During the past six months, members of the campus community have

been actively involved with initiatives that have focused on the College’s efforts to produce student learning.

Program Review at LCC continues to evolve through the implementation of program, course, and support

area assessments conducted by faculty, staff, and administrators. The following is a chronology of events and

accomplishments since April, 2005.

• Modification of the LCC Policy on Program Reviews to formalize the College’s Assessment Team. The

modified policy includes standardized assessment templates that were used to summarize and report

findings, specific timelines, as well as a description of how assessment results are translated into budget

allocations. The modified Policy was approved by the Faculty Senate at their May 11, 2005 meeting.

(

Attachment E

)

• Modification of Curriculum Central to serve as a repository for information obtained via assessment of

all courses, including distance education (DE) courses, according to current accreditation standards.

(See

Attachment F

)

• Presentation of six workshops for faculty to learn how to navigate the new modules in Curriculum

Central and to have opportunities to dialogue about the steps of the course assessment process.

• Provision of guidance and information on assessment tasks and timelines to division, program, and

support areas through information sessions and small group meetings conducted by the Assessment

Team.

• Distribution in April 2005 to all faculty of a “Handbook on Outcomes Assessment for Two-Year

Colleges,” by Edward A. Morante to provide tools for developing program and course assessment plans.

• Ongoing assessments (course, program, and support area) of student learning, as originally scheduled.

• Collaboration between Assessment Coordinators from Leeward CC, Windward CC, Honolulu CC and

Kapi‘olani CC to discuss and identify common data issues from the UHCC System.

• Development of a system for integrating assessment information from programs, support areas, and

courses, in the planning and budgeting process, described in detail on the following pages.

page 8

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

diagram I

Original Planning & Budgeting Cycle

diagram II

Modified Planning & Budgeting Cycle

Planning and Budgeting Process:

For 2005–06, budget decisions were based on an action item process. Most of these actions items

were generated through data driven evidences and connections to the Strategic Plan goals. Because

the process was found to be faulty, it will not be used in future budgeting.

The challenge was to replace our action plan method with a process based in academic divisions and

relying upon evidence and assessment-driven discussions. At this juncture, the campus team saw the

opportunity to refine our planning and budgeting cycle to clarify the role of assessment and analysis

in program review. The addition of “annual reviews” provided a set of interactive engagements that

more accurately linked assessment with allocation, as well as planning exercises. The modifications are

illustrated in diagrams I and II below.

To get a full accounting from divisions and other areas subsumed within the overall Program Review

document, a planning tool was developed that is now in place in the academic units and will soon be

expanded to the support areas, as well. During August, the Acting Chancellor presented this process

to the Administrative Staff and the Assessment Team, to the participants in the College’s Leadership

Retreat, and to the campus as a whole at Convocation.

The Administrative Staff is particularly excited about this template since it pulls vital information

from the divisions and support areas into the larger program review. Additionally, it serves three

important functions:

1) a planning and budgeting tool,

2) a program review tool, and

3) an accreditation tool.

page 9

As the Annual Division Review Template (diagram III) below shows, the divisions will use the tool

as a planning document to have engaged and focused discussions. These planning discussions will

1) occur in the same categories as the overall Program Review model (see diagram IV); 2) have

guiding questions that are derived from the ACCJC Standards; 3) be filtered through a Strengths,

Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) lens; 4) insist on the usage of SLO data and

assessments, and 5) result in budgetary lists as a result of discussions.

��

�

��

��

��

��

Supplies

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

Training

1. xxxx

2. xxx

Facilities/CIP

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

Personnel

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

Equipment

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

Info Tech & LR

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

page 10

This Annual Review process will integrate all of the College’s activities and provide incentive and

meaning to the assessment process. The template is part of a larger process that, in the case of the

Academic units, will yield an Academic Plan, which will then be aligned with other area summative

reports, yielding a College Plan, as illustrated in diagram V below.

INSTRUCTIONAL DIVISIONS

Personnel Eqpmt

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

1. xxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxx

5. xxx

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

1. xxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxx

5. xxx

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

1. xxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxx

5. xxx

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

1. xxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxx

5. xxx

��

Personnel Eqpmt

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

1. xxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxx

5. xxx

Eqpmt

1. xxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxx

5. xxx

Eqpmt

1. xxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxx

5. xxx

Eqpmt

1. xxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxx

5. xxx

�� 

��

Personnel

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

�� 

��

Personnel

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

�� 

��

Personnel

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

Personnel Eqpmt

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

1. xxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxx

5. xxx

Personnel Eqpmt

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

1. xxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxx

5. xxx

Personnel Eqpmt

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

1. xxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxx

5. xxx

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

1. xxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxx

5. xxx

STUDENT SERVICES AREAS

Personnel Eqpmt

1. xxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxx

5. xxx

Personnel Eqpmt

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

1. xxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxx

5. xxx

Personnel Eqpmt

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

1. xxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxx

5. xxx

Personnel Eqpmt

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

1. xxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxx

5. xxx

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

ACADEMIC SUPPORT AREAS

Personnel Eqpmt

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

1. xxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxx

5. xxx

Personnel Eqpmt

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

1. xxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxx

5. xxx

Personnel Eqpmt

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

1. xxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxx

5. xxx

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx

1. xxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxx

5. xxx

INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT AREAS

Personnel Eqpmt

��

Personnel

Eqpmt

1. xxxx

2. xxx

3. xxxx

4. xxxxx