Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Get this document free

ACCREDITING COMMISSION for COMMUNITY and JUNIOR COLLEGES

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 53

									                             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: accjc@accjc.org
       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.

								
To top