V. ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING
A . Accreditation Reports
In a letter dated January 19, 2001, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges reaffirmed Windward Community College’s accreditation and asked that an Interim Report be submitted addressing the following six recommendations:
1. The College reexamine its mission and create a new mission statement that reflects the aspirations of the community it serves so as to make it a useful guide for institutional development. The missions should reflect the College’s priorities for the 21st century.
2. The College should implement a comprehensive planning process for evaluating and prioritizing institutional needs in the areas of capital construction (Master Plan Report); instruction and instructional support; human resources, physical plant, and technology application. These priorities should be linked to budget planning and allocation of funds on a long term as well as short term basis.
3. The College should develop a technology vision for its present and future, with a comprehensive plan for learning resources (including library and media services) , instructional technology in the classroom, laboratories and offices, and staff development necessary to implement its vision. This vision must be integrated with overall institutional planning initiatives.
4. The College should develop and implement a comprehensive fiscal monitoring and resource development plan to ensure: (1) that short and long-term planning is linked to budgeting; (2) that fiscal monitoring incorporates guidelines for allocation of funds raised from tuition, fees, and the private sector; (3) that all College programs and resources are systematically audited; and, (4) that on and off-campus fundraising is linked to the College’s master plan.
5. The College should formalize, implement and publicize a process for establishing its standing committees, and a list of such committees designating membership and responsibilities should be periodically disseminated. The College needs to assure that students, as well as segments of the college community, participate in the institution’s governance and decision-making.
6. The College shall carry out its educational planning in a way that draws upon program evaluation results and ties educational planning directly to planning for staffing, budget development, and program elimination/addition.
The College responded with its Interim Progress Report dated October 7, 2002, to which, in a letter dated January 17, 2003, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, although accepting Windward Community College’s Interim Report, required the College submit a Focused Midterm Report by October 15, 2003. This report focused on Major Recommendation 5 from the 2000 Evaluation Report and included a summary of progress on college-identified concerns as expressed in the self-study.
In its letter dated January 23, 2004 (pg.3), the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, found that the College had made substantial progress in addressing the six recommendations mention above, but that it had not made satisfactory progress in developing and implementing a program review process linked to institutional planning and resource allocation as requested in Recommendation 6. The Commission found that the College lacked a program review process that assessed student achievement and student progress that was applied to all programs and was used to inform institutional planning.
The Commission found not only that Windward Community College lacked such a Program Review Progress, but that the entire UH Community College System lacked such a process. Therefore, the Commission recommended that:
• The Community Colleges engage in regular assessment of institutional effectiveness, including program review;
• The Community College System as well as each College sets priorities for implementing plans for improvement that are based in analysis of research data;
• The Colleges and the UHCC System incorporate these priorities into resource distribution processes and decisions;
• 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 improvement; and,
• The Colleges and the UHCC System report regularly to internal constituencies and the Board on this practice.
Windward’s next comprehensive evaluation was set for Fall 2006 with a Mid-term Progress Report due in Fall 2005. Additionally, in January 2004, Windward Community College filed a Substantive Change Report on the consolidation of Windward Community College and the Employment Training Center to WASC and the ACCJC simultaneously.
In its letter of February 25, 2005, the ACCJC put Windward Community College on warning and requested a Progress Report by April 1, 2005, on the following pertinent UH System and individual college recommendations:
• The Community Colleges should engage in regular assessment of program effectiveness, including program review;
• That the Community College System as well as each individual college set priorities for implementing plans for improvement that are based on analysis of research data;
• That the colleges and the System incorporate these priorities into resource distribution processes and decisions;
- That the colleges and the System develop and employ a methodology for assessing overall institutional effectiveness and progress toward meeting goals expressed through plans for improvement; and,
• That the colleges and the System report regularly to internal constituencies and the Board on its progress;
They also recommended that Windward Community College should:
• Carry out its educational planning in a way that draws upon program evaluation results and ties educational planning directly to planning for staffing, budget development, and program elimination/addition.
The first five recommendations here and three more were responded to by the System, and attached as an Appendix to the Windward Community College response. Windward Community Colleges response was only to the specific recommendation directed to the College. In this response, the Program Review Timeline and Strategic Plan Cycle were introduced to the ACCJC, in this Progress Report as well as a summary of all assessment activities (pgs.4-5) undertaken by and planned for the Institutional Effectiveness Committee.
In response to the Windward Community College April 1, 2005, Progress Report, The ACCJC, in a letter dated June 28, 2005 (pg.a-1-a-2), requested a further Progress Report on October 15, 2005. Three of the recommendations were addressed by the UH System and were attached as an Appendix to the Windward Community College Progress Report. Windward addressed the same recommendation that it had previously addressed on October 15, 2004, and April 1, 2005, to
• Carry out its educational planning in a way that draws upon program evaluation results and ties educational planning directly to planning for staffing, budget development, and program elimination/addition.
The following outline (pg, 11) was submitted with description of the Operating Budget Development Timeline and Procedure:
February
I. Director of Administrative Services to calculate:
+ General Fund Appropriation (based on prior year)
+ Projected Tuition and Fee Revenues
— Restrictions, Assessments/Assumptions
= Starting Total
— Filled regular personnel costs
— Utilities and other fixed costs, based on prior year
= Subtotal of Non-discretionary
Starting Total — Non-Discretionary = Discretionary Total
— Essentials at prior year actual costs
= Adjusted Discretionary Total
April
II. Deans and Directors to submit requests with justifications for:
Student help (prior year base)/Casual/OL (increases over essentials)
Filling vacancies
Supplies and Other (increases over essentials)
Equipment
Justifications for “discretionary” funds will be based on demonstrated need
(program review or assessment data), college priorities (Strategic plan), and/or
emergency circumstances.
April/May
III. Budget committee to review requests and recommend discretionary expenditures
based on justifications. For budget exceeding adjusted discretionary total, committee will
recommend prioritization and/or adjustments.
June
IV. Administration to determine beginning operating budget for year considering budget
committee recommendations, other sources of funds, etc.
September
V. Budget document to be posted on college web page.
September, January, April
VI. September, January and April adjustments will be based on actual expenditures and
new information. The Budget Committee will be consulted on adjustments among
programs. Revised budgets will be posted on the web page.
In addition, the timeline for preparation of the Biennium Budget (pg. 12) presented was
December
Program Reviews, Progress Reports and Department Plans completed
Evaluative information available on programs, action plans developed
January
Strategic Plan Review/Update (Planning Committee)
Resources needed for Strategic Actions identified
February
Budget Review/Recommendations (Budget Committee)
Resources needed for Strategic Actions prioritized
March to May
Administration reviews prioritized requests and drafts biennium budget request. Draft budget request shared with Budget Committee.
April to August
Budget request adjusted as necessary to meet system guidelines. Budget committee kept informed, consulted as needed.
September
UH system budget request sent to BOR
This timeline has been further explained under the Strategic Plan and Budget Process above. If there is a Supplemental Budget Request, the process is as follows (pg.13)
1. Director of Administrative Services to provide a detailed list of unfunded Program Change Requests from the biennium request.
2. Budget Committee to recommend priorities based on Strategic Plans and available program information.
3. Administration to determine what to ask for based on recommendations from the Budget Committee.
Therefore, based on these timelines Windward Community College is making a concerted effort to use Program Review data to drive budget decisions. The College also outlined its assessment activities and how it had progressed in this area.
The October 15, 2005, Progress Report was followed by a visit by Commission members. The College was still on warning during this time period. In November 15, 2005, Progress Visit Team Report, the ACCJC team members found that although Windward had made some progress by instituting new policies and procedures regarding governance that whether these were effective or not was difficult to access because they were too new. They also recognized that although program review procedures had been established, they were inconsistent across the campus, thus the standard had not been met.
Affirming the conclusion of the team members, in its letter dated January 31, 2006, the ACCJC stated that Windward Community College was still on warning and that the next report would be the Self Study followed by a visit in Fall 2006. The focus of the ACCJC was still on the recommendation that the College
• Carry out its educational planning in a way that draws upon program evaluation results and ties educational planning directly to planning for staffing, budget development, and program elimination/addition.
The ACCJC letter dated January 31, 2007, had recommendations based on the Self Study and the Team Evaluation Report and removed Windward Community College from warning and reaffirmed its accreditation status. The letter outlined five recommendations that were to be addressed in a Progress Report by October 15, 2007, to be followed by a visit thereafter. The recommendations were:
• To evaluate institutional effectiveness, the College should continue to improve its strategic planning processes by developing measurable performance indicators for setting institutional goals and strategic directions;
• To improve student learning and success, the team recommends that the College completes its cycle of program reviews and incorporates into these program reviews the assessment of SLOs at course, program, and degree levels;
• The College should define the at-risk population, develop and implement strategies for addressing the needs of the at-risk population, and create mechanisms for the continuous assessment and improvement of services to this population;
• In the interest of improvement beyond the standard, the College should act diligently to secure funding which will ensure the construction of the proposed future library facility;
• The team recommends, toensure appropriate participation and input, that the College refine its current governance structure policies by including written definitions of the roles and responsibilities for all constituent groups and formalize processes and structures for clear, effective communication and reporting relationships. In addition, the College should implement an annual evaluation process to access the effectiveness of leadership and decision making which leads to institutional improvement.
Windward Community College’s, October 15, 2007, Progress Report outlined in detail what the College had done to improve what had been accomplished regarding the aforementioned five recommendations. Recommendations 1 and 5 were prepared by Chancellor Meixell, Recommendation 2 by Dean Mullikin and Director Howard, Recommendation 3 by Dean Hokoana and Director Howard, and Recommendation 4 by Interim Dean Heu. An Evaluation Team came to Windward on November 13, 2007, and in their letter dated January 31, 2008, the ACCJC acknowledged that Windward had met recommendations 2, 3, and 4, but still had not met Recommendations 1 and 5. Windward was warned that these recommendations would need to be resolved by the March 9, 2009, Progress Report, based on Department of Education regulations or the ACCJC would have to take action steps to assure their resolution. The team noted that the College had not met Recommendation 1 as the strategic planning process that would tie strategic planning to the budget process had just been implemented. They also noted that the College had not developed measures to determine its institutional effectiveness nor had it defined how its plan and processes relate to the research function and accountability measures. They also noted that the College had partially met Recommendation 5 by redefining its governance structure, but still had no evaluation instrument in place. In addition, one group needs to be established as the monitor of the evaluation process with the responsibility of making recommendations based on what is learned from the evaluation.
B. Summary of 2002-2010 Academic Plan
See http://windward.hawaii.edu/Planning/Documents/2007_Strategic_Plan_update.pdf
Comments So Far
Comment 1. The last part of the introduction, which was reviewing what was accomplished in the last Strategic Plan needs to be attached, even though it is just a link.
|
