Bakersfield College INTERIM REPORT by xuh86054


									       Bakersfield College


 Submitted to the Accrediting Commission
   for Community and Junior Colleges,
Western Association of Schools and Colleges

               April 1, 2002

             Bakersfield College
             1801 Panorama Dr.
            Bakersfield, CA 93305
               (661) 395-4011
                                               Bakersfield College

                                           INTERIM REPORT

                                      Table of Contents

STATEMENT OF REPORT PREPARATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

        Recommendation 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
        Recommendation 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
        Recommendation 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
        Recommendation 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
        Recommendation 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
        Recommendation 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
        Recommendation 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

        Appendix A (Attachments)
                  Item 1     Matrix of Current BC Plans & Responsible Administrators
                  Item 2     List of Participants Involved in Planning & Reporting Activities
                  Item 3     Strategy to Study & Institutionalize Assessment
                             BC Institutional Effectiveness Strategy Cycle
                  Item 4     List of Currently Produced Reports Contributing to Student Assessment
                  Item 5     BC Student Success Linked Courses: Results
                  Item 6     Student Outcomes Assessment Statement of Philosophy
                  Item 7     District Budget Allocation Model

        Appendix B (Referenced Documents)
                  Item 1     Office of Student Learning Program Review Report
                  Item 2     Bakersfield College Student Outcomes Assessment Proposal
                  Item 3     Samples of Current Reports on Student Outcomes Assessment
                  Item 4     District Assessment for Partnership for Excellence Report

Statement on Report Preparation

This statement describes the process of report preparation and identifies those who were
involved in its preparation, review, and approval.

An Accreditation Team visited the campus on October 24-26, 2000. Accreditation was
reaffirmed for Bakersfield College, with a requirement that the College complete an Interim
Report. Commission representatives will conduct a follow-up visit on April 16, 2002. This
“Statement of Report Preparation” clarifies how far the campus has evolved through its re-
organization plans as well as the steps and participants involved with producing the
Accreditation Interim Report.

Before documenting Bakersfield College’s preparation efforts, it is important to note that the
contentious climate that existed across campus in Fall 2000 has greatly dissipated since the last
faculty contract was settled in November 2000. Contract negotiations on a new three-year
contract are in progress, utilizing interest based bargaining. To date, these negotiations have
been productive and more collegial than past efforts.

Before the College could fully address the Accreditation Team’s seven recommendations,
however, the district- and campus-wide reorganization plans underway at the time of the Team’s
visit needed to be moved forward by permanently filling positions. Since that date, a Vice
President of Student Learning (June 2001), Vice President of Student Services (February 2002),
and two Deans of Student Learning (January 2002) have been hired. An additional Dean of
Student Learning remains filled by an interim, and the Dean of Students position remains vacant
due to inadequate pools. Both positions are expected to be permanently filled by July 1, 2002.

The College’s Director of Business Services was promoted to Assistant Chancellor of
Administration for the Kern Community College District in April 2001. Subsequently, the
College’s Office of Administrative Services was re-organized. An Executive Director of
Administrative Services and External Relations was hired in July 2001. The College’s new
Director of Business Services was filled in February 2002. Also underway is the reorganization
of the faculty leadership structure, streamlining a two-tiered division/department chair structure
to a department chair structure. The faculty leadership shift is expected to be completed by July
2002 as part of current contract negotiations.

There was also an organizational and operational study—known as the KH Study—in progress at
the time of the accreditation visit. The study’s completion in March 2001 generated the
formation of a district-wide implementation team (May 2001) that serves as a Steering
Committee. Action teams were formed at all four district locations and were charged with
developing plans appropriate to the KH Study’s recommendations. KH Action Teams are
sharing progress reports at Bakersfield College in March and April 2002, clarifying what the KH
Recommendations really mean for the campus. Complete updates can be reviewed on the KH
web page:

At Bakersfield College, the campus Strategic Action Plan, Accreditation Plans, and
Reorganization Plan provided a strong foundation for integrating all ongoing planning activities
while reducing duplication of effort. To ensure accountability, the President’s Administrative

Council serves as the steering committee that oversees the ongoing implementation of the
Strategic Action Plans, Accreditation Plans and KH Action Plans. A Matrix of Plans (see
Appendix A, item 1) has been developed and a responsible administrator has been assigned to
each plan to monitor progress.

The preparation of responses to each of the Accreditation Team’s recommendations was initially
assigned to an already existing committee (Accreditation Standard Team, KH Action Team, etc.)
and then expanded as appropriate to include all campus constituents (see Appendix A, item 2).
As each response was prepared, it was reviewed through a collaborative process, and then all
responses were collated into the Interim Report.

To coordinate timely dissemination of information, opportunities for feedback, and ongoing
follow-up, accreditation has remained a regular Administrative Council agenda item. The
Academic Senate and Kern Community College District Board of Trustees have received
progress updates throughout the year. The Interim Report was presented to the Academic Senate
President and Vice President, the Associated Students of Bakersfield College President, the
Bakersfield College Administrative Council and the KCCD Board of Trustees. All employees
and the Board of Trustees were notified by e- mail that the Interim Report was placed in the
library and on the college’s web site (

Responses to Recommendations
Recommendation 1:
While the existing mission of the college has been revised numerous times and is prominently
displayed in each building, the college mission should be inclusive of its broad-based
educational programs and articulate the diversity of students to be served by the institution. The
vocational education and economic development elements of the mission should be specifically
addressed. (Standards 1.1, 1.2, 2.6, 4A.1)

In Fall 2001, the College President convened an Institutional Mission Committee constituted
with representatives from the accreditation subcommittees for Standard 1(Institutional Mission)
and Standard 4 (Educational Programs). Any other individuals interested in assessing the
existing Mission Statement were added to the Committee. The Committee’s charge was to
assess Bakersfield College’s Mission Statement against the standard and to revise if necessary.

The Committee embarked on eight steps to create a new institutional mission statement:
   1. Review the purpose of a mission statement.
   2. Validate the College’s existing vision, purpose, values and goals.
   3. Brainstorm and evaluate responses to four questions: Who are we? What do we do? For
      whom do we do it? Why do we do it?
   4. Identify the resulting key messages to be included in the Mission Statement and draft a
      new mission statement.
   5. Refine this new statement through the efforts of a working sub-group.
   6. Prepare two versions of the Mission Statement for review by a council of faculty chairs
      and educational administrators.
   7. Use feedback to revise the draft of the Mission Statement for college-wide distribution,
      asking for additional input.
   8. Finalize, adopt and distribute a fully revised Mission Statement for Bakersfield College.

The most current revision of the College Mission Statement is under final review and will be
available for review when the Accreditation Team visits in April. That revised statement defines
the College ’s broad educational purpose; identifies the students it serves, including all aspects of
diversity; and clarifies a commitment to student learning. Once approved, the adopted statement
will be prominently placed in college publications and on the College ’s web site. The College
will replace framed copies of its Values, Vision, Mission and Goals throughout its campus and
two centers by Summer 2002. Collectively, the Values, Vision, Mission, and Goals developed
by Bakersfield College guide institutional planning and decision- making.

Recommendation 2:
Evidence exists that the college has attempted to establish good planning processes; however,
the college should document achievements for its intended institutional outcomes. The final
college authority in the decision making process should be identified and methods for tracking
progress and completion be developed. To assist the college in accomplishing this
recommendation, district leadership should provide a response to the recommendations made by
the college within a well-defined timeline. (See Standard 7, Response to Recommendations of the
Previous Team, and Standards 3C.1, 10B.5, 10B.6, 10B.9, 10B.10)

As noted earlier, the district performed a sophisticated, district-wide systems analysis called the
KH Study that proposed myriad reforms in managerial, governance, and educational systems,
including the need to focus on institutional effectiveness and outcomes measures. These
directives mirror ACCJC concerns that Bakersfield College needs to put into operation its clear
planning process. To help initiate these changes, the College has recruited a new Vice President
of Student Learning from the North Central Accreditation Region, a new Vice President of
Student Services from the Southern Accreditation Region, and several new deans who
collectively possess broad experience in student outcomes assessment, planning, and
accountability systems. In addition, the President and the Office of Student Learning have
initiated a vigorous dialog on both the campus and within the district via the “KH
Implementation Process” regarding integrated planning and student outcomes assessment.

Bakersfield College remains committed to establishing the outcomes assessment measures as
well as the tracking and review processes needed to fully implement strategic planning efforts
that will integrate learning and service, budget allocation and planning, innovation and
accountability. Toward that end, the President’s Administrative Council serves as the campus
steering committee to ensure appropriate progress for all campus undertakings. Each plan—
whether emerging from accreditation recommendations, KH Action Teams or ongoing internal
review and implementation processes—works through a campus collaborative process and is
assigned a responsible administrator to monitor progress. A matrix of these campus plans has
been developed. (See Appendix A, item 1).

To put campus-wide planning into action, the College has expanded its “Strategic Action Plan,”
which is currently being monitored through the Office of Student Learning. This Plan delineates
the seven comprehensive goals or strategic initiatives that support campus-wide planning and
implementation efforts.

Measurable outcomes are an expected component of each initiative:
      1. To provide all students with the competencies necessary for learning and earning.
      2. To increase funding.
      3. To require accountability.
      4. To increase operational flexibility.
      5. To improve our public image and support.
      6. To improve college climate and culture.
      7. To effectively allocate resources.

To further clarify the relationship between planning, assessment outcomes and budget allocation,
the College has re-defined its Budget and Program Review Committee (BPR). This rigorous
program review process evaluates the activities and priorities of all programs and areas on
campus on a staggered cycle, so each area reviews its own progress annually but is critically
reviewed campus-wide once every four years. The programs employ these self-reviews to focus
their goals, justify their programs, and identify needs. Based on this iterative internal self-
assessment process, the programs produce their own educational plans that together constitute
the Bakersfield College Educational Master Plan.

The Office of Student Learning was one of the most recent “programs” across campus to submit
its plan to BPR for review (March 2002). This Plan fully documents the College’s new focus on
the integration of instruction and service as well as its commitment to student outcomes
assessment and accountability. (See Appendix B, item 1). The detail, assessment outcomes,
and cogent review now evident in this (and every) program plan demonstrates how the
Educational Master Plan readily ties functional level planning for student learning, student
services, facilities, technology, human resources, staffing and recruitment, administrative
services, and college advancement to the College Vision, Mission and Goals.

Other campus-wide activities note the steps Bakersfield College routinely takes in putting its
strategic plan into action. For examples, consider the collaborative approach used to revise the
College Mission Statement (see Recommendation 1) and the progress made in improving the
research potential on campus and throughout the district (see Recommendation 3). Other
activities across campus demonstrate how separate activities work together to fully develop the
College’s commitment to student outcomes assessment, strategic planning and accountability.
Such interdependency is inter-woven throughout the following activities:

 ??   In cooperation with the Office of Student Learning, faculty members, including
      representatives of the Senate Executive Committee, are providing leadership in developing
      and advocating a proposed model for assessing student outcomes and institutional
      effectiveness. A Student Outcomes Assessment Proposal has been prepared. (See
      Recommendation 4 & Appendix B, item 2).
 ??   Tied to the proposed outcomes assessment plan is an intra-campus, coordinated educational
      master planning process based on a common taxonomy, including functional level plans,
      developed by a district-wide committee. Two documents—“Strategy to Study &
      Institutionalize Assessment” and “BC Institutional Effectiveness Cycle”—have been
      prepared to demons trate how planning, budgeting, and outcomes data can be communicated
      and employed across campus to continuously improve institutional effectiveness,
      curriculum, and pedagogy. (See Appendix A, item 3).


 ??   To help with this process, BPR is considering the creation of a new committee on
      institutional effectiveness that will plan and document institutional effectiveness through
      the use of student outcomes assessment data. One model under consideration is the one
      employed by the Community Colleges of Denver; there, an annually renewed team of
      faculty, staff, and administrators analyze and format the outcomes data, feeding it back into
      the budget and planning, curriculum, and program review processes.
 ??   Ultimately, the colleges and district office will coordinate and articulate their educational
      master plans, which are intended to inform and influence the strategic planning process at
      the district level.

Overall, the College is confident that it will continue to make progress as it implements its
strategic planning process to ensure institutional effectiveness. This integrated approach to
planning, budgeting, outcomes assessment, and decision- making is both a district and a local
imperative, especially in view of the current financial challenges in the State, the California
higher education system, and—in particular—the Kern Community College District. Over the
next few years, Bakersfield College expects to document steady improvements, which will be
reported in its next Accreditation Self-Study (2006-2007).

Recommendation 3:
To obtain data to be used in the various planning and evaluation processes, the college depends
on data retrieved from the State Chancellor’s Office. Significant improvements can be achieved
if the district works cooperatively with the college to make data accessible and understandable.
In order to meet the accreditation standard, the recommendation is that the college and the
district develop processes and methods to access timely and accurate data from the District
Management Information System. (Standards 3A.1, 3A.3, 10C.4)

The College’s research capacity has been strengthened considerably since the last ACCJC site
visit. It is no longer accurate that the “Research Center as originally conceived is essentially
non- functional.” The “research assistant” mentioned in the ACCJC site visitation report has
proved to be a highly committed professional who is technologically literate and sophisticated in
institutional research techniques. This Institutional Research Analyst has developed creative
methods for negotiating through the Banner system, Schedule Plus 2, and the District MIS

The Research Analyst regularly reports grade distributions, student retention and success rates,
FTES and FTEF data for departments and programs, awards by major program, transfer rates,
PFE goal results, “Student Right to Know” rates and placement data. (See Appendix A, item 4;
Appendix B, item 3).

However, the College still faces the issue of data accessibility. Access to data is limited to
‘canned’ Banner reports and, for researchers, the MIS referential files. However, progress is
being made in this area. The district agrees that data access is a priority in the face of escalating
reporting requirements and the advancing issues of student outcomes assessment and
institutional effectiveness measures.

A district-wide task force is addressing the issues of research needs and data accessibility. One
of this team’s activities is the development of a prototype data warehouse system that will be
implemented during Summer 2002. The vision for this system is to allow users to view data
(such as student outcomes data or demographic data) on- line by selecting parameters of their
choice and further, to allow researchers to extract data elements for advanced studies. There is
also the need to identify, prioritize and categorize district-wide research needs and resources.
Due to this effort, the district created a unified list of all the data elements that need to be
available to the researchers at the three colleges. Progress has also been made towards the
formation of a district research cooperative in order to ensure data consistency and accuracy and
to avoid duplication of effort. This data warehouse project is the top funding priority for the
District Data Processing Department, after regularly funded items.

To support these district-wide efforts, the KH Action Team confirmed that each campus needs to
establish a research team that supports campus activities and funnels information and feedback to
the district team. An additional component of Bakersfield College’s expanding research
capabilities is the student outcomes assessment initiative; to forward that effort, the BC Office of
Research and Planning has prepared an inventory, listing some of the student outcomes reports
currently available. (See Appendix A, item 4). Furthermore, Bakersfield College is exploring
external funding and revenue sources to further strengthen its expanding research capacity.

Finally, there are several other positive changes in the Office of Research and Planning this year.
The office was moved to a larger location and additional storage was provided for some of the
historic reports that were inherited from retiring administrators. The office was also provided
with a sophisticated color printer that allows for more elaborative and visually expressive
graphing and increased saliency in reporting. The researcher was also provided appropriate
hardware needed to perform effective data backups. These changes have contributed to
increased efficiency and productivity. On the negative side, BC has put on hold the search for a
Director of the Office of Research and Planning due to the invidious impact of the “50% Law.”
Filling this position remains a priority for the President and the Office of Student Learning, but
the state funding challenge makes it necessary to find an alternative revenue stream to support
this position in the near term.

Recommendation 4:
Although the Strategic Action Plan identifies specific measurable objectives related to the
mission and purpose of the college, the institutional outcomes assessments section of the
Institutional Effectiveness standard is weak. Considerable improvements can be made. It is
recommended that the college systematically implement its plans and evaluate the outcomes of
its current plans prior to embarking upon a new planning process. (Standards 3C.1, 3C.2, 3C.3,

Response to Recommendation #2 reviews the fuller planning and implementation steps that have
been initiated as Bakersfield College tackles institutional effectiveness as a college goal. In that
response, the role of the President’s Administrative Council as a campus steering committee and
the collaborative review provided by the College’s Budget and Program Review Committee are

Some of Bakersfield College’s student outcomes assessment data has been collected in
conjunction with the State’s Partnership for Excellence goals. Appropriate quantitative student
outcomes data were submitted to the State Chancellor’s Office in February 2002, documenting in
a district report how each campus is meeting stated Partnership for Excellence Goals. (See
Appendix B, item 4). Bakersfield College is achieving moderate success in reaching these PFE
goals. For example, there has been a substantial increase in Goal 5 (Increasing Success in Basic
Skills), but the increase can be attributed in part to the correction of course coding errors in basic
skills courses. However, there have also been strides in improving student success and retention
by linking basic skills courses to transfer level courses. (See Appendix A, item 5). For Goal 1
(Increasing Transfer), there are also mixed reports: actual recorded transfers to both the UC and
CSU systems have exceeded stated goals, but the numbers for transfer-prepared students have
dropped. The impact of possible MIS reporting errors and process errors is being explored for
all PFE goals. Once available, cleaner data will provide a more accurate picture of student
accomplishments and thereby better monitor the impact of campus efforts on student success.

In conjunction with those activities, Bakersfield College has also developed a Student Outcomes
Assessment Proposal. (See Appendix B, item 2). This document, initially prepared by a team of
faculty and administrators, was finalized in February 2002 after being reviewed and supported by
the Academic Senate Executive Board. This overall proposal contained two key components:

 ??    “Frenzy, Fad, or New Reality: Understanding Student Outcomes Assessment at
       Bakersfield College” was prepared by Randal Beeman (History Professor) and Ken Meier
       (Vice President of Student Learning). This opening essay overviews the historical and
       empirical foundation on which the current push for student outcomes assessment rests,
       defines key terms and benefits of student outcomes assessment for the campus, and
       acknowledges the potential problems that will need to be addressed as the campus moves
       forward. This treatise helped colleagues across campus share concepts and vision as the
       first step to making student outcomes assessment a reality at Bakersfield College.

 ??    The ongoing discussion informed by the essay noted above helped generate the
       development of an assessment philosophy statement by the Assessment Planning Team.
       (See Appendix A, item 6). This Team is comprised of faculty, staff and administrators,
       many of whom also serve on the KH Action Team that is also addressing student outcomes
       assessment. The Academic Senate Executive Board has consistently joined this ongoing

In addition to this formalized development of a Student Outcomes Assessment Proposal, several
other activities took place this academic year, including:

      ?? Several faculty and administrators attended the California Assessment Institute
         Conference in San Diego (October 2001); others will attend the Pacific Assessment
         Conference in Hawaii (May 2002) and the California Research Group Conference on
         Assessment in Monterey (May 2002).
      ?? The Office of Research and Planning conducted an assessment inventory and identified
         the data sets currently available that contribute to ongoing student assessment efforts.
         (See Appendix A, item 4).
      ?? A range of staff development activities have been offered to enhance the awareness
         across campus of the role student outcomes assessment can play in improving student
         learning campus-wide.
   ?? Initial assessment data was used to prepare the Office of Student Learning Program
      Review, a document that fully delineates the campus’s commitment to improving student
      learning through a focus on institutional effectiveness and outcomes assessment. (See
      Recommendation 2 & Appendix B, item 1).
   ?? The Office of Research and Planning regularly distributes student outcomes data to assist
      departments and programs as they undergo program review, build budgets, and generally
      plan for the future. (See Appendix B, item 3)

During 2002-2003, more extensive particulars for the student outcomes assessment process will
be developed in concert with faculty and administrative input in compliance with Academic
Senate procedures. This process will identify specific individual program outcomes, assessment
mechanisms, improvement strategies, faculty support systems, and the policy and procedures
necessary to feed into the goal setting and budget development cycle of a dynamic institutional
effectiveness plan. A formal plan with timelines, goals, activities, outcomes, and proposed pilot
projects is expected by the end of the year. This eventual Outcomes Assessment and
Institutional Effectiveness Plan will be more fully refined as it becomes part of the educational
master plan and the strategic planning processes of Bakersfield College and the Kern
Community College District.

Recommendation 5:
To strengthen educational programs and counseling services, the team recommends that the
college develop measurable pathways to student success for vocational students and other
specific populations of students that promote access, monitor progress, and track goal
attainment . (Standards 4B.3, 4B.6, 5.3)

In this area of educational programs and counseling services, the Accreditation Team once again
raised comparable concerns to those voiced by the district’s KH Study. Specific steps have been
taken to address the issues raised in this recommendation.

For example, as already noted, Bakersfield College has developed a campus assessment proposal
(see Recommendation 4; Appendix B, item 2) as well as the research infrastructure and data
warehouse potential (see Recommendation 3) needed to effectively monitor and track student
progress, whether in basic skills, transfer or occupational programs. As a part of this bigger
picture, the College collects data from student satisfaction surveys, internally developed student
surveys, student faculty evaluation surveys, and student demographic and enrollment data; for
vocational programs, data is also available from interaction with advisory committees drawn
from local industries.

To focus these campus-wide efforts more directly on the occupational-education venue,
vocational program faculty and staff have been meeting monthly to address specific program
planning, funding and outcome measurement concerns. These meetings generate frank
discussions regarding ways to enhance the vocational program image internally as well as ways
to market the programs more effectively externally. As part of this endeavor, the campus hosted
the first Celebration of Success for Occupational Programs last spring, highlighting successful
students and key business partners. The second annual Celebration of Success will be held in
April 2002.

Additional activities have already been initiated to better inform students of their vocational
options and the educational pathways needed to maximize student efforts. One example is the
development of accurate information fact sheets for the top ten occupational programs. A fact-
sheet template was developed earlier this semester, and the first ten fact sheets will be ready by
May 2002; another thirty program fact sheets will be ready by May 2003, and the rest will be
completed by December 2003. These facts sheets, which will be routinely monitored and
coordinated by the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, will offer students clear
pathways to follow to most expeditiously meet their career goals. In addition, the Dean of
Economic and Workforce Development and the Vice President of Student Services are working
together to establish a Career Development Center that will centralize access to information
about occupational programs, including internships and service learning opportunities. It is
expected that the Center will be operational by July 2002.

For the academic year 2002-2003, the instructional areas of Agriculture, Applied Science and
Technology, Business, and Computer Studies expect to develop specific program outcomes and
appropriate assessment mechanisms. This ongoing process will include individual department
meetings during which faculty will identify skill sets for students. Data for this level of review
will come from SCANS, educational and trade literature, and by interaction with advisory
committees. One possible program outcome might relate to employability upon completion of a
single course, certificate or degree. This measure would include gathering data on technical
proficiency as well as on the soft skills, such as teamwork, communication, work ethic, and
critical problem solving. One means of measurement would be to survey employers, former
students, and advisory committees.

The Vice President of Student Services, new to the campus in February 2002, is also working
with the Counseling Department to enhance the overall marketing of the availability and
effectiveness of counseling services and to strengthen community relationships, especially
targeting connections with high school faculty and parents of recent high school graduates. Part
of this expanded plan is the reassessment of academic advising options for faculty. The
Academic Senate is involved in this discussion. To he lp fund and coordinate these efforts, the
development of a Student Success Center is being proposed as part of a Title V Grant Proposal
(submitted in March 2002).

An effectiveness issue not already addressed focuses on the programs offered through the Center
for Professional Development, a part of the College’s Corporate and Community Services
Division. The new Director, hired in July 2001, has been systematically reviewing the programs
offered through Community Education, Contract Education and the Ed>NET initiatives. Each
review is determining program effectiveness and is suggesting modifications or eliminations as
needed for those offerings deemed ineffective or non-supportive of the college mission.

A final area of concern addresses the access ne eds of students seeking distance- learning options.
The campus first started offering online courses in 1997 and currently offers 34 courses online.
Three years ago, the College made a decision to not offer a full degree program online; instead,
students are encouraged to take the additional online course work needed for a full degree at
Cerro Coso College, a sister college within the district. Bakersfield College also offers
interactive television courses; an upgrade to the Interactive Classroom/Television Studio has
been planned for this semester. The Office of Student Learning has set a review of the Distance
Education Program as a primary goal for 2002-2003. Points to consider include the funding and
support needed for ongoing technical support, curriculum development and faculty training.

Recommendation 6:
The college and the District Office should produce timely and accurate financial information
  ?? drives financial decisions
  ?? clarifies all essential functions at the District Office and the level of financial support for
      each function.
  ?? outlines the required level of financial support for all essential functions at the college and
      is tied to its strategic plan.
  ?? is promulgated throughout the district in a manner that is clear, consistent and
      understandable to the Kern Community College District community.
(Standards 9A.1, 9A.4, 9A.5, 9B.1, 9B.6, pC.4, and 10C.2, 10C.3, 10C.5, 10C.6)

The Accreditation Team’s concern for timely and accurate financial information being available
throughout the district was also voiced by the district KH Study. This study involved more than
200 colleagues from across the district to address and implement various recommendations. KH
Recommendation V-1 outlines the District Office’s continuing efforts to work with the colleges
to improve the KCCD budget allocation model.

Currently, the district and the colleges are using a new allocation model developed
collaboratively by a KH Budget Allocation Task Force. The model was designed to not only be
student centered, fair and understandable, but also production based, efficient and effective.
Cooperatively developed and priority driven, this model’s goal is to be a working document that
continuously monitors its own effectiveness while maintaining a stable budget and meeting the
ever changing needs of all the locations throughout the district. (See Appendix A, item 7).

KCCD is using the model for the second time within its budget development cycle. Bakersfield
College implements its portion of the district cycle through collaborative budget building efforts
that are initiated through the departments and deans and filter up for further review by the Vice
Presidents and the President. The Director of Business Services informs and guides the process.
Campus-wide budget development, therefore, becomes an integral piece of the total strategic
planning process, not a separate entity—and each level (department chair, dean, vice president
and president) is held accountable for its fiscal decisions and commitments.

Aspects of the new allocation model and its development and implementation cycles are still in
review. A Final Report of the District Allocation Task Force is expected by Fall 2002.

Recommendation 7:
It is recommended that the trustees systematically engage in board training as a continuous, on-
going process and focus on their roles of setting policy and serving the best interests of the entire
district and all its students. Of particular concern is the need for the trustees to address their
role of keeping the district fiscally sound. (Standards 10A.1, 10A.2, 10A.3, 10A.5, 10C.4, 10C.5,

The KH Study’s recommendation that the Board of Trustees “should adopt more sophisticated
forums for governing KCCD” echoes the very concerns raised by the Accreditation Team in
October 2000. In response to these directives, the KCCD Board has taken the following actions
to strengthen its overall effectiveness:

 ??   Established Board subcommittees that focus on Finance, Legislative Issues, Board
      Education and CEO/Board Evaluation.
 ??   Regularly schedules Board Meetings at varying locations within the 24,500 square mile
      district, promoting a sense of inclusion by making it easier for interested parties to attend
      board meetings.
 ??   Since 2000, schedules annual workshops with facilitators from ACCT (Association of
      Community College Trustees) and CCLC (Community College League of California) to
      strengthen the Board’s knowledge of the role of community college boards and to enhance
      its ability to work together effectively.
 ??   Encourages individual board members to more routinely participate in workshops at
      conferences conducted by ACCT and CCCT (California Community College Trustees).

In addition, the Board has established an Ad Hoc Committee to appropriately monitor each
location’s efforts to achieve and maintain compliance with the 50% law. Each campus struggles
with this challenge within its own budget and planning cycles, contributing to district-wide
compliance efforts. The Board also continues to direct the Chancellor to return the fund balance
(reserve) to a targeted 5% level; it is anticipated this goal will be reached by 2005.

The KCCD Board will continue to monitor the effectiveness of its new organization and fiscal
assumptions and routines, especially as their implementation and impact become evident across
the campuses.


To top