College Council Meeting Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Transcription

1 College Council Meeting Tuesday, February 5, 2008 Present: Patience Browne, Molly Ward, Mary Lynch, Sebastian Myrick, Emma Schuster, Kathy Whitham, Kim Alexander, Guled Ibrahim, Jo Anderson Absent: Cassandra O Francia, Christa Colouzis, Darnell Franklin, Darrel Brumbaugh Start time: 1:15 Call to Order Minutes from January 22 Review and approval delayed until February 19 meeting. Accreditation: Larry Reid Presenter Welcome and Introductions Larry Reid was invited by President Wakefield to be a part of the Executive Committee for the Accreditation Process for this cycle. Typically accreditation occurs every ten years and South was due for review in 2010 however with the addition of the BAS program at South accreditation needs to be synced with the 4 year Institutions and therefore our next review will be in The process will begin in 2009 with a 12 member evaluation committee from the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, which will do a top to bottom thorough review. The rigorous examination includes interviews and review by a panel of College Presidents and Vice Presidents from colleges outside of Washington State. They will be looking at all aspects of the college but especially the Baccalaureate Program. Accreditation is the process of recognizing the college meets performance and quality standards. In addition confirms the programs of the college are meeting the mission of the college. Accreditation provides Access to federal dollars and access to the money helps the college to meet the needs of the community Access to financial aid which is a critical component to betterment for lower income families Assures that credits earned will transfer to other institutions Due to thoroughness the process fosters and promotes continuous improvement Voluntary in so far as an institution chooses it; however doing without accreditation is really not an option This is a Peer Evaluation which is extremely valuable since it is our peers who understand best what it is that we do. The evaluation team will be examining: Whether the college is engaged in ongoing planning. Do the goals we have address and meet the needs of the community at large? Whether there is ongoing research and information gathering that allows the college to make necessary adjustments. Is there an awareness of problems and continual correction? Identified student outcomes: can the students perform and are we meeting our education goals. General Outcomes include: communication, math, thinking logically and critically, ability to use technology. Is there proof that the general outcomes are being met? Are we doing what we say? Are we meeting our goals? What is the proof? Accreditation starts with self-study. Accreditation committees are describing and analyzing everything about the college. The Standards Committees provide the primary data that leads to a summary; the story of South Community College, are we meeting our goals and where can we improve? Each of the 9 Standards Committee provides a chapter. 1

2 ACCREDITATION COMMITTEES VISUAL CHART Executive Committee MEMBERSHIP Jill Wakefield Mark Mitsui Kurt Buttleman Gary Oertli Malcolm Grothe Mary Jo White ROLE / FUNCTION Appoint members to Steering & Standards Committees Identify overall self-study timeline Insure that all key deadlines are met Plan & coordinate the details of site visit for October, 2009 Dolores Mirabella Larry Reid Larry Reid Resource Committee Steering Committee MEMBERSHIP ROLE / FUNCTION MEMBERSHIP ROLE / FUNCTION Mark Baumann Carolyn Bevan Kurt Buttleman Greg Gillespie Bob Hughes Danelle Johnson Identify data currently have that will be included Inventory charts, graphs, & data used in 2000 Identify data needed for 2009 Coordinate research requests Assist with data analysis Executive Committee Members and Co-chairs of the 9 Standards Committees Coordinate work of Standards Committee Provide Instructions & Assistance to Standards Committee Kim Manderbach Standards Committee Richard Penny Frank Post 2 Kathy Vedvick Mission Educational Program Students Faculty Library Governance & Admin Finance Physical Resources Institutional Integrity

3 STANDARDS COMMITTEES MEMBERSHIP JULY 20, 2007 STANDARD I Institutional Mission & Goal/Planning & Effectiveness STANDARD II Educational Program & its Effectiveness Frank Post Gary Oertli Kim Alexander Greg Gillespie Dolores Mirabella Mike Hickey Rick Downs Teri Eguchi Allen Stowers Leslie Elkins Paul Safstrom Kathie Kwilinksi Tom Pierce Howard Andersen Eric Klevstad Paula Herd Mary Horn ASSESSMENT SUBCOMMITTE (2.2): Luisa Motten Blanca Farrelly Steve Ford Tim Walsh Sara Newman Carolyn Dickson Jihad Othman Jian Zou Dan Bush Sara Baldwin Henry Johnson Tom Phillips Mary Lantz Sara Skamser Sandra Bolt Malcolm Grothe Michael Steffancin Aimee Goodwin Joe Hauth Roger Bourret Astrid Larsen Betty Williams Sue Nelson Jennifer Evans Diane Schmidt Mark Maher Rita Rambo Sindy Jo Kristin Lysaker Kit Bean Stephen Sparks Marie Coon STANDARD III Carlos Amesquita STANDARD IV STANDARD V Mike McCrath Keith Marler STANDARD VI Students Faculty Library Governance & Administration Mark Mitsui Heidi Lyman Mary Jo White Richard Penny Stephen Coates-White Michael Thompson Randy Nelson Don Bissonnette Kim Manderbach Doug Clapper Christopher Harris Sebastian Myrick Cessa Heard-Johnson 3 Tim Sowell Kathy Reistad Katherine Pellman Kathy Whitham Bob Rice Catherine Phipps Olga Shatunova Don Howard Tiffany Jasperson Shireen Deboo Jo Anderson Dorrienne Chinn Holly Gilman Esther Sunde Suzanne Quillian

4 STANDARD VII STANDARD VIII STANDARD IX Finance Physical Resources Institutional Integrity Kurt Buttleman Van Bobbitt Kathy Vedvick Irina Minasova Bear Holmes James Lewis Jane Harness Ken Monson Bob Sullivan Arleen Williams Eric Steen Glenn Gauthier Marcia Kato Elizabeth Pluhta Arlene Atchison Debi Gary Marc Franco Ted Coskey Roxanne Tillman Dan Sutcliff Mike Munson Patricia Billings Carol Koepke Forrest Dorenwendt Jesse Ruiz John Nordling Gayle Flakus Christa Colouzis Lisa Sever Lolita Khachaturova Karen Whitney John Todd Wendy Price Byron Williams Colby Keene Kara McArthur Marilyn Allen Pinky Dale Duncan Burgess Tony Magsarili Each of the 9 Standards covers a different aspect although there are overlapping topics. Colleges receive accommodations acknowledgement of things they are doing well; the last review garnered 6 accommodations for South. Colleges receive recommendations these are things the college needs to repair; these repairs can be of varying degrees and determine when the review committee will return. South had 3 need-to-fix items last time that were deemed mild. Severe problems result in a focus visit one year after the problems are identified. South did not incur any severe problems. Standards Committees are a lot of work and study. Members must determine are we meeting our mission and how do we know? What are the standards? Are we in compliance? What are the gaps? It is up to the Standards Committees to provide an honest appraisal of who we are and where do we want to be. The Northwest Commission will look to see if we are meeting our mission. They will know because we have the data. We will identify problems and solve them. Time line for Accreditation: Rough draft of the Summary is due June 8,

5 NOTE: The information below is provided by Phyllis in addition to the areas covered by Larry Reid above. From the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities web site: (Perhaps more than you would ever want to know about the process.) Regional accreditation of postsecondary institutions is a voluntary, non-governmental, self-regulatory process of quality assurance and institutional improvement. It recognizes higher education institutions for performance, integrity, and quality to merit the confidence of the educational community and the public. Accreditation or pre-accreditation by a postsecondary regional accrediting agency qualifies institutions and enrolled students for access to federal funds to support teaching, research, and student financial aid. The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) is an independent, non-profit membership organization recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) as the regional authority on educational quality and institutional effectiveness of higher education institutions in the seven-state Northwest region of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. It fulfills its mission by establishing accreditation criteria and evaluation procedures by which institutions are reviewed. The Commission oversees regional accreditation for 160 institutions. Its decision-making body consists of up to twenty-six Commissioners who represent the public and the diversity of higher education institutions within the Northwest region. Larry continued with: the Role of the College Council and Accreditation: College Council helps accreditation by meeting Standard 6 for Governance with its role in an advisory function to the President and input in the budget process. Sebastian asked that Larry elaborate on the process of improving weaknesses or concerns. The example used was the lack of employee hand books or supporting documents. Larry informed us that the Committees determine non compliance or areas of gaps that will be fixed. The Audit will identify what needs to be fixed and the Executive Committee will identify who needs to fix it and recommend it be fixed within the appropriate area. The College Council is not responsible for repairs per se; the summary of recommendations will identify if an action meets standards or not. A list of areas that need work will be provided and College Council will look at the recommendations and endorse as needed. College Council serves to make sure all the stake holders are represented. For example general education outcomes and staff training are topics that might be of interest to the College Council. Other Business Budget Hearing Schedule Budget Development Workshop April 7 This is the College Council opportunity to present expectations for the format of budget information. Perhaps provide a template that will make comparisons easier. Identify the focus of the budget presentations: new money needed, year to year operations, administrative services presentation as a format standard, and prioritized expenses were a few of the things mentioned. 5

6 Budget Hearings May 13 & 14 from 1 PM-4PM; Format of hearing 2 hours of presentations with 1 hour for drafting recommendations based on each presentation. May 16 1 PM 4PM; Produce final Draft of College Council Recommendations No other Committee Reports for this day. Next Meeting: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 University Center Meeting Room 6