VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 53 POSTED ON: 1/29/2012
January 31,2007 Dr. Angela Meixell Chancellor ACCREDITING Windward Community College COMMISSION 45-720 Keaahala Road for COMMUNITY and Kaneohe, HI 96744 JUNIOR COLLEGES Dear Chancellor Meixell: The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Wcstern Association of Schools and Colleges, at its meeting on January 10-12, 2007, reviewed the institutional self study rcport and thc report of the evaluation team which visited Windward Community College on Monday, October 23- Thursday, October 26, 2006. The Commission took action to remove Warning and reaffirm accreditation, with a requirement that the college 10 COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD complete a Progress Report. The report will be followed by a visit by SUITE 204 Commission representatives. NOVATO, CA 94949 TELEPHONE (415) 506-0234 FAX: (415) 506-0238 The Commission asks that a Progress Report be submitted by October 15, E-MAIL: email@example.com www.accjc.org 2007. The Progress Report should focus on the institution's resolution of the recommendations and concerns as noted below: Chairperson E JAN KEHOE Recommendation 1: Improving Institutional Effectiveness. To evaluate Long Beach City College institutional effectiveness, the college should continue to improve its Vice Chairperson strategic planning processes by developing measurable performance LURE LEAN B. GAINES indicators for setting institutional goals and strategic directions, (Standard East Los Angeles College LB.7) President BARBARA A. BENO Recommendation 2: Student Learning Outcomes. To improve student Vice President learning and success, the team recommends that the college completes its DEBORAH G. BLUE cycle of program reviews and incorporates into these program reviews the Vice President assessment of SLOs at course, and program and degree levels. (Standard GARMAN JACK POND II.A.I.c). Associate Vice Presideni LILY OWYANG Recommendation 3: Student Success. The college should define the at- Business Officer risk population, develop and implement specific strategies for addressing DEANNE WILBURN the needs of the at-risk population, and create mechanisms for the ITAS continuous assessment and improvement of services to this population. TOM LANE (Standard ILB.3,c) Administrative Assistant CLARE GOLDBERG Recommendation 4: Library and Learning Support Services. 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. (Standard II.C.I.a) Dr. Angela Meixell Windward Community College January 31, 2007 Page Two Recommendation 5: Governance Structure Policy. The team recommends, to ensure appropriate participation and input, that the college refine its current govemance 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 assess the effectiveness of leadership and decision making which leads to institutional improvement. (Standard IV.A.l, A.2, A.3, A.S) Attached is the final copy of the team report and the report of the team that visited the University of Hawaii Community Colleges System Office. Additional copies may now be duplicated. The Commission requires you to give the team report and this letter appropriate dissemination to your college staff and to those who were signatories of your college self study report. This group should include the Chancellor, campus leadership, and the Board of Trustees. The Commission also requires that the team report and the self study report be made available to students and the public. Placing copies in the college Iibrary can accomplish this. Should you want the report electronically to place on your web site or for some other purpose, please contact Commission staff. The recommendations contained in the evaluation team report represent the observations of the evaluation team at the time of the visit. The Commission reminds you that while an institution may concur or disagree with any part of the team report, it is expected that the report will be used to improve the educational programs and services of the institution. All colleges are required to file a Midterm Report in the third year after each comprehensive evaluation. Windward Community College should submit the Midterm Report by October 15, 2009. Midterm Reports 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. The report also includes a summary of progress on college-identified plans for improvement as expressed in the self study. The college conducted a comprehensive self study as part of its evaluation. The Commission suggests that the plans for improvement of the institution included in that document be taken into account in the continuing development of Windward Community College. The next comprehensive evaluation of the college will occur during Fall 2012. Finally, let me take this opportunity to remind you that federal legislation affecting accrediting agencies requires that accredited colleges conduct systematic assessment of educational outcomes (see especially Standards One and Two). A fmiher requirement is that accrediting agencies pay close attention to student loan default rates. Dr. Angela Meixell Windward Community College January 31, 2007 Page Three On behalf of the Commission, I wish to express continuing interest in the institution's educational programs and services. Professional self-regulation is the most effective means of assuring integrity, effectiveness and quality. Sincerely, Barbara A. Beno, Ph.D. President BAB/tl cc: Dr. John Morton, Interim Vice President for Community Colleges Mr. Paul R. Field, Accreditation Liaison Officer Mr. Michael Rota, Associate Vice President Ms. Kitty Lagareta, Chair, Board of Regents, University of Hawaii Dr. Maria Sheehan, Team Chair Evaluation Team Members Enclosure EVALUATION REPORT WINDWARD COMMUNITY COLLEGE 45-720 Kea' ahala Road Kane'ohe, Hawaii 96744 A Confidential Report for The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges This report represents the findings of the evaluation team that visited Windward Community College from October 23-26, 2006 Maria Cristina Sheehan, Ed.D. Chair WINDWARD COLLEGE ACCREDITATION TEAM ROSTER OCTOBER 23-26, 2006 Dr. Maria C. Sheehan (Chair) Mr. Matthew Breindel (Assistant) Superintendent/President Director of Institutional Research College of the Desert College of the Desert Dr. Sherrill Amador Dr. Robert Barr Former Superintendent/President Exec. Dir. lnst'l Research & Planning Palomar College Footh ill-De Anza Comm. College District Mr. Prince Darrell Harrison Mr. James Keller Professor, Paralegal Studies Executive Vice Chancellor San Diego Miramar College San Mateo County Comm. College Dist. Dr. John Rider Dr. Judith Schwartz Vice Pres., Academic Affairs Division Coordinator Disabled Students Services Guam Community College Santa Monica College Ms. Bonnie Thoreen Mr. Arthur Q. Tyler Dean, Upper Valley Campus President Napa Valley College Sacramento City College 2 SUMMARY OF EVALUA TION REPORT INSTITUTION: Windward Commun ity College DATE OF VISIT: October 23-26,2006 TEAM CHAIR: Maria Cristina Sheehan, Ed.D. Superintendent/President, College of the Desert Windward College received a ten member accreditation team visit on October 23-26, 2006. The purpose of the visit was to determine if the institution meets accreditation standards. The team evaluated how well the institution was meeting its stated purposes and analyzed how the college is accomplishing the commission standards while providing the college with recommendations for institutional improvement and submitting recommendations to the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) regarding the status of the college. The Team prepared for the visit by attending a full day training session on September 13, 2006, in Oakland, California, presented by ACCJC staff. Prior to the team training the Chair received a full day of training for Chairs on August 14,2006, in San Francisco, also provided by ACCJC staff. The team members read and reviewed the Commission materials and the Windward College Accreditation Self Study Report and all supporting materials provided by the college prior to the visit. Each member of the accreditation team also completed an assessment of the Accreditation Self Study with respect to whether it included all components required by the Commission. A week prior to the visit, each team member submitted a first response to the Self Study and provided the Team Assistant with a listing of identified interviews needed during the visit. On October 23 the Team met for three hours to review the Hawaii system presentation provided the day before for team chairs. The Team had received a summary of the pre-visit information to Windward College and that information was shared again and reviewed. The Team then reviewed preliminary work on each of the four Standards. The team spent time determining the scope of the questions that would be presented to the Self Study Steering Committee and standard chairs. The focus of the team's October 23,2006 meeting with the Self Study Steering Committee was around the efforts of the College to connect planning, assessment and resource allocation and the status of Program Reviews and Student Learning Outcomes. 3 In addition to individual and group meetings during the visit, there were two open r forums on October 23 t!, one in the afternoon and one in the evening. These Forums were well publicized and everyone was encouraged to attend. Approximately 75 staff members and students were interviewed or attended the open forums. The atmosphere on campus was positive with staff going out of their way to be available and provide any information requested. It was obvious that the college was well prepared for the visit. The Team found that the Self Study contained all of the elements required by the Commission. The format utilized was clear and each of the Standards subsections also addressed each of the six themes. This response in the Self Study demonstrated the Steering Committee's efforts to fully and completely address the Commission's Standards which provide for utilizing six broad themes or addressing the Self Study from the perspective of the Four Standards and each subpart. Both formats were provided in the Self Study. The team room was well prepared with lap top computers in a wireless environment, office supplies, shredder and a copier. A secure room was provided for the team and each of the members was issued a swipe key to gain entry. The secure Team Room adjoined the evidence and assessment room where the documents were clearly labeled and a CD was provided to team members that wanted to view the evidence provided on line. MAJOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 2006 TEAM The following recommendations are made as a result of the October 23-26th, 2006 team visit. Recommendation 1: Improving Institutional Effectiveness 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. (Standard LB.7) Recommendation 2: Student Learning Outcomes 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, and program and degree levels. (Standard II.A.I.c). 4 Recommendation 3: Student Success The college should define the at-risk population, develop and implement specific strategies for addressing the needs of the at-risk population, and create mechanisms for the continuous assessment and improvement of services to this population. (Standard H.B.3.c) Recommendation 4: Library and Learning Support Services In the interest of improvement heyond the standard, the college should act diligently to secure funding which will ensure the construction of the proposed future Lihrary facility. (Standard II.Cl.a) Recommendation 5: Governance Structure Policy The team recommends, to ensure 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 assess the effectiveness of leadership and decision making which leads to institutional improvement. (Standard IV.A.], A.2, A.3, A.5) 5 ACCREDITATION EVALUATION REPORT FOR WINDWARD COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION VISIT OCTOBER 23-26,2006 INTRODUCTION Windward Community College is located at the base of the Koolau Mountains in Kane'ohe on the island of O'ahu and primarily serves residents from Waimanalo to Kahuku, along the entire windward coast. Established in 1972, the college operates out of renovated former Hawaii State Hospital buildings and some newly constructed buildings on approximately 64 acres of land helow the State Hospital facilities. Within the last six years following the master plan approval by the Board of Regents, a new science building, a multi functional humanities building with a theater and art gallery, a student center and an Imaginarium have been huilt. The legislature has authorized planning dollars for a 63,000 square foot Library/Learning Center. The current library structure is crowded and substandard for an institution of higher education. Although planning funds have been authorized, building funds have not yet been approved. The college is governed by the Board of Regents of the University of Hawaii and is under the supervision of the President of the University of Hawaii and the Vice President for Community Colleges. In the fall of 2005 the college served 1,732 credit students and approximately 2,000 non credit vocational students. The college has over 150 regular employees and an annual operating budget of close to ten million dollars. The Board of Regents in January 2002 augmented the offerings of the college with the addition of the Employment Training Center (ETC), which had no permanent home within the UH system. The ETC was accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges Accrediting Commission for Schools (W ASC), and in June 2004 the Accrediting Commission (ACCJC) approved a substantive change to incorporate the Employment Training Center within the Windward Community College's accreditation. The last Comprehensive Visit for accreditation occurred in October 2000, and there were four major issues. Reaffirmation was granted and an Interim Report and visit was due November 1, 2002. In November of 2002 the Report was accepted and a Focused Midterm Report was due on October 15, 2003. One major issue was identified. The Focused Midterm Report was accepted and a Progress Report was required in October 14,2003. There were two major areas that had to be addressed: the first was Program Review linked to institutional planning and resource allocation. The UH System Recommendation 2 in the January 2003 team report was the second major area which had to be addressed. It required the system to develop and implement a system wide planning process that incorporates the priorities for improvement 6 developed at the colleges and funds them. It also required college and system's setting of priorities for implementing plans for improvement are based in analysis of research data and that the colleges and the UHCC system incorporate these priorities into resource distribution processes and decisions. Additionally, the recommendation called for the colleges and the University of Hawaii Community Colleges System to employ a methodology for assessing overall institutional effectiveness and progress toward meeting expressed goals through plans for improvement and regular reports to constituencies and the Board on this progress. The October 2004 Progress Report from the college resulted in the college being placed on a warning in January 2005. The Commission's action letter imposing the warning cited the same two college level issues of Educational Planning, assessment and resource allocation and the role of the system office and noted additional areas of concerns which included items 4,5 and 7 from the UH System recommendations. Item or Recommendation 4 required a report on how the UHCC system structure had been staffed and funded. Recommendation 5 addressed salary placement policies and practices and the equity of their administration. Recommendation 7 addressed the role of the system head and Board in meeting accreditation standards. A Progress Report was required to address all items and a visit was scheduled for April 2005. The Progress Report and visit occurred April 2005 and resulted in the college remaining on warning with the same issue of planning tied to assessment and resource allocation; also, the System recommendations which had not been addressed continued to be items 2 and 7. Recommendation or Item 4 had been satisfied. System Recommendation 6 was added to the areas needing remediation. Item 6 of the System Recommendations required that the UH System more clearly identify system functions and authority assigned to the systemwide support staff in the areas of academic planning, administrative and fiscal operations. The college remained on Warning with a Progress Report due October 2005. The Progress Report was received in October 2005 and the visit took place on November 15, 2005. This visit resulted in the college remaining on warning for the lack of implementation of Recommendation 6 of the college and the lack of effective institutional planning tied to assessment and resource allocation. 7 Team Evaluation of Institutional Responses to Recommendations of the 2000 Accreditation Visiting Team The college received six general recommendations from the team that visited on October 23-26, 2000. The 2006 visiting team conscientiously reviewed the recommendations from the previous team. 1. The college should re-examine 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 mission statement should reflect the college's priorities for the 21 st century. (Standards 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4) The college began to re-examine its mission statement in January 2001 with a visioning retreat that included students, faculty, staff and administrators. This was followed by the formation of a Faculty Senate committee in fall 2001, which solicited comments from the college community in a variety of ways, resulting in a Faculty Senate-approved revised mission statement in May 2002 as well as a new vision statement and a declaration of core values. The new mission statement is a specification of Windward's role within the community colleges of the University of Hawaii System whose purpose is to provide those programs and services typical of a comprehensive two-year college. The University of Hawaii Board of Regents subsequently approved the proposed new mission statement in April 2004. The college plans to reevaluate its mission statement in the fourth year of every accreditation cycle or earlier if the Strategic Planning Committee feels it is necessary. Windward devoted considerable time and attention to re-evaluating and revising its mission statement specifying Windward as an institution emphasizing the liberal arts and career development. The latter is a reflection of its consolidation in January 2002 with the Educational Training Center (ETC), which provides short-term, career focused education and training. In addition, the college defined a clear set of core values and developed a vision for the effect of its programs and services on its students and community. This vision statement could be equally well considered as part of its mission statement, which is a little clearer about the college's intended outcomes. In any case, it is clear that the college has responded seriously and effectively to this recommendation. 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 a short-term basis. (Standards 3.A, 3.B.2, 3.B.3, 3.C.l, 4.D.l, 6.1, 8.1, 8.5, 9.A) 8 Since the last evaluation team visit, Windward has worked hard to establish a new comprehensive planning process resulting in a Strategic Plan, revised in fall 2005 and again in fall 2006, which is to be revised annually. In addition, program review and assessment processes have been established. The college completed its first cyc Ie of systematic program review, strategic planning, and resource allocation in spring 2006. The process is intended to assure that resources are directed effectively to institutional priorities and programs with demonstrated needs revealed in systematic analysis and review of quantitative data and other evidence. In the area of capital construction, the college has heen following its 1989 Facilities Master Plan, which led to the spring 2006 approval of its request to the legislature for funds for the design phase of a Library/Learning Resources building. In specific response to this recommendation, the college has requested state funding to update its Facilities Master Plan and plans to re-establish a Master Plan Committee. In addition, the college reconstituted its Technology Vision Committee in April 2005 as an effective standing college committee and produced and adopted a Technology Vision statement in December 2005. Human resources planning and resource allocations are developed in Program Review and Strategic Planning and Budgeting processes. Statements in the Interim Report of October 2002 and the Midterm Report of 2003 and the findings of the Interim Visit Committee indicate that identification and assessment of student learning outcomes have begun. Significantly, the college mission statement is a fundamental building block in assessment practices as demonstrated in Appendix F of the October 2005 Progress Report. A faculty member has been assigned full-time institutional research duties to help all units conduct assessment and program evaluations. Findings from assessment and program review practices have been showing up in planning documents. Student learning outcomes (SLOs) have been developed at the course level and appear in the 2006-2007 WCC Course Catalog. The college has made progress and achievements in the area of planning, resource allocation, program review, and assessment and is encouraged to expand and refine its assessment and planning practices linking findings and analysis to decisions about planning, resource allocation, and implementation. The college is continuing to respond to this recommendation. 3. The college should develop an institutional technology vision for its present and its future, with a comprehensive plan for learning resources (including library and media services), instructional technology in the classrooms, laboratories and offices, and staff development necessary to implement its vision. This vision must be integrated with overall institutional planning initiatives. (Standards 6.1, 6.2, 6.7, 8.5) The college formed a Technology Vision Committee. This committee developed a vision statement that was published in December 2005. The Technology Vision Committee is a standing committee that works in conjunction with the strategic 9 planning committee and the budget committee in guiding institutional decisions on the future of technology. The college has suhstantially responded to this recommendation. 4. The college should develop and implement a comprehensive fiscal monitoring and resource development plan to ensure: 1) that short and long-range 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 and grant funding are linked to the institution's strategic master plan. (Standards 9.A.l, 9.A.5, 9.8.4, 9.8.6) The college has established policies and procedures that formally link program review with strategic planning, budget, and resource allocation. This effort and the result are extensively discussed with regard to Recommendation six. The fiscal monitoring is incorporated in various ways including reports emanating from the UH's Banner system as well as information provided in program review that incorporates data extracted hy institutional research. The college has made every effort to publish relative documents on its web site to make the process and outcomes availahle to the entire college community. The college has substantially addressed the recommendation. 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 all segments of the college community, participate in the institution's governance and decision-making. (Standards 10.8.4, 10.8.6, 10.B.7, 10.B.9, 108.10) The college responded to the recommendation by developing a governance structure policy (effective August 2005, revised October 2005). The Accreditation Standard IV Self Study Committee developed the new structure of councils, standing and ad hoc committees based on its own findings during the self study process. The Standard IV Committee designed a rubric for the classification and purposes of councils and committees and then the committee requested each existing councilor committee to codify their own charge, membership, documentation, etc., using the committee designed template, and the results of this process became the new structure. Lines of communication and effective participation of all constituent groups still need to be addressed by defining the roles and responsibilities of all groups in governance. There appears to be a general sense by the college community that it is beginning to understand governance. The college does not have a defined systematic evaluation process in place to determine whether the structure effectively informs college decision making, improves lines of communication, or contributes to institutional effectiveness. The college has partially addressed this recommendation. 10 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 (Standards 4.A.l, 4.D.l,4.D.6). In fall 2000, the ACCJC comprehensive accreditation team visited Windward CC and made a recommendation that addressed the lack of a systematic program review process that tied directly to institutional planning. This recommendation was carried and continued in subsequent reports by visiting teams to Windward CC in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. The college was placed on Warning in February 2005 based on the deficiencies at the system level and this specific college recommendation. The college prepared a progress report in April 2005 that responded to these deficiencies, which was accepted by the Commission; however, the college remained on Warning. Subsequently, the college was visited by a two-person Progress Visit Team in November 2005. Due to lack of sufficient progress, the Progress Visit Team continued Recommendation 6, and the college remained on Warning. During the 2006 comprehensive visit, the team reviewed the college academic program review and planning structure. The team conducted interviews with the Chancellor, academic administrators, faculty, and members of the Strategic Planning Committee and Budget Committee. The team reviewed policies, procedures, and documentation of program review, student learning outcomes, and assessment. The college has acted upon the recommendation and made progress in executing its academic plans. The team found evidence that the college is using annual plans created by academic departments to develop budgets, staffing, and allocate resources. Program review however, is planned for all departments over a five-year period and only six departments have completed this process since the last comprehensive visit, which are posted on the college website. The General Education Requirements for the Associate of Arts Degree Program Review was completed in 2006 and provides a comprehensive review of 11 subject areas. Four other departments are in progress and have produced draft reports that are posted on the college website. All departments are scheduled over the next four years and are due to complete the process by 20 I O. The college has partially responded to this recommendation. 1I ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS I. AUTHORITY Windward Community College is authorized to operate as a two-year community college by the University of Hawaii System, whose operation is governed by Hawaii state law, and the college is accredited by the Accrediting Commission of Community and Junior Colleges of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. 2. MISSION The team confirmed that the college developed its mission statement in the period 2002- 2004 and that the statement was approved by the Board of regents, University of Hawaii, in 2004. The mission statement contains the information specified in the accreditation Eligibility Requirements. 3. GOVERNING BOARD The college is governed by the Board of Regents of the University of Hawaii System, who are appointed by the Governor of Hawaii. The Board of Regents consists of 12 members who serve as volunteers under guidelines set forth in the Hawaii Revised Statues. The board has ultimate responsibility for oversight of the operations of the college. Board members adhere to policy which prohibits participation in any action involving possible conflict of interest. 4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Dr. Angela Meixell was approved by the Board of Regents as chief executive officer of the college in 2002. Chancellor Meixell has full-time responsibility to the institution and possesses the requisite authority to administer board policies. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY The team determined that the college has sufficient administrative staff, with appropriate preparation and experience, to supports the necessary services for an institution of its size, mission and purpose. 6. OPERATING STATUS The team confirmed that the college is operational with students actively pursuing degrees programs and certificate programs. There are approximately 1,800 credit students at the college and another approximately 1,800 students in vocational classes. 12 7. DEGREES Windward CC offers two associate degree programs, Liberal Arts and Technical Studies; however, the college is in the process of eliminating the associate degree for Technical Studies. In 2005-06, the college awarded 129 Liberal Arts degrees and 1,320 students were enrolled in this program, which represented more than 77% of the college enrollment. The college also offers certificate programs in: Agriculture Technology, Art, Bio-Resource Development and Management, Business, Hawaiian Studies, Plant Biology, Plant Landscaping, and Psycho-Social Developmental Studies. 8. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS The mission of Windward CC and its academic programs are congruent. The college offers a two-year associate degree in Liberal Arts, which consists of 60 semester credit hours at the 100 and 200 levels. The Liberal Arts degree is recognized and accepted by the University of Hawaii and other four-year accredited institutions of higher education as fulfilling the general education requirements. 9. ACADEMIC CREDIT Windward CC awards academic credit based on generally accepted academic principles and is governed by the state of Hawaii laws and University of Hawaii system regulations. Academic credit is transferable and accepted by the University of Hawaii. Windward also has articulation agreements that ensure transferability of coursework to several other universities including: Hawaii Pacific University, University of Phoenix, Argosy University, Brigham Young University, and Chaminade University of Honolulu. 10. EDUCA TONAL OBJECTIVES The visiting team confirmed that Windward College defines and publishes the programs of study leading to an associate degree, certificate, and programs of study leading to transfer. 11. GENERAL EDUCATION Windward CC has defined and incorporated into its associate degree for Liberal Arts substantial elements of general education that are designed to ensure the breadth of knowledge and promote intellectual inquiry. The educational program is consistent with generally accepted rigor for the first two years of higher education. This degree program includes coursework in Written and Oral Communications, Symbolic Reasoning, Global and Multicultural Perspectives, Art and Humanities, Natural Science, Social Sciences, Intensive Writing, Computer and Information Literacy, and Mathematics. 13 12. ACADEMIC FREEDOM The faculty and students of Windward CC are free to examine and test all knowledge appropriate to their discipline and area of academic study. The educational environment of Windward CC affords faculty and students the atmosphere needed to pursue intellectual goals and stimulates learning in a free and independent climate. 13. FACULTY Windward CC has 54 faculty who are in full-time tenured track permanent positions. This represents the majority of faculty teaching all courses for the college. The faculty represent a diverse set of academic disciplines. Faculty are the sole developers of academic curriculum and use a peer reviewed development and approval process for courses that is overseen by the Academic Senate. Faculty have the responsibility for facilitating student learning and development of learning outcomes for each course of instruction. Faculty are the principal assessors of student learning based on outcomes which have been defined by the faculty. 14. STUDENT SERVICES The institution supports student learning with adequate computer labs and library services. Until now, tutoring services have been available through the math lab for all students and through TRIO for students who qualify for their services. The college recently received $20,000 to be used to provide tutorial services to all students. 15. ADMISSIONS The college has an open-door policy, consistent with its mission. As long as a student meets the minimum qualifications of being 18 years of age or a high school grad, he or she will be admitted. Enrollment of non-residents and international students is limited by the Board of Regents policy and the Controlled Growth policy. The Employment Training Center is authorized by state statute to take students sixteen years of age or older. 16. INFORMA nON AND LEARNING RESOURCES The college provides information and learning support services including library services, and resources, learning centers, computer laboratories, and learning technology development and training. The team verified that these resources are sufficient to support the mission and instructional programs of the college. 17. FINANCIAL RESOURCES Windward is one of seven community colleges that are part of the University of Hawaii system. Windward, the Community College system, and UH all document the funding base, financial resources, and plans for financial development that are adequate to 14 support student learning programs and services that improve institutional effectiveness and assure financial stability. 18. FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY The UH system has an independent audit performed by the CPA firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers. The audit is certified and exceptions noted and explained. The audit incorporates the examination of transactions and internal control processes of Windward College. No exceptions or compliance issues have been noted. FUl1her, the UH system has agreed with ACCJC concurrence to include combined community college financial statements as supplemental audit information. 19. INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING AND EVALUATION The visiting team found that Windward College provides basic planning for the development of the institution. Planning processes, however, need to be integrated, consistent, and evaluated. 20. PUBLIC INFORMATION The visiting team confirmed that Windward College publishes in its catalog, class schedule, and other publications information concerning the college's purposes and objectives, admission requirements and procedures, rules and regulations affecting students, degrees offered, degree requirements, etc. In addition, the college distributes annual publications that focus on program accomplishments and student graduates. 21. RELATIONS WITH THE ACCREDITING COMMISSION The team confirmed that Windward College adheres to the eligibility requirements, standards and policies of ACCJC, describes itself in identical terms to all of its accrediting agencies, communicates any changes in its accreditation status in a timely manner, and agrees to disclose information required by ACCJC to carry out its accrediting responsibilities. The college was well prepared for the team's visit and demonstrated cordiality and presented significant evidence to support its assertions. 15 STANDARD I Institutional Mission and Effectiveness A: Mission General Observations The college has revised its mission statement, developed a vision statement and has defined a set of core values since the last accreditation team visit. By policy, the mission statement is to be revised every fourth year of the college's six-year self- assessment cycle. Standard I requires a strong commitment to "a mission that emphasizes achievement of student learning" and improvement of "the effectiveness by which the mission is accomplished." While the college has done a commendable job of reviewing and revising its mission statement with broad input and organized campus dialogue, the statement, drafted in May 2002 and adopted by the University of Hawaii system in April 2004 falls somewhat short of emphasizing improvement of student learning outcomes. The mission statement does refer specifically to achieving a number of student learning outcomes (e.g., indicating that the college's purpose is to support individuals in developing "skills," fulfilling their "potential," "enriching" their lives, and "becoming contributing, culturally aware members of our community"). Windward's establishment of a comprehensive assessment process and identification of student learning outcomes (SLOs), at the course level and at the GE level, indicates an intention to not only produce learning but to also improve it over time. Findings and Evidence The mission statement of Windward Community College defines in broad terms the institution's defining purpose. As an open admissions, two-year college within the community colleges of the University of Hawaii system, its intended audience is anyone (18 years old or older) wishing "to develop skills, fulfill their potential, enrich their lives, and become contributing, culturally aware members of our community" in the areas of "liberal arts and career development." The college's missions statement indicates that it is "committed to excellence" though it a somewhat unclear from the statement just how this commitment is to be evaluated. The Windward mission statement, revised in May 2002 and adopted by the UH system in April 2004, reflects the college's January 2002 consolidation with the Employment Training Center (ETC) whose mission is "to serve the community by providing short-term, career-focused education and training in a flexible, learner-centered and supportive environment." The catalog reports that the ETC "was recognized by the American Association of Community Colleges and the U.S. Department of Labor as an Exemplary Program for At-Risk and Special Needs Youth." 16 A review of the Windward catalog indicates that student learning programs and services are aligned with its mission, character, and studen t population. Windward focuses on the liberal arts and career training, especially short-term career development. It has identified ten broad learning outcomes for its Associate of Arts degree program. Its Employment Training Center handles its short-term career training programs and services. Seven vocationally-oriented "Academic Subject Certificates" and two Certificates of Completion are offered in two subjects by the liberal arts section of the college. Separate student services divisions provide appropriate support services for Vocational and Community Education (which includes the ETC that is mostly located on Honolulu CC) and for the liberal arts program on the Windward campus. (Standard LA.I) The revised mission statement has been prominently posted on campus and puhlished in the 05-06 and 06-07 catalogs as well as on the college's website. (Standard LA.2) By policy it is now scheduled for review in the fourth year of each six-year assessment cycle, or sooner if needed. The last revision involved the institution's governance and decision-making processes and included broad-based input and dialogue. (Standard I.A.3) During the past several years, the mission statement has been a fundamental reference document for the college's decision-making. For example, its assessment practices are aligned with the mission statement, as a review of assessment documents reveals while interviews with campus leaders and planning documents confirm the use of the mission statement as a guide to planning. (Standard I.A.4) Conclusion The college meets the requirements of Standard 1 A. The team is impressed with the thought and energy that went into revising the mi ssion statement and its use as a guide for planning and decision-making. The team suggests that the college take its next review of its mission statement, scheduled for 2010-11, as seriously as it has taken its most recent review. (Standard LA) Recommendation: None B: Improving Institutional Effectiveness General Observations Since the last visit, Windward has made progress in developing its planning, assessment, and review processes and incorporating uses of qualitative and quantitative data to evaluate effectiveness and to develop strategies for improvement. Still greater use of data, especially assessment data and other data related to student success, needs to be made if measurable goals are to be established and the promise of continual improvement of student learning is to be achieved. Windward has been challenged in 17 gathering and using data for evaluation and improvement as it has not had the support of a local institutional researcher. However, in fall 2002, the college re-assigned a faculty member to IR duties full-time (9-month) and is using Title III funds to establish another IR information specialist position. In 2006-07, the college was authorized by the UH system to create a full-time II-month ins! itutional research position. These actions have helped and will help Windward to gather and use data more effectively. Findings and Evidence The team reviewed Windward's planning documents and the minutes of its planning and assessment committees. During the visit the team interviewed planning committee members as well as other faculty and staff regarding planning, program review, and resource allocation. These reviews and interviews provided evidence to us that the college has shifted its focus from a concentration on offering courses to producing, supporting, and improving student learning. Accordingly, at Windward there has been an effort to identify and assess student learning outcomes over the last four years with the intention of improving those outcomes over time. Windward is well on its way to institutionalizing its assessment and evaluation activities and linking them to its planning and decision-making efforts. The college received authorization for 2006-07 for a new II-month faculty position to function as a Director of Planning and Program Evaluation. Windward has struggled to understand and use assessment practices. But given the team's review of documents and its campus observations and interviews, it is clear that the college is traveling in the right direction. The team is very impressed by the efforts the college has made during the past six years to identify and measure student learning outcomes and to use assessment results to develop strategies for improving student outcomes. (Standard I.B) In May 2000 the Social Sciences faculty began the dialog about assessment of student learning outcomes. The college sent faculty to the 200 I AAHE Assessment Conference in Colorado, and these people became the initial Assessment Committee tasked with directing this activity at the college. Other administrators and faculty were sent to the National Center for Post Secondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (NCTLA) Assessment Conference in Arizona and to the Pacific Planning, Assessment & Institutional Research Conference in Honolulu. From 2001 through fall 2003 the college concentrated on assessing outcomes for AA degree General Education requirements. And, at the suggestion of the accreditation visiting team in spring 2005, an Institutional Researcher was added to the process by re-assigning a faculty member full-time to institutional research duties. To date, the college has identified SLOs for its general education program, preliminary outcomes goals for departments, and SLOs for most active courses. In 2004, the assessment process was expanded to non-instructional units and the Assessment Committee was renamed the Institutional Effectiveness Committee. The Employment Training Center has been involved in assessment for its entire existence, as it issues each student a Record of Training which lists competencies with competency ratings which are based on measurement of SLOs. By spring 2006, as evidenced in documents the team reviewed, the college had aligned course, department, 18 and general education outcomes to each other and to the Mission, Vision, and Core Values. (Standard I.B.I) In 2002, the University of Hawaii System-required Academic Development Plans (ADPs) were converted into a Strategic Plan by detailing strategic action goals and directions. In 2004 strategic priorities and resource needs were added to the plan. A staff survey indicates that faculty and staff are generally familiar with the mission statement and the college's broader purposes. Interviews conducted during the visit and review of documents reveal that the statement is used to guide institutional activity. (Standard 1.8.2) A Commission visiting team in April 2005 indicated that the college was still grappling with integrating the components of the planning and evaluation cycle and had yet to integrate program review as the foundation for the process. In response, the college developed three formal policies regarding the functioning of program review, resource allocation, and strategic planning. All programs/departments are to submit Program Reviews every five years on a staggered schedule and a specialized assessment report annually. As of Fall 2006 a new UH systemwide format of program review reports is being used. Program Review reports and Annual Assessments are to be used by the Strategic Planning Committee to update the Strategic Plan. During the visit, the team reviewed the planning cycle policies, Programs Reviews, Annual Assessments, Strategic Plans, and Budget Allocation documents. From this review, it is clear to the team that a great deal of progress has been made in integrating the planning and evaluation cycle components. Program Reviews are being developed by departments on a clear schedule and contain quantitative and qualitative data used in evaluations. As of this team's visit, the college was entering its second annual round utilizing program review, strategic planning, and resource allocation, a major achievement for the college. Thus, the team notes that the planning and evaluation process has clearly improved and has been systematized since the last team's visit and is developing in the directions indicated by the Standards. (Standard I.B.3) Dialog about planning occurs at convocations at the beginning of each semester, meetings of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee (lEC), faculty and staff workshops, and administrative and department meetings. Members of major committees represent all academic units, but more participation by staff is suggested. The college now requires that all units on campus conduct annual annually and program reviews every five years. The IRa has indicated that it is developing the capacity to produce five years of data on an impressive list of dimensions for every department's annual assessment as well as for the Program Reviews produced on a five year staggered cycle. The college has acknowledged that students need to be more involved in the ongoing dialog and institutional planning. The team reviewed planning documents and conducted interviews that clearly indicate that changes have been made in programs, curricula, and processes of the college. (Standard LB.4) The college's Institutional Research Office (IRa) produces reports on student enrollment, status, and graduate exit information to support efforts of the planning 19 bodies. The IRO has recently posted an online Data Portfolio containing a wide variety of data including student achievement data. The Vocational and Community Education Division (VCE), which includes Continuing Education and the Employment Training Center, produces three substantial reports: The Annual Department of Education Reports, Workforce Investment Act Quarterly Reports, and the Annual Program Health Indicators Reports, all of which are shared with funding sources and the college community. The first annual assessment and program review reports were completed in December 2005 and posted on the college website. A second set, also posted to the college web site, was in draft form as of the team's visit in October 2006. To date, four five-year Program Review reports have been completed or are in near final draft form using the new UH program review format. (Standard I.B.5) The college has completed only one cycle of program reviews, strategic planning, and budget allocation, but there is evidence that policies and practices are continually being reviewed and changed as necessary. Interviews and documents reviewed by team members confirm that the entire process was reviewed in May 2006 by each of the major planning committees. As a result a number of adjustments were made. For example, due dates for program reviews were made earlier in the cycle to allow more time for review. (Standard I.B.6) The college is required to assess its own evaluation or assessment processes in a systematic way to evaluate and improve its effectiveness in improving programs and services. Interviews with campus leaders confirm that this has been occurring at Windward for the past several years spurred on by recommendations and reports from Commission visiting teams. (Standard I.B.7) The college requires each department to participate in an annual assessment and produce a complete Program Review every fifth year. The process of program review includes peer review, student satisfaction surveys, faculty satisfaction surveys, and program self-assessment. Departments use survey results to assess the effectiveness of departmental programs, practices, and services. The college recognizes the need to review its survey instruments to assure and improve their effectiveness in helping to assess departmental activities and programs. The dialog about effective assessment practices and instruments is strong and has been underway since at least 2002. The team encourages the college to continue this dialogue and to further develop its assessment effectiveness, especially regarding the assessment of student learning outcomes. (Standard I.B.7) Conclusion The college is beginning to meet the requirements of Standard 1B. The college has made great strides toward meeting the standard over the last four or five years. This standard requires the college to measure and improve student learning and to assess and improve the performance of its depal1ments, programs, and services. The first step in measuring and improving student learning is to systematically identify the college's intended student learning outcomes. The college has taken on this task wholeheartedly in the years leading up to this accreditation evaluation team's visit. It has identified SLOs for all courses, for many departments or programs, and for the Associate of Arts degree general education program. This is a major achievement. Furthermore the team is confident that a culture of assessment and improvement is taking hold at the college. In addition, after mighty struggles and serious urging by various Commission team visits and reports, the college has developed a working program review process. While this process is still in its early stages, having only completed one planning cycle, it appears to the team that the new process has been well established and that the college is and will take steps to further improve it. In particular, the team urges the college to continue to explore and improve its methods for assessing student learning and to expand its capacity for gathering, analyzing, and using assessment and student success data as feedback to help it learn how to produce student learning more effectively. While the college has been slow to respond effectively to the recommendations made by the last comprehensive evaluation team's report regarding program review and slow to develop and integrate its planning processes, the college is commended for the truly significant progress that it has made to meet this standard in the past few years. While these processes need to be further developed and improved, nevertheless the college can be rightly proud of what it has achieved to date. (Standard I.B.7) Recommendation 1: 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. (Standard I.B.7) 21 STANDARDU Student Learning Programs and Services A. Instructional Programs General Comments In the 2005-6 academic year, Windward Community College enrolled approximately 1700 students in liberal arts courses on its main campus. The college also maintains a career and technical center, the Educational Technical Center (ETC), near downtown Honolulu, where it serves about 1300 students who are pursing career and technical skills through non-credit classes. In 2005-06, the college graduated 129 students, an increase of more than 20% over 2004-05. The transfer/degree enrolled students are the largest segment of the college student population, 1390 of 1719 students or about 77(l/c. The college offers two associate degrees, one in Liberal Arts and one in Technical Studies. The educational program is consistent with generally accepted rigor for the first two years of higher education and supports the mission of the college (Standard II.A.I). This degree program includes coursework in Written and Oral Communications, Symbolic Reasoning, Global and Multicultural Perspectives, Art and Humanities, Natural Science, Social Sciences, Intensive Writing, Computer and Information Literacy, and Mathematics, which is fully transferable to four-year institutions of higher education (Standard II.A.2). The college also offers certificate programs in: Agriculture Technology, Art, Bio-Resource Development and Management, Business, Hawaiian Studies, Plant Biology, Plant Landscaping, and Psyco-Social Developmental Studies. Windward CC has 54 faculty who are in full-time tenured track permanent positions and 23 other faculty. Faculty have the responsibility for facilitating student learning and development of learning outcomes for each course of instruction. Faculty are the principle assessors of student learning based on outcomes which have been defined by the faculty (Standard II.A.2.a). The faculty represent a diverse set of academic disciplines, and are supported by several advisory committees (Standard II.A.2b) and the career programs at ETC are regulated by outside agencies and businesses. Faculty are the sole developers of academic curriculum and use a peer reviewed development and approval process for courses that is overseen by the Academic Senate. The Academic Senate, Curriculum Committee, approves all courses regardless of location or delivery modality (Standard II.A.2.e). Academic departments are conducting program review and as of October 2006 six program documents had been completed and four were in draft. All ten program reviews were posted on the college website. The curriculum committee for the AA, ATS and ACS programs consist of faculty and administration. The noncredit ETC programs undergo a review by the ETC Curriculum committee as well as an administrative committee. In addition, all vocational education programs must meet state and national standards where applicable to their respective programs. There are currently 6 classes offered in a distant education format. Four are offered in partnership with Olelo Community Television which created the Olelo Media 22 Center through which classes are offered or in the WebCt format via the internet (Standard II.A.l.b.). WCC demonstrates that all instructional programs, meet the mission of the institution and uphold its integrity (Standard II.A.2.e.). The college created the Institutional Effectiveness Committee (lEC) and the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) after the college was placed on warning. These committees work in concert to validate student learning outcome development, college initiatives, and short-term and strategic plans. Once validated by the SPC, resource requirements are forwarded to the Budget committee. There is clear evidence that the college has engaged in meaningful dialogue regarding SLOs. Training workshops and individual one-on-one training has been provided to faculty_ The college has completed SLO development for more than 83% of its courses and several departments have completed SLOs for the discipline level. Findings & Evidence There is evidence that there has been dialogue across the campus regarding learning outcomes and each department has been trained in workshops and/or individually about outcome conversions. The college has produced a significant number of SLOs and worked diligently to create SLOs for all courses in the liberal arts associate degree program completed during the one-year cycle. Although Student Support Services and Administrative Services have completed their annual reviews, these organizational functions have not conducted program review. Student Services is scheduled to conduct a program review in 2007. The Office of Instruction created the 2005-2006 Annual Instruction Report and the Program Review for the Associate of Arts Degree Transfer Program (both in Draft - to be submitted November 1, 2(06). These documents specify the SLOs for this comprehensive degree program. The college identified departmental examinations for the developmental mathematics courses as regularly reviewed to ensure their effectiveness in measuring student learning. Although the college has identified student-learning outcomes for over 80% of its courses and programs, certificates, and degrees by the 2005/06 year, many instructors have noted that there has not been enough time to assess their classes at this time. However, instructors interviewed have noted a change in the delivery of their respective subjects since the implementation of SLOs. Instructors who have carried out class assessments provide feedback using an assessment form ("Assessment of Course Student Learning Outcomes" form) to the Institutional Effectiveness Committee for any program changes. (Standard II.A.I.c). Although there is evidence of assessment of student learning and program outcomes, more time is needed to have a complete cycle of assessments to validate the effectiveness in measuring student learning to meet the standard. (II.A.2.f and g) The college seeks to meet the varied educational needs of its students as evidenced by the sequenced courses outlined in the Math program. However, evidence from interviews with administration and faculty and information in the school catalog confirm that the college has not provided such sequencing for other programs. (Standard II.A.2.c) It was also noted that the staff, faculty, and administrators were not familiar with the Banner reporting system, which has several hundred canned reports that could provide substantial data and information to aid in their development and evaluation of actions. Conclusions The college has not had time to evaluate all its courses and programs through an on- going systematic review of their relevance, appropriateness, achievement of learning outcomes, currency, and future needs and plans. (Standard n.A.2.e) Also, the college does not provide students with a sequence of courses necessary to complete their education without the assistance of counselor guidance. Therefore, the college does not meet this standard. The college might develop a broader staff development-training program for key faculty, staff, and all administrators to ensure effective use of the Banner reporting system and BRIO software to aid them in developing and evaluating data. The English department is to be commended for its development of the Star-Poets award program. Recommendation 2: 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, and program and degree levels. (Standard II.A.I.c). B. Student Support Services General Comments In fall 2005, of the over 1700 WCC students 23.7% were Asian, 36% were Pacific Islanders, 4.6% were mixed Islander heritage, .9% were African American, 2% were Hispanic, and 22.1 % were Caucasian. The remaining 13% described themselves as mixed. The WCC population is split, 63.1 % female and 36.8% male. The ethnicity of ETC students was 30% Hawaiian, 13% Filipino, 12% Japanese, 7% Caucasian, 5% Chinese, and 33% noted as other. The ETC population is 60% male and 40% female. The average age for all students at both sites is 28 years. The college provides extensive services to students. (Standard II.B.I) However, these services are limited primarily to weekdays. No services in admissions, financial aid, recruitment, testing, or tutoring are available evenings. Since the institution of Banner, most students register via the Web. The college uses the Compass exams for assessing the math and English competencies of incoming students. ETC students are assessed 24 using Test of Adult Basic Education. ETC provides training, services, and support for at-risk students who have dropped out of high school, are on probation, and are in social rehabilitation programs. (Standard II.B.3) The college has been awarded numerous federal grants including TRIO Talent Search, TRIO Upward Bound, and Title III, which will bring $2.2 million to the college over a five-year period. A TRIO-ST AAR grant awarded the college almost $400,000 to serve 150 students. Findings and Evidence Student support services are provided separately for both credit (WCC) and non-credit (ETC) programs. Both programs have been plagued by an insufficient number of employees over the past six years. During the period 2004 to 2006 there have been 16 employee changes. It is only recently that both programs have been able to hire the necessary staff to fulfill their mission (Standard II.B.3). Student services (credit) hired a Dean of Students in August 2006, a student success counselor in January 2006, and a counselor for disabled student services in August 2006. In addition, as a result of the Title III grant, two additional counselors were hired, a transition counselor and a retention counselor. The college has recognized the need for outreach, retention, and transition to four-year higher education or career, and created through the planning process the resources to develop support for students and the community. Additionally, the Employment Training Center (ETC) hired a new Student Services Coordinator in August 2006. With the new Dean of Students there is the opportunity to implement many new programs that will benefit at-risk students. These include plans to create services for adult education and developmental students (50% of incoming high school students will score at developmental levels in English and math); mandate academic advising and orientation for all incoming students; provide supplemental education; gather and evaluate data; and develop SLOs. (Standard II.B.l) ETC students described the services and support as outstanding. ETC at-risk student noted they were treated with respect and as responsi ble adults. ETC provides life-time services and support. One at-risk student commended the faculty and staff of ETC in a letter to the Chancellor, and plans to transfer to the university. Tracking ETC students and collecting data has been difficult since these at-risk student often change addresses and phone numbers. The new ETC Student Services Coordinator plans to add additional training options for students; increase accountability; improve methods of measuring success; and empower employees. (Standard II.B.3) In the first Annual Assessment Report for student services (credit), counselors stated that "preliminary indications are that a sizeable portion of the student body fails academically," and further that "counselors struggle with finding new ways to help the most at risk students find Sllccess in college." In fact, by the end of the spring 2006 semester, 32% of the students were on warning, suspended, or dismissed. In the light of these results, it is imperative to understand the unique needs of this special at-risk population. In particular, what descriptors define th is population and what kinds of services would benefit that population most? (Standard II.B.3) With this valuable information, counselors and teaching faculty can identify students who need more intensive assistance and be more proactive in preparing these students for success. Conclusions Student Services has been hampered due to changing leadership and minimal data collection and reports. The college is improving both of these areas of concern. The new Deans of Student Services are in the process of developing plans that should revitalize this important area and provide leadership and support for the at-risk student population. The addition of the new counselors might provide more effective student support for at-risk student populations. However, until Student Service completes its program review, activities may be disjointed and di fficult to track against a comprehensive plan. The college partially meets the standard. Recommendation 3: The college should define the at-risk population, develop and implement specific strategies for addressing the needs of the at-risk population, and create mechanisms for the continuous assessment and improvement of services to this population. (Standard II.B.3.c) C. Library and Learning Support Services General Comments The library and learning support services are housed in some of the oldest buildings on campus that are most in need of renovation. The library has seating for 98 students and little room for expanding seating or the materials collection. The library is cluttered with old equipment and cardboard boxes and is difficult to navigate. The Learning Center and the Math Lab are also in older facilities and even though the use of these centers is increasing the labs are not conducive to comfortable study. There is also a computer lab available to students. In addition to the library and learning support services and labs, there is a Media and Duplicating department, which serves the faulty, and campus by duplicating materials, producing various forms of media such as video streaming and tape duplication, and prior to the hiring of the graphic artist, produces the college marketing materials. Much of the equipment is old and in need of updating and repairs. Findings and Evidence 26 The library and learning resources facilities are crowded and the furnishings and equipment old, but surveys indicate satisfaction levels remain quite high. The student surveys indicate a general satisfaction (63%), 85% of faculty was satisfied with the library services, and that the library and other learning support services are sufficient to support the institution's instructional programs (Standard II.CI). Librarians and learning support services staff indicate that although the institution supports student learning and the mission of the college, many times equipment and materials found in the labs have been hand-otIs from other departments. In many cases, particularly in The Learning Center (TLC), while the computers and books are old they still serve the needs of the students for basic word processing and internet access (Standard H.CI.a). There is an issue of keeping these machines running. Funding for library materials and equipment has been almost static over the past several years. An infusion of $10,000 was added in 2006-07 that allowed for updating library materials on a one-time basis. This infusion was allocated through the budget process based on program review. Relying on the expertise of the faculty the library staff offered a "shopping spree" to the faculty member who was willing to come in and weed the collection in his/her area. Following completion of the weeding, the faculty member was awarded $1,000 to "spend" on the selection of new materials (Standard II.Cl). The various learning support services are located in several buildings across the campus. The college was recently awarded funding through the legislature for the design of a new library/learning resources building. Actual construction will depend on getting the $43 million dollars from the state, which is not certain. The plan is to consolidate the learning support services including academic computing services and the media center to allow for greater collaboration and cooperation among the various services. The head librarian's faculty position was reduced to .5 in 2002 in order to make her an interim assistant dean to supervise all of the services that will eventually go into the new library. A non-tenure tract faculty librarian who also has another .5 position currently fills the lost .5 position. Information competency has been a focus of the library staff. Services include group and individual instruction to students, staff and faculty. All sections of English 22, English 100 and LSK 110 require that students pass a self-paced Library Research Unit (LRU). In addition, an information literacy tutorial called LILO was available beginning in fall of 2005. This tutorial allows instructors to integrate information literacy into their classes. In order to receive an Associate of Arts Degree, students must successfully complete the Computer and Information Literacy (CIL) exam. (Standard II.CI.b) The hours of operation for library and other learning support services vary from 40 (Media Services) to 52 (library and TLC) hours per week. However, all library online resources, including the library catalog (including all 7 community college campuses and the University of Hawaii catalogs) and the online databases, can be accessed from any computer connected to the Internet. The Learning Center has a computer equipped with a large screen and adjustable keyboard tray. (Standard ILCl.c) Learning services specifically designed for disabled students through the TRIO program; disabled students can also avail themselves of services through the Title III office. (Standard II.A.2.d) Although, the learning support services are housed in some of the oldest buildings on the campus, the buildings and grounds are kept as neat and clean as possible. Many of the labs are alarmed and some of the windows on the buildings have bars for security. The UH-Manoa campus supports the automated library system while the Academic Computing Services department coordinates the hardware and software safety and maintenance for the PCs and Macintosh equipment in the library and labs. (Standard H.C I .d) The college shares an automated library system, Endeavor Voyager Library management system) with the 6 other community colleges and the University of Hawaii. Several system-wide committees exist to set standards for library functions as well as consortium purchases. Shared agreements include cooperatively negotiated system-wide licensing of database subscriptions and the library management system. Evaluation of the library and other learning support services is addressed through the program review process (Academic Support Division, 2005 and Library, 2005) every 5 years with annual updates (both completed in 2006) and annual unit plans that are aligned with the college mission. Periodic surveys and focus group meetings assess user satisfaction. (Standard II.C2) The Academic Support Division created a comprehensive program review report for 2004-2005 and a draft of their annual 2005-2006 assessment (scheduled for publication November I, 2006), which could be models for the entire college. These documents connect the division's goals, SLOs, assessment criterialkey measures of performance, and resources requirements. The division's reports provide a comprehensive summary of data collected and how that data was used to improvement the division's effectiveness. Conclusion In spite of the age of the buildings and the equipment, the library and learning support services are serving the needs of students, faculty and staff well. The bibliographic instruction and information literacy components of the program demonstrate the dedication of faculty to support student learning across the curriculum. And the possibility of a new facility to house all of these services is a welcome prospect which would further enhance student learning. In order to develop the most effective organization and staff structure within these various services, library and learning support services can make use of the comprehensi ve area review model developed by the Academic Support Division. Recommendation 4: 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. (Standard n.CI.a) 29 STANDARD HI Resources A. Human Resources General Comments A review of the documents and interviews with staff indicate that Windward community college has in place policies and procedures to ensure that the college employs personnel who are qualified by appropriate education, training and experience to support the college's programs and services. Hiring of faculty and staff at Windward is managed at 2 levels-the Board of Regents (BOR) appointments and the civil service appointments. The BOR appoints include the executivelmanagement (ElM) group, the faculty, and the administrative, professional and technical personnel (APT). All civil service positions (clerical and maintenance workers) are overseen at the system level by the Office of Human Resources in the University of Hawaii. ElM, APT and faculty hires are controlled at the college level with inclusive committee review and recommendations then go the deans and directors for action. Documents reviewed by the team indicate that the hiring process is fair and conforms to rigid review of minimum qualifications, desirable qualifications and unbiased selection. Findings and Evidence Although the process is different for the BOR hires and the civil service hires, the procedures for screening applications and interviewing qualified candidates is similar for both groups. After positions are approved, positions announcements are publicly posted listing the minimum and desirable qualifications. Committees are selected prior to the closing dates to ensure an unbiased committee and hiring proceeds in accordance with WCC Policy Guidelines No 4-20. (Standard lII.A.I.a) All employee categories have an established evaluation process. The ElM team is evaluated annually using a system-wide tool titled the 360 assessment. (Standard III.A.l.b) Faculty, prior to attaining tenure, are evaluated annually for a 5-year probationary period using a process outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. (Standard IILA.I.b) After achieving tenure, faculty are evaluated by students each semester and undergo a peer evaluation every 5 years. (Standard IILA.I.b) Interviews with faculty and staff as well as a review of the documentations indicates that there is diligence in monitoring the evaluation process and timelines for faculty, both tenured and adjunct. The team is concerned that student evaluations that are handwritten go directly back to the faculty member. Student's identity needs to be confidential to ensure that the evaluations are frank and that there is no retaliation from the faculty member. APT and civil service employees are also evaluated regularly with records kept either at the college or the system level. Again there is evidence that records show that the monitoring and documenting of these regular evaluations exist. (Standard IILA.I.b) Student learning outcomes (SLOs) are regularly included in the evaluation of faculty and others directly responsihle for student progress as evidenced by college evaluation forms and interviews with staff. (Standard III.A.I.c) Although there is no written code of professional conduct per se at the college, all employees must adhere to Chapter 84, Hawaii Revised Statues, Standards of Conduct. (Standard IILA.I.d) Surveys indicate that faculty and staff feel the college promotes ethical standards. The college employs a combination of full time and adjunct faculty at about a 50/50 ratio according to the Director of Administration, with lecturers (adjunct) teaching approximately 25% of the classes each semester. (Standard III.A.2) And according to a survey from the WCC Office of Human Services, 61 % of faculty and staff respondents agreed that the number of support staff providing services to students is adequate. Personnel records are kept at the system offices with shadow copies at the college when appropriate. Only authorized staff has access to employee personnel files. Diversity of staff and students is documented annually and is supported through hiring practices and staff development activities. Recruitment periods are extended when candidate pools do not meet or exceed diversity goals. (Standard III.A.4.b) Professional development opportunities are provided to all segments of the campus community. On campus activities in the form of workshops and all-campus convocations are offered regularly. Opportunities for participation at conferences off campus are offered to all constituencies on an application basis. (Standard III.A.5, lILA 5.a). Participants are asked to bring back reports and campus activities based on their funded activities. The team found that many aspects of college planning relies upon the effective use of the Banner system, and that the college community is not as familiar with Banner reporting and data extraction tools as it should be. It is suggested that staff development opportunities be provided to improve familiarity and knowledge of the Banner capabilities. (Standard III.A.5.b) The college regularly evaluates the use of its human resources and plans for new and replacement hires through review based on program review, the strategic plan and the hudget development process. Priorities are established using input from the campus community and using established procedures from the program review, plan and budget processes. (Standard III.A.6). 31 Conclusions Based on the review of the documents and interviews with faculty and staff the college is meeting or exceeding the requirements of Standard In A, Human Resources. No recommendations are necessary for this part of Standard III. Recommendation: None B. Physical Resources General Comments The college has physical resources, including land, facilities and equipment that support student learning programs and improve institutional effectiveness. The physical resource planning is integrated with the State of Hawai'i, University of Hawai'i, Community College System, and Windward College planning processes. The system, therefore, comprises multiple systems, policies, standards, and procedures to which Windward College must adhere to as an effective institution of higher learning. Findings and Evidence The college maintains 55 of its 64 acres of land to house 15 buildings comprising over 316,000 gross square feet. In addition the college maintains facilities at the Honolulu Community College and at Barber's Point. Even though the college enrollment has declined from its peak enrollment period, the college has constructed new facilities and renovated others in accordance with its Master Plan for campus development and has been appropriated $2.9 million to commence the design of a new $43 million Learning Resource Center. This new center will combine a number of programs and services that address issues of effectiveness and efficiency. (Standard I1LB.l.a, I.b., III B.2.a,2.b) The team found that the Windward physical resource planning is integrated with institutional planning within the context of the community college system planning, the higher education system planning, and the State of Hawai' i planning. Working within the context of the community college system, the higher education system, and the State capital improvement planning and appropriation process takes considerable effort and determination for the college to obtain funding for the initiatives that support its needs as identified in its own program review and planning process. The college regularly addresses its facility needs at the system level by pm1icipating in the "stake takers" presentations and by requesting funds for specific projects for both major capital improvements as well as Repair and Maintenance (R&M) needs. Obtaining funding for major capital improvements is a long process from initial contemplation to final construction funding. The college's facility master plan is in response to many months, 32 if not years, of planning and consideration of the needs of college and community it serves, and in response to the objectives of the greater system and needs of the State of Hawai'i, and of the University of Hawai'i, and of the UH Community College system. R&M requests are submitted on system forms and provide description of the projects, justifications, and impact if project is deferred. Currently there are about $5 million of R&M requests of which a third have been funded and two-thirds have been deferred. With such a sophisticated and complex political and higher education organizational scheme it takes a significant amount of knowledge, experience, and leadership skill to effectively advocate for the capital improvement needs of the college. (Standard II.B.2) While capital improvement funds are secured through the State's long-term capital improvement budgeting process, these funds do not always address the accompanying operational costs. These costs must be borne by the college within its own operation budget development process unless or until operational funding including needed staff positions can be secured through the state's budgeting process. Funding is not currently directly enrollment-driven and, consequently, additional buildings that may also generate additional enrollment may place constraints on the institution that possibly encroach upon competing interests within the college for limited funds. The college has included in its planning process a review of the Ii fe cycles of its facilities and equipment in order to effectively address the total cost of ownership and to prepare for long-term as well as short-term needs. Also, additional maintenance staff priorities are included in the college's strategic plan and are noted to be a level 2 priority. (Standard III.B.2.a) The college provides for a safe environment taking corrective measures by maintaining pathways, walkways, stairways, and ingress and egresses in good repair. In addition, the college maintains a well lit campus with sufficient emergency lighting. The college has documented faculty and staff perceptions of safety and adequacy of its facilities by including questions regarding safety and satisfaction in its college wide survey. It has a safety committee to examine and review college safety matters. (Standard III.B.l.a, l.b) The most appropriate and efficient use of the college's facilities is addressed on a regular basis through a process involving room and schedule requests that are reviewed by the department chairs, deans, and the Enrollment Management Committee. (Standard III.B.I.a) The team was very impressed by the cleanliness of the college buildings, grounds, and of the generally good repair of the facilities. Further the team noted the pride that the faculty, staff, and students have of the college facilities. The students have access to adequate and well maintained instructional space as well as space for recreational and student activities. The condition and adequacy of the college facilities fosters a genuine desire of students, faculty, and staff to explore the development and enhancement of upper division instruction on the Windward campus. Conclusions The college meets the standards of III.B. The college is to be commended for its efforts to promote the construction of new facilities and the inclusion of new Learning 33 Resource Center in the State of Hawai'i budget. While the current State budget is only for the initial development of working drawings, it an important initial step in obtaining this important physical resource for the college. (S tandard m.B.2.a) The physical resources that are at Windward College and those that are on the design stage demonstrate that the college has been quite effective in obtaining the resources that are necessary for the college to support the learning programs at the college and improve institutional effectiveness. (Standard m.B, III.B.2.b) Recommendation: None C. Technology Resources General Comments Technology resources of Windward College are used to support learning programs and services and to improve institutional effectiveness. The college integrates its technology planning with institutional planning. A review of the college's program review reports illustrate that the reports consider technology resources to keep up with current demand and current technological means of instruction to meet student expectations. (Standard III.C.2) Findings and Evidence The last evaluation team recommended that the college develop and adopt a technology vision statement. A reconstituted Technology Vision Committee began meeting as a standing committee in April 2005. The committee met as often as weekly at times developing a vision statement, which the committee adopted in December 2005. The college created the Technology Vision Committee to regularly examine the college's technology needs with regard to equipment, systems, instructional course development, instructional delivery using technology, and to make recommendations to the strategic planning committee that advances recommendations to the Budget Committee. Review of the technology needs of the college is assisted by the existence of a life-cycle replacement program used to technology purchases. In addition, the college has faculty and staff training sessions to keep the teaching faculty abreast of current methods of teaching and of the new technological methods for recording and reporting grades. (Standard III.C.l.b.c) The college, through the UH system, installed a rather new fiber optic network. The UH is responsible for system network reliability and disaster recovery, but the Windward College staff provide local support and assistance. Most faculty members have use of PC's that are less than four years old. The college has sufficient number of multi-media classrooms and computer labs to improve instruction delivery. The new Library Resource Center, which will soon be in the design phase, will provide additional technology resources to assist student learning. There are areas where wireless technology is provided but it is not yet available in most classrooms. (Standard HI.C.I) The college has access to a Banner student and fi nancial information system. That system, however, is not yet capable of providing uniform data reports to all the colleges in the system. Windward, however, has taken the initiative to extract data to provide useful information for program review and assessment purposes. In addition, program reviews include technology resource assessments and these find there way through the budget review and development process that incl udes review by the Technology Vision Committee, the Strategic Review Committee, and the Budget Committee. In addition, the college is represented on a UH system review committee. (Standard IlLC.l.d) There are multiple methods of distance education delivery that include cable TV, UH system, WebCT, and the use of the fiber optic system. While there are a number of distance education courses at Windward, the college has not developed an extensive offering. The strategic plan calls for the use of di stance education to further meet student demand and expectations of instruction delivery, and to increase enrollment. The student leadership at the college expressed to the visiting team a desire to increase the number of offerings to improve upon their learning options. The college has also gathered information from student focus groups to help determine the level of technology available to students and to assess instructional needs and opportunities. Students currently have access to the distance education courses offered throughout the entire system, and those courses can be articulated with the Windward program offerings. Further, the college is exploring the partnership with advance degree institutions to offer courses on Windward's campus or through distance education. A fully developed distance education course schedule and program offering at Windward will likely require additional technical assistance and instructional development human resources. The most recent biennium budget includes funding for a position to provide instructional assistance. The Technology Vision Committee has developed a job description and is anxious to see the job filled. (Standard IH.C.l.a) Conclusions Windward College has sufficient technology resources that are used to support the instructional program and to improve institutional effectiveness and meets the accreditation standards for technology. Technology planning is integrated with institutional planning that is evident at various places including program review, strategic plan; local, system, and state budget development. Because improving access, increasing participation, expanding educational delivery options, improving workforce development, and increasing enrollment all fit well within the missions and strategic plans at the state, University, CC system, and the college it is suggested that the college consider increasing the FTE to support the instructional technology effort. Recommendation: None D. Financial Resources General Comments The financial resources of Windward College are sufficient to support learning programs and services and to improve institutional effectiveness. Resources are planned, budgeted and distributed so that the resources support the development, maintenance, and enhancement of programs and services. The financial resources of the college are managed in such a way as to support the financial integrity of the institution and provide for both the short -term and long-term needs of the college. The financial planning process has been integrated into the college's institutional planning process. This is evidenced by the policies and procedures of the college as well as the UH system policies and procedures. (Standard III.D.I.a) Findings and Evidence The college is to be commended for the openness of its budget development process and the publication of policies, procedures, and minutes of its budget deliberation on its public web site. The publication affords the entire community of Windward College a window into the process and an opportunity to effectively influence the ultimate decisions that are made with regard to the distribution of financial resources. (Standard IIl.D.I.d) The college budgeting and planning process clearly includes deference to its own mission and strategic plan as well as that of the UH system. The missions and goals of each are noted in the college's budget and planning documents provided on its web pages. The college uses a standard syllabus form that includes the college's mission statement that sustains mission awareness throughout the year to faculty and student alike. The college's own budget committee represents a broad spectrum of the college constituencies. The classified support staff is not represented by a formal representative organization. Therefore, it is not possible support staff to collectively represent their views and needs or to report back to their constituency the impact of budget deliberations and recommendations. The team found that policies and procedures clearly note that budget priorities are based upon the program review and assessment. The current process is relatively new and it is not always clear from the minutes of the committee meetings that these reviews are systematically examined along with budget requests. Upon examination of documents it is not fully evident that the budget requests are reviewed in context with long-range financial priorities. Upon interviewing members the administration, faculty senate, student leadership, as well as strategic planning and budget committee members, however, it was confirmed that budget requests are tied to program review and that budget priorities are indeed promoted using program review information. (Standard III.A.l a, l.b, l.c) 36 The team examined program review documents to assess the link between program review and budgeting. It was observed that a link formally exists between review, planning and budgeting, but that the systemic strength of those links is still in the development stage due to the newness of the current policies and supporting processes. It was also observed that the results of program review that tended to be less favorable did not always result in budget allocation reductions. For example, where the program review report for Office Administration and Technology identified more than a forty percent reduction in enrollment, the response was that additional marketing was required as well additional funding for technology to bolster demand. Resources used to sustain declining programs possibly encroach upon emerging programs, and possibly conflict with both UH system and Windward strategic plans. This observation may suggest that program review recommendations do not always reflect realistic assessment of financial resources availability, but rather reflect more the departments' determination to promote its current budget and program status. On the other hand, the team recognizes that what appear to be contradictions may have ample strategic plan support. It is suggested that when budget recommendations and actions appear to conflict with the data that the reasoning for be fully explored and disclosed. (Standard III.D.l.b.3) The community colleges in the UH system are not individually audited but are included as part of the overall audit program of the UH system. Audit tests for compliance with generally accepted accounting standards as well as federal and state guidelines and requirements are a function of the system audit. While the audit findings and recommendations of the system audit are regularly addressed, the audit integrity of the individual colleges within the system is garnered primarily by way of the cumulative effect of college specific findings and by supplemental information including a combined statement of the seven community colleges. There is no indication from the audits of the UH system that Windward has not complied with any audit standard, or is in jeopardy of losing any benefits due a lack of audit compliance. Nevertheless, the Accrediting Commission had expressed a concern that there is no independent audit report reflect individual community college performance. Accordingly, there is evidence that the system community college administration has explored audit program options with the external auditor. These options have been shared with the ACCJC. With ACCJC concurrence the Board of Regents has agreed to incorporate community college balance sheet and income statements as supplemental information to the University's consolidated financial statements. The Commission has accepted this as a reasonable response to its concern subject to review in two years. The team confirmed that the external auditor has included in the Consolidated Financial Statements supplemental schedules III and IV representing consolidated statements of the community colleges in accordance with the agreement. Having complied with UH system audits, and having been subject to any Findings and Recommendations of the external auditor for the UH system, and having agreed to inclusion of supplemental financial statements, the team finds that Windward has met all audit standards. (Standard HI.D.2.a) Windward College provides appropriate financial in formation to departments and staff through the use of the UH integrated financial system. The system is used to report revenues, expenditures, and to provide reports to the college departments and staff. The system is available on-line and can generate hard-copy reports as needed. Currently a new UH system is being implemented to provide currency and upgrades. The UH will be providing training as needed. (Standard III.D.2.b) As with any multi-college system, cash flow and reserves are fundamentally a function and responsibility of the parent institution. The college's financial control and integrity is a function of staying within budget and appropriation accounts. Windward's financial records indicate that it stays within its budget and has effectively adjusted to extraordinary needs identified with regard to the utility expenses. (Standard III.D.2.c,2.d) All of the college's financial and budget transactions are recorded according to UH system procedures and rules. These include all auxiliary, grants, partnership programs. These programs are subject to the external audit that must audit for compliance with generally accepted accounting standards and those standards imposed by state and federal agencies. The college has not been noted for being in violation of any compliance standards. The evaluation of the college's financial management processes are examined as part of the system-wide audit. The team examined the system wide audit and noted no exceptions or compliance issues regarding any activity at the Windward College. (Standard III.D.2.d,2.e,2.f,2.g) The college has recently integrated the ETC that was once part of the UH system into its own institutional budget and instructional program. The college and ETC are still working through the marriage of the two institutions. Conclusions The college's recent effort and focus on improving program review and institutional planning, and linking the planning to resource allocation is very evident. The policies and procedures are relatively new, but there is evidence that the college community is well aware of the importance and benefit of the improvement. The link between program review, planning, and budget are evident in current documents and upon interview with various college constituencies. The college could improve the process by establishing a way to formalize the input and participation of the classified staff so as to obtain their collective view of needs, concerns, and recommendations; and so that information can be systematically disseminated to the constituency. The college meets the standard. Recommendation: None Standard IV Leadership and Governance A. Decision-Making Roles and Processes General Comments Windward College received a 2000 comprehensive evaluation recommendation that it implement a governance structure of committees that was formal and public as well as assure participation by all segments of the college community, including students. The college responded by implementing a governance policy consisting of standing councils, committees, and ad hoc committees. The lines of communication and effective participation by all constituent groups, especially concerning the classified staff, were identified in the college's self study report as issues needing to be addressed. The team found that the college does not have formalized processes and structures for lines of communication and relationships. The college does not have defined roles for all constituent groups and their participation in governance. The team determined that the college community is beginning to understand governance and the components which make it effective. The college does not have a defined systematic evaluation process in place to determine whether the structure effectively informs college decision making, improves lines of communication, or contributes to institutional effectiveness. Findings and Evidence The college received a 2000 comprehensive evaluation recommendation that it implement a governance structure of committees that was formal and public as well as assure participation by all segments of the college community, including students. The college responded by developing a governance structure policy (effective August 2005, revised October 2005). The Accreditation Standard IV Self Study Committee developed the new structure of councils, standing and ad hoc committees based on its own findings during the self study process. The Standard IV Committee designed a rubric for the classification and purposes of councils and committees and then the committee requested each existing councilor committee to codify their own charge, membership, decision-nature, documentation, etc., using the committee designed template, and the results of this process became the new structure. The template and all the councils and committees are placed on the college's website as well as the current membership. It was unclear to the team who formally reviewed this new governance document before it was approved by the chancellor and implemented beginning fall 2005. (Standard IV.A.2, A.3) The self study report indicated that the college "practices shared governance involving faculty, staff, students, clerical staff and operations and maintenance staff' and the structure of councils and committees was developed "to provide participation of all constituent groups in deliberations regarding day-ta-day and long range planning and policies for the college." The team did not find evidence to support this statement. The college's self study report indicated, and the team confirmed that no flow chart on the 39 lines of communication and relationships for the governance stmcture exists and that the college is still experiencing communication problems especially with staff. The team determined, based on review of minutes, that their distribution is not consistent or are they in any standard format. The new governance policy does not delineate the specific roles and responsibilities of each constituent in college governance except for the Faculty Senate (Standard IV.A.2.a, A.2.b,) and in some cases the selection process for members of the councils and committees. Duri ng the time period of creating the governance structure it was decided by the College Council, a constituent based group formed for the purpose of providing information only, that this council was no longer needed. Also, the Strategic Planning Committee had taken on a greater influence within governance, yet it should be noted this committee is not constituent based. The review of minutes of the both the Strategic Planning Committee and the Budget Committee indicate a lack of specificity of what occurs during the meeting and it is unclear what informs decision-making. (Standard IV.A.l, A.2, A.3) The college used faculty, staff, and student perception surveys to determine the effectiveness of college decision-making roles and processes. (Standard IV.A.2.a, IV.A.3) The surveys were administered in fall 2005, which occulTed at the same time their governance stmcture and policies were approved (effective August 2005, revised October 2005) and at the beginning of implementation. Therefore, it is difficult to surmise how the survey results informed the college of the effectiveness of the new governance structure. The survey results showed faculty satisfaction at 74% excellent and satisfactory for overall all involvement in campus decision-making, yet for the level of involvement in budgeting satisfaction was 43% and setting campus priorities (planning) was 54%. Both of these ratings indicate that integrated planning and budgeting were still being refined within the new governance stmcture. The college states it is using program reviews (only one cycle of programs completed) to inform its planning processes. The college states it has no formal process for determining the use of campus facilities and that these decisions are not considered within the strategic planning processes. The college self study report planning agenda to address facilities planning is to create a Master Plan Committee charged to work with the Strategic Planning Committee to jointly consider programmatic issues of the Master Plan. All of the above suggests that the college is still refining its planning cycle to integrate all facets that affect final plans and college direction. It is suggested that the college streamline its governance structures (possibly reducing the number of committees) and detail the flow of decisions and how each committee's decisions/recommendations inform other committee decisions. It appears an institutional overview or "big picture" perspective on integrated planning and budgeting still needs to be communicated by the leadership. (Standard IV.A.2.a) As stated before, the college does have clearly defined roles for its faculty. (Standard IV.A.2.b) The chancellor and the university president have authority only to approved or disapprove Faculty Senate Constitution. The Faculty Senate is elected by the faculty and operates independently with a line of authority that originates from the faculty. The survey results indicate that satisfaction of faculty involvement in campus hiring was 74%; curriculum approval, 78%; and program review, 70%. The results of the staff survey indicated the level of satisfaction for involvement in campus decision making was at 28%; for involvement in budgeting, 16£]7 setting 0; campus priorities, 247c. For students, the results indicated the level of satisfaction for involvement in campus decision-making and setting campus priorities were both 51 %. For both staff and students, the perceptions of deci sion-making involvement and processes effectiveness are significantly lower than the faculty perceptions. (Standard IV.A.2, IV.A.3) The college has a planning agenda to solicit suggestions from the staff regarding improving communication and staff part icipation in planning and decision- making. The planning agenda for students is to sol icit suggestions regarding improving awareness of opportunities for student involvemen t in campus activities and decision- making. It should be noted that these are not planned outcomes, but initial explorations to gain suggestions. Based on recommendations from the college's 2000 recommendations and the subsequent progress reports and visits, the college has not responded expeditiously in all areas. (Standard IV.A.4) The college has been slow to implement program review and thus does not have a fully implemented integrated planning and budgeting process, which should have been in place to meet the ACCJC 1996 Standards. The team in interviews with the Strategic Planning Committee and Budget Committee observed a willingness of the members to further refine the processes, structures, membership; and, most importantly, to determine the measurable outcomes by which to set institutional planning goals and directions and then to measure its progress. These members appeared to understand the additional institutional work required to the meet the standard. The college moved very slowing in implementing a governance structure as the current one has been in place only one year. The college used a perception survey to evaluate the role of leadership and the institution's governance and decision-making structure and processes. The self study report does not indicate any systematic policy with timelines to determine its effectiveness in governance. (Standard IV.A.5) Again, the survey was administered at the same time the new governance structure was being implemented, so the results cannot be an evaluation of the new structure. Even the faculty perception survey rated the availability of opportunities to evaluate college governance and decision-making process at 47%. The faculty perception survey indicated an excellent or satisfactory rating of leadership effectiveness for the UH system president as 83% (he had been in office as an interim for one year at the time of the survey); for the chancellor, 65%; and for the individual college administrators the rating ranged from 73% to 79%; and overall administration a 63%. The faculty senate leadership was rated as 64% by the faculty. Faculty rated effectiveness of communication channels at 52%. The staff perception survey indicated a satisfactory rating for the UH system president as 64(fo; the chancellor, 48%; and the overall effectiveness of administration, 40%. The 41 overall attitude of campus administration toward staff involvement in decision-making was rated 32% by staff. Staff rated effectiveness of communication channels at 48%. Given the low perceptions of communication channels effectiveness by both faculty and staff, the lack of a flow chart on the lines of communication within the governance structure, the college's planning agenda to develop a flow chart is appropriate. More importantly, the college needs to evaluate, revise, and implement a governance structure that meets the standard. (Standard IV.A) Conclusions The college has completed only one year of implementing its new decision-making governance structure and processes. It took the college a long time to get to this point, yet there are still problems of unclear lines of communication and relationships within the structure and there is no system in place to eval uate the effectiveness of the structure and processes. The college needs to take actions to make the processes more inclusive and effective, especially for staff; and define the roles and responsibilities for all constituent groups to ensure accountability of its governance structure. The college might benefit by reducing the number of committees and councils and focusing on an institutional perspective of what is to be accomplished and how it will be accomplished versus creating more groups to handle facets/functions without first determining relationships among the various groups. To evaluate the effectiveness of its governance structure and processes, the college needs to focus on the outcomes of its institutional goals achieved versus relying on perceptions of effectiveness and then make the appropriate changes for improvement. (Standard IV.A) The college has not meet all the components of Standard IV.A. Recommendation 5: The team recommends, to ensure 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 to ensure internal best practices are shared. In addition, the college should implement an annual evaluation process to assess the effectiveness of leadership and decision making which leads to institutional improvement. (Standard IV.A.l, A.2, A.3, A.5) B. Board and Administrative Organization Comments Since the 2000 accreditation visit, the UH System and the community colleges have undergone several major changes. The current structure, implemented June 2005, 42 consists of a university president, a vice president of community colleges, and seven chancellors of the community colleges. The chancellors have a dual reporting relationship to both the university president through the Council of Chancellors and the vice president of community colleges. The Board of Regents expanded its Committee on Community Colleges from two members to five members and to date has held four committee meetings. The system is currently delineating the roles, responsibilities and authorities within the administrative and governance structures through functional maps to ensure participation of constituent groups. The structure and maps are available on the website. Because the structure is new and still being refined, no systematic evaluation of its effectiveness has been completed. Findings and Evidence: The system has clearly undergone major changes since the 2000 ACCJC visit. In 2002, under a different university president, the chancellor for community colleges position was deleted and all community college presidents became chancellors with responsibilities for the total operation of their colleges and reported to the university system president. Many of the prior system functions that were administered by community college system were merged with university staff. When the new and current president began in 2004, it was his assessment and those within the community colleges that the organizational changes were not effective. The current structure, implemented in June 2005, created a new position at the system level, Vice President for Community Colleges (VPCC) within the University of Hawaii (UH) System with the responsibilities of executive leadership, policy decision-making, resource allocation, development of appropriate support services for the seven community college system, governance, and advocacy for the community colleges. The academic and administrative support unites for the community colleges are now associate vice presidents and report directly to the VPCc. The community college chancellors have dual reporting relationships to both the university system president for matters of UH system concern, and to the VPCC for community college matters. The chancellors are the college chief executive officers with authority and leadership responsibilities for the immediate operation, management, administration, and governance of their colleges within the Board of Regents and Presidential administrative policy. The system response report indicates that the VPCC and his staff are working with both colleges and UH system personnel to establish clear reporting lines and levels of authority and responsibility for system staff and colleges. The organizational structure is available on the system website. A map of the University of Hawaii Community Colleges (UHCC) System is available on the system website and details the allocation of functional authority between the colleges and the system. The effectiveness of the new organization will need be assessed by both the system and colleges to determine the effectiveness of the new structure. The complexity of the UH system as well as the newly created UHCC system with dual reporting relationships of the chancellors as well as a Board of Regents Committee of Community Colleges still begs the question, "has the right balance of centralization/decentralization been achieved to effectively carry out the mission for the community colleges and their students" and it is probably too soon to answer. The colleges and the system are still in the process of refining and delineating the lines of authority and responsibility of both leadership of individuals and constituencies within the July 2005 Board of Regents approved organizational structure for the UHCC system including the creation of the Vice President for Community Colleges and the restructuring of his direct reports and their office functions authority and responsibilities. (Standard IV.B) The UH system Board of Regents has ultimate responsibility as stated in their administrative policy for assuring the quality, integrity, and effectiveness of the student learning programs and services and the financial stability of the community colleges and the universities. (Standard IV. B.l, B.l.b) The Board of Regents Committee on Community Colleges (five members) was created to specifically address the needs of the community colleges within the context of the broader system, which has met four times on these areas: • The board community college mission (November 2005) • The financial health of the community colleges (April 2006) • Program review and assessment (July 2006) • Planning direction for the next year (planned for August 2006, but did not meet) A review of the minutes indicated that community college issues were thoroughly presented and discussed. The agenda and minutes were placed on the website. The team confirmed that the Board of Regents selects and evaluates the system president and he in turn evaluates the community college chancellors and the VPCc. (Standard IV.B.l) Per an interview with the president, the chancellors and the VPCC have been evaluated once under the new structure. The added Board of Regents structure of the Committee on Community Colleges creates the potential of another layer policy-making, but based on interviews with board members, it is only the Board of Regents who approves policy. (Standard IV.B.I.a, IV. B. I.c) The college self study report indicated that the Board of Regents website does not have the dates when minutes and notices of agendas are posted, which may impact participation at board meetings. At the time of the writing of the self study report this was a true statement, but team verified that this situation no longer exists. The team determined that the Board of Regents and the Committee on Community Colleges (CCC) do not have a system for evaluating and revising its policies on a regular basis. (Standard IV.B.l.e) Also, because the Board "j Regents CCC is new, it is unclear what board development and new member orientation programs are in place, if any, other than the initial three meetings held since November 2005, which appeared to be an orientation to their own community colleges. (Standard IV.B.l.f) In interviews with the Board of Regent members, it was learned that several members have only been on the board for less than two years. All confirmed they did go through an orientation program delivered by the system staff. The Board of Regents does have a clearly defined, implemented, and published policy on its self evaluation and was approved at its October 19,2006. (Standard IV.B.I.g) The Board of Regents (BOG Policy, Article X, and HRS Chapter 84) has a clearly defined policy on its code of ethics. (Standard IV.B.l.h) Of the three meetings held by the BOG Committee on Community Colleges, accreditation was discussed at two meetings. The college's self study report indicated that the full board had not been involved directly in the accreditation process. However, the new structure is a response to previous ACCJC recommendations and visits and it was obvious to the team that the ACCJC recommendations were taken very seriously. (Standard IV.B.l.i) The president of the UH system has full responsibility and authority for the execution of the policies authorized and established by the BOR (BOG Policy, Chapter 2), and this policy cities his duties and the board's evaluation of him. The BaR approves the appointment of the VPCC and the college chancellors. (Standard IV.B.lj) The effectiveness of these processes has not been determined. Per the organizational structure adopted in July 2005, the college chancellors have full authority and responsibility for their colleges and the VPCc, his staff, and the chancellors are currently working on further delineating responsibilities and lines of communication and beginning to assess the effectiveness of the new structure. And because the implementation of the structure is in the beginning stages, it will be a few years before evaluations can determine the effectiveness of outcomes and actions. The functional roadmap outlining the current structure is on the system website. (Standard IV.B.2, B.2.a, B.3.f, B.3.g) In the Standard IV.A findings and evidence section of this document, the results of the faculty and staff perception survey reflected that the faculty viewed their chancellor's performance and the administrative structure positively in most areas, but the staff did not hold those same opinions, in fact the results were quite negative. The college's planning agenda for addressing the perceptions is to consult with faculty and staff to determine if a reorganization of the college's administrative structure is needed. The college self study report indicated that the chancellor has guided the institutional improvement of teaching and learning environment as evidenced by the approval of the 2002 revised mission statement, vision statement and core values. The college's newly implemented program review, planning, and budgeting cycle were also evidence of the chancellor's involvement in institutional improvement. The college currently has the practice of updating annually its Strategic Plan for 2002-2010, instead of having annual implementation plans to reach the goals set in the strategic plan. It should be noted that many of the goals in the plan are "activities" and "to do's" not strategic directions wi th implementation outcomes which can be measured. The college's self study report indicated that the college follows all statutes, regulations and UH BaR policies in its day-to-day operations, but gives no specific evidence. (Standard IV.B.2.c) The first cycle of the budget process was completed in spring 2006, and it was reported that there is a new sense of shared governance as a result, which was not reflected in the 2005 perception survey. Also, the word "transparent" was used to describe the last year's budget due to the new strategic planning process. The college ends each year with a balanced budget. (Standard IV.B.2.d) The college provided considerahle evidence that the chancellor communicates effectively with the communities served by the college. (Standard IV.B.2.e) She has heen involved with nine local groups and her efforts have resulted in partnerships, additional funding, and donations. The new system structure and the creation of the VPCC and the BOG CCC were implemented to address Standard IV.B.3. The VPCC, his staff and the chancellors are currently refining the functional roadmap delineating functions. (Standard IV.B.3.a) The system president in his Fehruary 2006 presentation to the BaR outlined the Devolution Initiative in which the system will work with the campuses to locate more resources at the campuses, closer to the students they serve. He is reviewing the cost effectiveness and efficiency of the system operations and how well they serve the colleges and their students and missions. This appears to be further review, study and possible modification of the centralization/decentralization structure issues. (Standard IV.B.3.b) The UHCC system office coordinates the budget development and request process for the UHCC system, which is viewed as a single unit of the UH budget. All major units take part in the University Stocktaking process and present budget proposal to the UH Biennium Budget Committee. (Standard IV.B.3.c) The VPCC, in consultation with the Council of Community College Chancellors, has begun discussions on how to allocate UHCC system resources based on program review. The UHCC system requested funds for positions to directly support accreditation program review/assessment processes at the colleges and it was partially funded. These actions were a result of the UHCC system responding to accreditation recommendations. The Financial Management Information System (FMIS) of the UH was implemented in July 1996 and provides the basic mechanism to monitor and control the financial resources of the UH. The VPCC has functional responsibly for ensuring that the community college system effectively controls its expenditures under the direction of the system president. (Standard IV.B.3.d) The new organizational structure of July 2005 holds the college chancellors accountable for the operations of the colleges. (Standard IV.B.3.e) The college self study report indicates no major concerns regarding the system budget processes and monitoring functions. Conclusions The UH System and the UHCC system have made concerted efforts over the last few years to change their organization to meet the accreditation standards. The process was very thoughtful and deliberately based on agreed upon criteria. The implementation of these changes takes time in such complex systems, but it would appear that the initial outcomes are positive and that the changes were made in collaboration with all those affected to enhance buy-in. It will be a few more years before the actual effectiveness of the organization can be evaluated. The UH System and the UHCC system have essentially met the standard of IV.B given the time since initial implementation in July 2005 with the exception of evaluating whether this new organization is effective and leads to the improvement of the community colleges and serves the needs of its students. Summary The visitation team was impressed with the college's programs and services and the outreach to the community to address cultural and other issues. The college has a dedicated faculty, staff, administrators, and Board members. The team observed a wealth of collegiality among the faculty. The Employment Training Center was impressive, especially the efforts of this center to serve at-risk students. The campus is in a beautiful setting and the maintenance of facilities and grounds is exemplary. The college has sophisticated science facilities. The team especially commends the college for the following strengths: I. The transparency of the budget process. 2. The outstanding fundraising efforts to expand the donor population including substantial grant acquisitions. 3. Outstanding marketing materials and ability to produce outstanding documents on campus. Windward College has made great strides over the last few years in meeting accreditation standards. Despite the enormous gains made to date, much remains to be done to address a complete planning process that utilizes assessment to make the modifications needed to achieve true improvement in student success and operational efficiencies. In summary, the team recommendations are: Recommendation 1: Improving Institutional Effectiveness 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. (Standard I.B.7) Recommendation 2: Student Learning Outcomes 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, and program and degree levels. (Standard II.A.I.c). Recommendation 3: Student Success The college should define the at-risk population, develop and implement specific strategies for addressing the needs of the at-risk population, and create mechanisms for the continuous assessment and improvement of services to this population. (Standard ILB.3.c) Recommendation 4: Library and Learning Support Services 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. (Standard II.C.I.a) Recommendation 5: Governance Structure Policy The team recommends, to ensure 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 to ensure internal best practices are shared. In addition, the college should implement an annual evaluation process to assess the effectiveness of leadership and decision making which leads to institutional improvement. (Standard IV.A.l, A.2, A.3, A.5) From October 23-26,2006, peer evaluation teams visited the seven community colleges of the University of Hawaii (UH) system. This report represents the findings of the evaluation team that visited Windward Community College. The chairs of the seven teams formed an eighth team which evaluated the system functions and interactions with the colleges, including Windward College. The peer evaluation by the eighth team will result in a system level report with commendations and recommendations. This system level report will be available as an attachment to this report in final form.
Pages to are hidden for
"ACCREDITING COMMISSION for COMMUNITY and JUNIOR COLLEGES "Please download to view full document