NEASC

1

• NEASC
• Phase I
• Assessment of Effectiveness
• Standards 1 - 11

2
Goals for Todays Meeting

• Identify Key Issues or Concerns cited by NEASC
  over last 10 years
• State the 3-5 Key Elements that CCRI feels it
  needs to address in each Standard
• Assign a Self-Rating to our Effectiveness
  Identify Priority Level
• Identify source of information for
  rating/evaluating

3
Role of Collective Participation

• Using the comment sheet provided, we ask that
  everyone provide feedback regarding each
  Standard, using the framework outlined in todays
  goals!
• Your comments will be submitted anonymously

4
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 1 Mission
Purpose 1

• Strengths/successes since 2004 NEASC visit
• We have a mission developed by a comprehensive,
  diverse college committee.
• New comprehensive mission approved 2006.
• Traits within the mission are accurate.

5
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 1 Mission
Purpose 2

• Challenges/Areas for improvement
• Remaining challenges
• Lack of acknowledgement, publicity, visibility
  and usage college-wide.
• Increasing all of these would increase the
  overall importance of the mission within the
  everyday workings of the college community

6
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 1 Mission
Purpose 3

• New challenges/Areas of improvement
• An institutional vision is mentioned in the
  standard. CCRI does not have an approved one.
• Changing times may lead to reviewing and
  tweaking the mission as needed. Should the
  tweaking include simplifying the message?
  Re-evaluation committee is needed.

7
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 1 Mission
Purpose 4

• Self-ratings Priority
• 1.1 B A
• 1.2 B A
• 1.3 B B
• 1.4 C A
• 1.5 C A

8
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 1 Mission
Purpose 5

• Evidence
• Above based on the fact we have a mission.
• Inferred some information.
• Of the 132 Web pages and print materials
  reviewed, only 14 or our public image pieces
  include some mention or a link to the CCRI
  mission statement. Making it tough for the
  community to know the elements of the mission.

9
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 2
Planning Evaluation 1
Some of what we have been doing

• Student Learning Outcomes
• Strengthening enterprise reporting analytics
• More Transparent data-driven budget process
• Peer group to gauge performance (SP)
• Key performance indicators to track progress
• Others

• Strategic Plan (SP)
• Mgt. Ltr. Tracking objectives
• Inclusive Presidents Council
• Improved personnel evaluation systems
• MyCCRI communications
• True relational database
• Acad. Program Review

10
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 2
Planning Evaluation 2
Standards of greatest concern (3-Cs also 4-Bs)
Number Description Rating Priority
2.1 Planning is comprehensive, integrated, participative and communicated C A
2.4 Record of planning success re implementation C A
2.8 Institutional Effectiveness Maintain a process for evaluation of planning effectiveness C A
WASC worksheet ratings
11
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 2
Planning Evaluation 2
Key Issues
Key Issues Description Evidence or Comments
1 Many significant planning activities but fragmented Need to be continuous integrated to be comprehensive (SD 2.1) MP IT Plan not integrated with SP other unknown activities
2 Implementation (execution/actions) not always aligned with plan (intention) need to improve communications (SD 2.4) Absence of review of progress and metrics
3 Need to establish and maintain an ongoing process to evaluate planning effectiveness (SD 2.8) Strategic Goal 4 Standards performance indicators to assess IE of college
12
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 2
Planning Evaluation 2
13
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard
3Organization Governance 1

• Board of Governors
• New Board
• Future? Legislative /Administration Plans
• President Council
• President is also the Commissioner
• Faculty union president now on council
• Administration
• Physically decentralized administratively
  centralized
• No full-time administrator on each campus
• Two vacant dean positions

14
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard
3Organization Governance 2

• Governance, What we did well
• Wrote, vetted, and passed governance system (May
  2008)
• Completed survey of all College committees
• Conducted successful elections for two
  years(2008-2010)
• Sponsored several activities
• Got Issues? campaign
• Issues of Concern form developed, process
  established
• Forum on Open Door Admissions at Professional
  Development Day
• Facilities Survey

15
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard
3Organization Governance 3

• Governance, What we did not do so well
• Website not functional
• Lengthy, confusing process over construction
• Meaningful institutional support lacking
• No budget, no incentive to participants
• System lacks full scale participation
• Community does not understand system
• Misperception about nature and scope of system

16
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 4 The
Academic Program 1

• The Academic Program in 2004
• Many programs had not articulated formal learning
  outcomes
• Learning outcomes were not included or were not
  consistent throughout all sections of each course
• No definition of an educated person
• No required general education core
• No consistent assessment process for courses or
  programs

17
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 4 The
Academic Program 2

• The Academic Program 2011
• All academic programs have learning outcomes
  except one
• Many more courses include learning outcomes and
  it is unknown if they are the same for all
  sections of courses offered
• We have a definition of an educated person
• We have a required general education core for all
  programs
• We have a formal program assessment process and a
  formal faculty evaluation process

18
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 4 The
Academic Program 3

• Activities in Progress 2011
• Determine if all courses include learning
  outcomes which are consistent for all sections of
  each course
• Determine how the learning outcomes are assessed
  for each course
• Determine how the definition of an educated
  person and general education core are
  communicated and understood by faculty and
  students
• Determine how we know that graduates demonstrate
  competence in communication, reasoning/critical
  thinking, and the ability to access the resources
  for continued development

19
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 4 The
Academic Program 4

• Activities in Progress 2011
• Determine improvements that have been made within
  programs as a result of the assessment process
• Identify the rationale (mission) for each program
• Determine the extent to which resources available
  on the 4 campuses are made available to students
  at satellite locations and in distance learning
• Determine the difference in the approval and
  assessment processes for the credit bearing and
  non-credit bearing certificate programs
• Determine the method(s) used to insure academic
  integrity in distance learning courses

20
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 5 Faculty
1

• Instructional technology
• Ensuring faculty competent in use of technology
  to support teaching responsibilities. New
  resources include
• Distance learning/Blackboard resources
• Centers for Instructional Technology
• Instructional Support Team
• Interactive Video Conferencing
• Classroom and Event Technology
• Electronic Classrooms
• New Employee Orientation to Information
  Technology

21
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 5 Faculty
2

• Evaluation
• Review and implementation of student evaluation
  instrument
• Adopted a more consistent approach to evaluate
  Adjuncts

22
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 5 Faculty
3

• College Governance Structure
• Adopted new model which ensures faculty
  understanding and participation in committee
  system processes
• Improved communication via college wide events,
  meetings, etc.

23
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 5 Faculty
4

• Banner system
• a review and standardization of course hours
  throughout the curriculum.
• Addressed inconsistencies in the number of
  classroom hours.
• More systematic approach to enforce standards
  across the board for faculty load and overload.

24
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 5 Faculty
5

• Areas to be addressed
• Cultural competence based upon diversity of
  student population, faculty ranks should
  diversify. Steps to enhance pool of minority
  applicants.
• Strategies to support adjunct faculty (contracts,
  orientation, faculty mentoring system)

25
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 6 Students
1

• Generally speaking, the College effectively meets
  the standards for Admissions, Retention and
  Graduation, Student Services, and Institutional
  Effectiveness. Where the College falls short is
  illustrated below.

26
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 6 Students
2

• Admissions
• 6.2 Academic Standing Policy not in catalog
• 6.3 6.4 AccuPlacer insufficient to identify
  needs at lowest end of necessary supports.
  Insufficient supports in place for students with
  academic deficiencies

27
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 6 Students
3

• Retention and Graduation
• 6.8 Institutional goals for retention and
  graduation non-existent or not well disseminated.
• 6.9 Data on retention, graduation and other
  measures of student success may not be reviewed
  in the context of institutional or departmental
  planning and improve

28
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 6 Students
4

• Student Services
• 6.10 Response to student needs is not pro-active.
  Mission of Student Affairs not publicly
  available.
• 6.11 Availability of services for Distance
  Learning students or via electronic means not
  universally available.
• 6.17 Training opportunities hampered by staff and
  budget cuts. Facilities, technology and funding
  are inadequate for current level of services.
• 6.18 Ethical standards not publicized.
• 6.19 Records retention policy unclear
• 6.20 Co-curricular goals?

29
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 7 Library
Information Resources 1

• Strengths since last NEASC visit
• Library renovation
• Electronic classrooms
• Wireless infrastructure
• Blackboard
• Banner (new implementation)
• DL growth
• Institutional and educational planning helps
  encourage information resources and technology to
  be integrated into the student educational
  experiences 

30
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 7 Library
Information Resources 2
Key Issues

• 1. Mission Grade B
• While NEASC suggests inclusion of information
  literacy skills in the definition of an educated
  person, it is not in CCRI's newest definition
  strategic plan merely implies acquisition  
• 2. Support Grade C
• Absence of a comprehensive plan to provide
  adequate user support (services are reactionary
  rather than proactive)
• Not adequate time for staff to learn new
  technologies nor time for them to create
  documentation and train faculty
• No time for researching/ supporting appropriate
  new tools for instructional technology

31
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 7 Library
Information Resources 3

• 2. (Support continued)
• Consistent funds for resources but incongruency
  between funding available and people dedicated
  actually to implement those initiatives.
• Under resourced areas, generally IT support
  services (i.e., Help Desk)
• 3. Assessment Grade C
• Lack of measurable criteria of competencies for
  teaching online
• No mechanism in place to gather student
  perception about the quality and efficacy of
  instructional technology
• No objective way to measure if technology is
  promoting better student success

32
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 7 Library
Information Resources 4

• 3. (Assessment Continued)
• No mechanism in place to assess whether students
  demonstrate proficiency with information
  resources and technology.nor for attaining
  appropriate level of proficiency for their
  program
• Not all programs/courses have published learning
  outcomes.
• Learning outcomes do not address information
  literacy and technology for all students.
  (English 1010 and Speech 1100 do.)
• Strategic plan mentions mapping curriculum to 
  definition of an educated personno evidence that
  these maps exist.

33
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 7 Library
Information Resources 5

• 3. (Assessment continued)
• A lack of measurable course objectives makes it
  impossible to determine either levels of
  competence or levels of growth in a student's
  ability to assess and use research/reference
  materials.

34
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 8
Physical Technological Resources 1

• Standard 8.4
• The institution undertakes physical resource
  planning linked to academic and student services,
  support functions, and financial planning.
• Space planning occurs on a regular basis as part
  of physical resource evaluation and planning, and
  is consistent with the mission and purposes of
  the institution.

35
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 8
Physical Technological Resources 2

• Standard 8.4
• Standard 8.4
• Self-Rating C
• Priority to Us s/b A
• Evidence
• X25/R25/S25
• Experience
• Major Strengths
• X25/R25/S25
• Areas For Improvement
• Addressing Findings/Experience

36
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 8
Physical Technological Resources 3

• Continuing upgrade and maintenance of the network
  infrastructure to support existing and future
  bandwidth requirements for the next decade
• Aggressive implementation of highly available,
  fault tolerant, redundant systems to ensure that
  essential services are accessible and pervasive
  always
• Virtual desktop initiative to develop a
  sustainable model for delivering desktop services
  and information anytime, anywhere to constituents
  based upon their role
• Vigorous creation of an enterprise-wide academic
  analytics agenda for informed business decision
  making.

37
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 8
Physical Technological Resources 4

• Vibrant launch of a convenient,
  highly-responsive, multimedia streaming service
  delivering digital content to all learners, both
  internal and external to the campus
• Unwavering pursuit of resource conservation
  programs, including cooling, print management and
  power distribution through virtual machines
• Cultivation and provisioning of a warm site on
  the Flanagan campus for disaster recovery and
  business continuity
• Measured adoption of those cloud services
  enhancing and improving service delivery for
  constituents

38
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 9
Financial Resources 1

• 10/2004 interim finding ensure that strategic
  planning is linked to budgeting
• 3/25/2009 interim finding address resource
  challenges incurred by reduced state s
  strengthen engagement of faculty staff in using
  data for planning decision making

39
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 9
Financial Resources 2

• BRC implemented merged w/ SPC
• Used web to ease availability of fiscal
  information budget process-but is it used?
  Include in upcoming survey
• Answers to the core questions on which SP was
  based have not been clearly communicated to
  college at large

40
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 9
Financial Resources 3

• Data collection benchmarks idd in SP for
  decision making need to be populated peer
  other external validation measures need to be
  selected
• Need a mechanism by which data standards are
  agreed upon, universally available presented

41
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 9
Financial Resources 4

• Use data to address divisional/cultural
  differences
• Use data to better manage resources align
  expenditures to missions/goals
• Sufficient strategic alignment of institutional
  goals, resources divisional actions?

42
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 10 Public
Disclosure 1

• For our Fifth-Year Report, NEASC raised
  assessment of student learning and measurement of
  student success as issues for CCRI, which
  implicate consideration 10.12 to the extent that
  we make public statements or promises about them
• Key issues are not in order of importance

43
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 10 Public
Disclosure 2

• Key Issue 1
• Delivering accurate and timely answers to
  questions
• Self-Rating A-C (depending on topic)
• Evidence Largely (and perhaps inevitably)
  anecdotal
• Complicating factors (i) Dearth of written
  policies across the institution and (ii) the
  growing importance of social media

44
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 10 Public
Disclosure 3

• Key Issue 2
• Revising, and maintaining the currency of, OES
  and financial aid Web resources
• Self-Rating B
• Evidence Ongoing staff review of present
  functionality in light of student inquiries
• Complicating factor Seemingly endless ferment
  in federal financial aid programs

45
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 10 Public
Disclosure 4

• Key Issue 3
• Organizing and designing CCRIs information
  resources around what we want students to know
• Self-Rating A-C (depending on topic)
• Evidence Volume of questions with answers that
  (we think) are readily available in print or on
  the Web, but is higher than one would expect even
  from a spoon-fed population

46
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 10 Public
Disclosure 5

• Key Issue 4
• Keeping CCRIs Web site (ccri.edu) and portal
  (MyCCRI) current and user-friendly
• Self-Rating A-C (depending on topic)
• Evidence Same as Key Issues 1 and 3
• Complicating factor Staffing constraints in
  securing the continuous assistance of content,
  communications and IT experts

47
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 11
Integrity 1
Strengths and Accomplishments

• Breadth of policies available from federal,
  state, BOG, and contractual documents
• Print and online materials have been updated
• Success Centers for students established
• Access to information about transfer
  opportunities and processes readily available to
  students
• Organizational structure for governance
  established
• Opening Day Convocation, Professional Development
  Day, and annual retreats established
• All job postings for permanent positions are
  readily available to the public online

48
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 11
Integrity 2
From 2004 and 2009 NEASC Reports

• Adjunct Faculty no standard orientation no
  ongoing evaluative review of handbook/website to
  monitor effectiveness
• CCRI Code of Ethics not updated or aligned with
  Mission Statement
• Perception (in public media) of favoritism in
  hiring remains staff diversity has improved,
  diversity among faculty remains low
• Key committee agendas and minutes not readily
  available online
• Committee system within governance structure not
  working as designed to strengthen greater
  communication, input, and accountability no
  evaluation of new governance system occurred at
  end of 2008-2009 academic year
• Process of solicitation and review of
  recommendations for fiscal efficiencies is
  inconsistent and ineffective

49
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 11
Integrity 3
Summary

• Communications
• Committee agenda and minutes not readily
  available online
• No standard orientation, handbook, or policies
  for adjuncts
• Policies and Implementation
• No college-wide policy manual
• Governance
• Committee structure not working as designed
• Diversity
• Lack of diversity among FT and adjunct faculty
• Perception of unfair hiring remains

50
What Next?

• Assemble feedback, distribute to Committees
• Participate in individual meetings by Standard to
  review information available
• Discuss how to set institutional priorities for
  each Standard

51
Next Meeting January 12, 2011

• Each Committee will identify 3-5 top priorities
  to improve our effectiveness
• Committee-of-the-Whole will discuss and attempt
  to rank what is most important for the College as
  a whole
• Group will vote by dots to identify our top
  priorities