Chaffey College - California Competes

Transcription

Chaffey College Governing Board
Kathleen Brugger, President
Gary George, Vice President
Lee McDougal, Immediate Past President
Katie Roberts, Clerk
Paul Gomez, Member
Superintendent/President
Henry D. Shannon, Ph.D.
Report of Self-Study for
Reaffirmation of Accreditation
Submitted by
Chaffey Community College District
5885 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737-3002
to the Accreditation Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges
Barbara A. Beno, Executive Director
Novato, CA 94949
INSTITUTIONAL SELF STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certification of the Institutional Self Study Report
1
Organization of the Self Study
3
Introductory Materials
Timelines for Accreditation Preparation Process
Descriptive Background and Demographics
7
12
Eligibility Requirements
28
Responses to the 2004 Team Recommendations and Commission
Action Letter
38
Responses to the 2004 Self Identified Issues
47
Abstract of the Self Study
62
Standard I: Mission and Effectiveness
73
Standard II: Student Learning Programs and Services
A. Institutional Effectiveness
B. Student Support Services
C. Library and Learning Support Services
131
214
281
Standard III: Resources
A. Human Resources
B. Physical Resources
C. Technology Resources
D. Financial Resources
307
345
367
385
Standard IV: Leadership and Governance
A. Decision Making Roles and Processes
B. Board and Administrative Organization
Summary of Planning Agendas
417
449
479
CERTIFICATION OF THE INSTITUTIONAL SELF STUDY REPORT
Date: December 10, 2009
TO:
ACCREDITING COMMISSION FOR COMMUNITY AND JUNIOR
COLLEGES, WESTERN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS AND
COLLEGES
FROM:
Chaffey College
5885 Haven Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, California. 92737-3002
This Institutional Self Study Report is submitted for the purpose of assisting in the
determination of the institution’s accreditation status.
We certify that there was broad participation by the campus community; we believe
the Self Study Report accurately reflects the nature and substance of this institution.
Signed
Kathleen R. Brugger, President, Governing Board
Henry D. Shannon, Superintendent/President
Trisha Albertsen, President, Classified Senate
Ardon Alger, President, Faculty Senate
James Applewhite II, President/Student Trustee, Associated Students
Inge Pelzer, Management Tri-Chair, Accreditation Steering Committee
Kipp Preble, Faculty Tri-Chair, Accreditation Steering Committee
Hope Ell, Classified Tri-Chair, Accreditation Steering Committee
1
Overall Coordination
Tri-Chairs
Hope Ell
Inge Pelzer
Kipp Preble
Executive Assistant,
Instruction & Student Services
Accreditation Liaison,
Executive Assistant to the
Superintendent/President
Instructor, Communication
Studies
Editors
Researchers
Cathy Decker
Mary Jane Ross
Jim Fillpot
Giovanni Sosa
Keith Wurtz
Instructor, English
Instructional Specialist,
Multidisciplinary Center
Director, Institutional Research
Research Analyst
Senior Research Analyst
SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT
Henry Shannon .................................................. Chief Executive Officer
ACCREDIATION LIAISON/
TRI-CHAIR,MANAGEMENT
Inge Pelzer ............. Executive Assistant to the Superintendent/President
TRI-CHAIR, FACULTY
Kipp Preble .......................................Instructor, Communication Studies
TRI-CHAIR, CLASSIFIED
Hope Ell...................................................................Executive Assistant,
................................................................ Instruction & Student Services
EDITORS
Cathy Decker ..............................................................Instructor, English
Mary Jane Ross...........Instructional Specialist, Multidisciplinary Center
RESEARCH
Jim Fillpot.............................................. Director, Institutional Research
Keith Wurtz ...................................................... Senior Research Analyst
Giovanni Sosa.............................................................. Research Analyst
Coordination Assistance
Veridiana Andrade
Tiffany Chhay
Monica De La Torre
Deidrey Feeney
Jennifer Hadlow
Student
Intern
Administrative Assistant II,
Institutional Services
Student
Christina Lopez
Karen Offerdahl
Lourdes Sanchez
Rhonda Saucedo
Veronica Silva
Student
Educational Program Assistant,
Support Staff
Support Staff
Community Member
Special Acknowledgements
Peggy Cartwright—Director, Marketing & Public Relations
Sheryl Herchenroeder—Marketing & Public Relations
Max Prieto, Fred Larimore & staff—Lithography
Editing:
Michelle Dowd, Sheryl Herchenroeder, Sonia Juarez, Kathy Napoli, Susan Panattoni,
Eva Ramirez, Julie Sanchez & Sandy Sheen
ORGANIZATION OF THE SELF STUDY
PREPARATION
In the fall of 2007 and spring of 2008, the Institutional Research staff and the
executive assistant to the superintendent/president evaluated several institutional
planning models and began the development of the Chaffey College Strategic
Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness. The framework addressed the
intent of institutional planning inherent in the accreditation standards and became
the “glue” that integrates all planning into a comprehensive network embraced by
all areas of the institution.
The framework went through the shared governance process in spring 2008 and
became “the signature” on all planning for institutional effectiveness. The
Governing Board approved the framework in October 2008. Driven by the
Institutional Mission and Institutional Goals/Ends Policies, every planning and
evaluation agenda including the annual Program and Services Review, the
development of SLOs/AUOs, budgets, technology, building and maintenance,
monitoring reports to the Governing Board, design of the new Educational Master
Plan, and the self-evaluation sections in the self study are guided by the framework.
The responsibility of preparing for the 2010 accreditation team visit was delegated to
the Office of Institutional Services. The accreditation liaison, who is the manager of
institutional services and provided leadership for the 2004 reaffirmation process, a
classified staff member from the Office of Instruction, and a faculty from
Communication Studies constituted the tri-chair team. A decision was made early
on to include the institutional research team (the director of institutional research,
senior research analyst, and SLO researcher) in the process from the very beginning.
The research team supported the ten standard committees writing the self study,
assisting with collection and reporting of evidence for the self-evaluation sections.
During spring 2008, the liaison officer began developing training manuals,
conceived in fall 2007, to be used during in-services for the writing teams. These
manuals included all information from the accreditation commission’s Guide to
Evaluating Institutions, including citations throughout all standard statements
concerning the mission and student learning outcomes (SLOs), the themes,
characteristics of evidence, and rubrics for evaluating institutional effectiveness, to
name a few.
In March 2008, an accreditation commission meeting was held at Chaffey College
with commission staff providing an in-service for two local colleges that were on
3
probation status. In preparation for the institution’s self study, fifteen Chaffey
College faculty and staff participated and learned valuable strategies for the writing
process. Additionally, the focus of the annual management retreat in June 2008
emphasized institutional planning and accreditation and shaped the dialogue by
providing additional ideas on how writing teams might address the standards.
In April 2008, during the institution’s strategic planning meeting, Michael Dolence
provided a two day workshop on the learner-centered curriculum framework and
the curriculum centered strategic plan. Accreditation was included in his remarks.
The audience, already committed to the accreditation process, gleaned some
additional information. One of the actions taken by the institution was to align the
ends policies to the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness and
rename them Institutional Goals/Ends Policies.
OFFICIAL PLANNING
Official planning for the 2010 accreditation self study process began in spring 2008
after the current superintendent/president was hired in fall 2007 and a first tentative
calendar was established. In the planning stages, the accreditation liaison officer
met frequently with the superintendent/president, all governance groups, the
research staff, and the senates to “bottle the enthusiasm” and lay out a strategic plan
for the writing of the self study.
The superintendent/president and the accreditation liaison officer sent an email to
all faculty and staff with attached information on the four standards inviting
volunteers to participate in the accreditation process. The response was incredibly
invigorating, and at first a bit overwhelming. The institution’s commitment to
shared governance was clearly evident when the Chaffey College family signed up
to participate and 159 individuals volunteered. Most of the participants had no
prior experience with the self study process and volunteered based on their area of
interest or area of employment. Both senates were instrumental in supporting the
process.
The self study writing process began with 157 individuals (73 faculty, 3 adjunct
faculty, 37 classified staff, 43 managers, 1 board member) and although not everyone
stayed through the entire endeavor, others joined and we ended with 150
individuals 65 faculty, 2 adjunct faculty, 42 managers, 40 classified staff, and 1 board
member).
The accreditation liaison officer began the in-services in July 2008, starting with the
two chairs and continuing with individual meetings with all standard teams.
Substitutes were available for faculty as needed and all meetings were based on
faculty schedules. It was an exciting challenge with dialogue starting in March 2008
and continuing throughout the process.
4
The actual self study writing began in September 2008 and first drafts were
requested by January 2009 to begin the reading process by the tri-chairs. Several rewrites were composed by self study writers and tri-chairs requested information
from experts in the institution when teams could not find answers. Writing team
members conducted interviews and participated fully in the information seeking
process. The process of writing and re-writing was very fluid and all drafts went
through multiple iterations. The accreditation liaison officer emailed a link to the
Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey to all constituents on November 7, 2008. Analyses of
responses were integrated throughout the self study with tireless work by the
research team providing evidence to the writing teams for the self-evaluations.
The accreditation steering committee, formed in September 2008, consisted of all
standard chairs and met once a quarter. The committee members were called upon
to read the various standard self study iterations, provide information that was
lacking, and identify references. The steering committee participated in calendar
development and revisions.
Accreditation became a standing agenda item on all meetings for the vice presidents
team and President’s Cabinet. Furthermore, regular updates were presented by the
accreditation liaison officer to the Governing Board, College Council, student
government, and the senates. The Governing Board supported the accreditation
process from its beginning with a board member serving on Standard IV Board and
Administrative Organization during the self study writing and the president of the
board joining the process during the editing. The accreditation liaison officer also
visited classes and student training sessions to acquaint students through dialogue
with the accreditation philosophy and the process. One student, a Title V
Supplemental Instruction leader, read the entire support services component and
provided input (her picture is featured on the Standard One cover).
The summer months were used to enter continually arriving input from various
constituents, set timelines for the production of the self study, work with the
research team to address evidence, correct erroneous information, and “fill in the
gaps.”
Two editors, both faculty from Language Arts, were hired in summer and started
their work in August 2009 and continued through September 2009. They jointly
worked toward the goal of making sure that the self study was written in one voice,
one self study addressing ten components of four standards.
Upon the return of faculty in August 2009 after summer break, the semi-final draft
of the accreditation self study, in hard copy form, was placed in the Maintenance
and Operations office, the Library, both senate offices, Student Activities, the Chino
5
campus and the Fontana campus1. Faculty and staff were advised to access the
semi-final self study on the Z drive, which is the institution’s internal shared drive.
All changes that were made during the summer were presented in red type to allow
faculty to immediately see changes and indicate their approval and/or ask questions
for clarification. A revised mission was created by the Standard I Mission and
Effectiveness committee and is presently being championed through the shared
governance process. During the self study writing process, the institution relied on
the existing mission, the College Catalog 2008-2009, and the 2001-2010 Educational
Master Plan. When the visiting team arrives, all three documents will have been reinvented in draft or finished form.
Also in August 2009, faculty and staff received an email asking them for any
additional input with a final date for re-write of September 11, 2009. During this
time, production discussions for the self study were finalized. The president’s team
worked with the accreditation liaison officer an entire morning to discuss and
finalize self-identified plans and complete areas that needed attention. Additionally,
all introductory sections including responses to 2004 visiting team recommendations
and commission action letter, eligibility requirements, and abstracts were discussed
by the vice presidents team. Information in the introductory sections and responses
to the 2004 standards were addressed by individuals who are presently affiliated
with the areas noted in the self-identified issues in the 2004 self study and/or have
most knowledge about the area. For example, the 2004 WASC team’s first
recommendation addressing staff development was answered by institutional
research staff and the interim dean of instructional support who supervises staff
development. However, once information was received, all information was
uploaded on the Z drive for input by all constituents.
The value that the institution places on transparency and inclusion cannot be
overstated. The preparation for and the writing of the self study constitutes the
most inclusive planning and self-assessment process for the institution with its
Rancho, Chino, and Fontana campuses and its affiliate programs in hospitals, high
schools and centers. Consistent with the daily operational practices of the
institution, throughout the accreditation self study process the institution
encouraged and provided a platform for all constituencies to have a voice in the
process. This process resulted in a comprehensive, holistic self study that truly
reflects the voices, opinions, beliefs, and values of all institutional stakeholders.
1
Note: Throughout the self study you will read about the Rancho campus, Chino campus, and
Fontana campus. The institution made an informed decision to call all three locations
“campus” even though the Fontana and Chino locations are officially centers. The Governing
Board, the institution’s constituents, and community partners proudly agreed to the
designation of campus at all locations.
6
Introductory
Materials
Introductory Materials
TIMELINES FOR ACCREDITATION PREPARATION PROCESS
November 2007
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
Evaluation of planning models by Office of Institutional Research staff
and accreditation liaison
Accreditation commission meeting and self study workshop at Chaffey
College
Accreditation liaison conducts in-service meetings to explain new
standards and get support (President's Cabinet-March 11, Faculty
Senate-March 11, College Council March-12, Classified SenateMarch 26)
Presentation by accreditation liaison to PSR about accreditation
Michael G. Dolence in-service on strategic planning with emphasis on
relationship to accreditation
Standards and invitations are sent to entire institution to ask for
participation
Senate presidents send emails to their constituencies asking for
participation (Classified Senate-May 8, Faculty Senate-May 9)
Faculty tri-chair chosen
June 2008
July 2008
Standard committees begin to form
Chaffey College management retreat with emphasis on planning and
accreditation
Accreditation liaison finalizes planning framework with Office of
Institutional Research
Classified tri-chair chosen
Accreditation liaison assembles materials and completes development
of standard in-service manual
Accreditation tri-chairs meet for in-service to identify standard tri-chairs
and plan the timelines and their standard assignments; tri-chairs meet as
needed starting in September through November
Standard committees are formed and researchers are assigned as
individual standard support
August 2008
Presentation by accreditation liaison and research staff linking the
planning model to Institutional Ends Policies (institutional goals, PSR
budgeting, and student learning outcomes) on July 24
Steering Committee is formed including all standard committees chairs
Deans' meeting to discuss planning framework
Superintendent/president informs entire Chaffey College community
regarding accreditation, preparation of the self study and participation
at Convocation on August 20
7
September 2008
First accreditation standard committees meetings for process in-service
Accreditation liaison develops Strategic Planning Framework for
Institutional Effectiveness link to AUOs and accreditation
Presentations to Faculty Senate (September 2), ASCC (September 8), and
Classified Senate (September 10)
Second accreditation standard committees meetings for process inservice
Superintendent/president informs high school superintendents/
principals about accreditation and preparation of the self study at
Superintendent/Principals Annual Breakfast
Steering Committee in-service by accreditation liaison; set timelines for
review by all members
Standard committees meet to write first draft of standards due to
accreditation tri-chairs by January 16
Self study writing begins
October 2008
Identify all needs for surveys with standard committees to support the
evidence based requirements; develop surveys
Marketing posts continuous announcement about accreditation process
and contact information in "In the News" and on recorded "on hold"
announcement loop
November 2008
Governing Board Study Session linking Strategic Planning Framework
for Institutional Effectiveness with accreditation
Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey link disseminated by accreditation trichairs November 7
AUO in-service manual developed by accreditation liaison
Steering Committee meets
January 2009
Superintendent/President informs the community about accreditation
and preparation of the self study at the Report to the Community
luncheon
Accreditation tri-chairs email steering committee to inform them of the
next steps following submission of first drafts and to set next steering
committee meeting
First drafts of standards due to accreditation tri-chairs January 16;
accreditation tri-chairs begin reviewing first drafts
Results of Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey disseminated by the director
of institutional research and the accreditation liaison
Accreditation liaison sends email to managers informing them about
AUOs and the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional
Effectiveness
8
February 2009
Accreditation tri-chairs continue reviewing standard committees' first
drafts and return to standard tri-chairs for re-write as appropriate
Accreditation liaison conducts AUO in-services meetings introducing
the AUO manual
March 2009
Accreditation tri-chairs continue reviewing standard committees' first
drafts and return to standard tri-chairs for re-write as appropriate
Standard Committees include input identified by accreditation tri-chairs
and write 2nd drafts
All photographs for self study are taken
April 2009
Students review, edit, and provide input into draft to accreditation trichairs
Meeting with research to discuss input into self-evaluation and self
study in general
Accreditation tri-chairs continue reviewing drafts and return to
standard tri-chairs for re-write as appropriate
Send remaining first drafts and advise all committee members and
chairs of request to have all second drafts by April 30 (for those without
previously scheduled due dates)
Accreditation liaison meets with student government, students in two
guidance courses, and supplemental instruction leaders
Student club advisor discusses accreditation with student government
and sends student services standard to students in Honors, Opening
Doors, Puente, AMAN/AWOMAN, Online to College, and Student
Activities programs
Send request for student review to be completed by May 7
Accreditation tri-chairs begin reading second drafts
Update vice presidents at vice presidents' meeting (monthly)
May 2009
Steering committee meeting to discuss suggestions on how to read
second draft of the self study and new calendar
All student comment due
Institutional Services posts all second drafts on Z drive
Third draft is due to the accreditation tri-chairs and input is received
from entire campus community to be reviewed by accreditation steering
committee
Accreditation tri-chairs, vice presidents' team and President's Cabinet
read second drafts
Institutional services staff will begin inputting all comments made by
constituents responding to second drafts (May 13-June 15)
9
May 2009continued
June 2009
Accreditation liaison presents accreditation update at board meeting
Accreditation liaison conducts in-service on the history of policy
governance at Governing Board study session
Accreditation liaison will work with Institutional Research on evidence
edits
Bring on editor to read self study until July 17
Researchers to complete reading second drafts
July 2009
Accreditation liaison will begin writing responses to 2004
Recommendations and Organization of the Self Study
Accreditation liaison writes abstract for self study and shares with
constituents
Accreditation liaison and Office of Institutional Services staff meet with
Marketing director and staff to arrange for technical production of study
Editor to complete reading of self study
August 2009
Edited self study made available to Governing Board members
Faculty return from summer break
Superintendent/President updates campus on status of self study at
Convocation and asks faculty to complete one more reading by
September 11
Edited copy of standards is put on Z drive and Institutional Research
webpage, and hard copies are distributed to Faculty Senate office,
Library, staff Lounge, Student Activities office, and Maintenance and
Operations department for further review and input; input due
September 11
Accreditation tri-chairs send email to entire campus community and
governing board notifying them that semi-final drafts are available for
review and input
August- October
2009
September 2009
Accreditation liaison updates Governing Board on status of self study
Continuing input accepted
Standard Committees complete abstracts
Input is received from college community and standard committees,
reviewed by tri-chairs and incorporated into final draft
Special vice presidents' meeting related to accreditation
September and
October 2009
October 2009
Editor and tri-chairs begin all corrections, commenting and formatting
Editor continues editing
Self study is formatted
Self study posted on institution shared drive for entire campus last
review
Tri-chairs make last minute changes from committees, Governing Board
and campus community
10
October 2009 continued
References assembled
Accreditation liaison presents accreditation update at board meeting
November 2009
Semi-final draft goes to lithography to prepare stack bound copies for
November board meeting
Stack bound copies delivered to Office of the Superintendent/President
for board packages
Governing Board reviews stack-bound self study (October edit) at
November board meeting
Governing Board and other last minute changes input by Institutional
Services staff
Lithography prints final self study
December 2009
Governing Board approves final self study
Final 2010 Accreditation Self Study mailed to Accreditation Commission
Self study sent to accreditation team members
December 2009
through February
2010
Work with Marketing department to create pamphlet with pictures and
biographies of accreditation team members visiting the institution for
campus constituencies
Assemble references in electronic and paper format
Send link to 2009 Accreditation Survey
Make all preparations for self study team
11
DESCRIPTIVE BACKGROUND AND DEMOGRAPHICS
The Chaffey Community College District is located in the westernmost end of San
Bernardino County and encompasses the communities of Chino, Chino Hills,
Fontana, Guasti, Montclair, Mt. Baldy, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, and Upland.
According to the State of California Department of Finance’s Demographic Research
Unit, service area communities had a January 1, 2009 population of 814,842, a 10.0%
increase (73,875 additional residents) since January 1, 2004 and a 25.3% increase
(164,767 additional residents) since the 2000 U.S. Census.
Chaffey College represents the vision of George and William Chaffey, who founded
the City of Ontario in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Recognizing the
need for an institution of higher learning, the Chaffey brothers donated land and
established an endowment for a private college known as the Chaffey College of
Agriculture of the University of Southern California. After a period as an extension
of the Chaffey Union High School District in Ontario, a separate junior college
district was created in 1922. In 1960 the college moved from Ontario to the Alta
Loma campus. When the city of Rancho Cucamonga was incorporated in 1978, the
college’s Alta Loma address was changed to Rancho Cucamonga. In 2007-08,
Chaffey College celebrated its 125th year anniversary.
The college provides quality instruction at a number of locations throughout the
district. In addition to the Rancho Cucamonga campus, other Chaffey College
facilities include the Chino Campus, the Chino Information Technology Center, the
Fontana Center, and the Fontana Workforce Preparation Center. Additional courses
are offered at approximately 25 other locations throughout the District and via
distance education.
The Chaffey Community College District Chief Executive Officer is the
Superintendent/President, Dr. Henry Shannon, who has held the position since
September, 2007.
In the 2008-09 academic year, Chaffey College served 29,323 students, a 12.5%
increase since the last accreditation visit in 2003-2004. As Chaffey College has
grown the student population has become more diverse. The percent of historically
underrepresented students increased from 64.4% in 2000-01 to 74.7% in 2008-09.
Annually, female students constitute approximately 59 - 62% of the student body
population. While the percentage of the student population 24 years of age or
younger is at an all-time high (over 63%), approximately 7,000 students 30 years of
age or older are served annually. Approximately one-third of the Fall 2008 student
population was enrolled full-time (12 or more units attempted).
12
In the 2008-09 fiscal year, Chaffey College generated 14,840.83 FTES, a 22.1%
increase over the 2000-01 fiscal year. While weekly census procedure lecture courses
continue to represent the majority of section offerings, Chaffey College continues to
expand and diversify the number and type of section offerings by accounting
method, instructional method, occupational status, and location. Changes in
curricular offerings have played a major role in improved student performance
outcomes. Student success rates are at an all-time high and retention rates remain
above 85%. In 2008-09 Chaffey College awarded approximately 2,311 degrees and
certificates, the highest number of awards in Chaffey’s 125-year history. National
Student Clearinghouse data indicates that 4,084 former Chaffey College students
enrolled at a four-year postsecondary educational institution (public or private) in
the 2008-09 academic year; 34,200 former Chaffey College students have enrolled at
a four-year postsecondary educational institution since 2000-01.
Chaffey College is home to a talented and energetic group of administrators, faculty,
and support staff who are committed to improving the lives of students. In 2008-09,
the Chaffey Community College District employed 237 full-time faculty, 46
administrators, 297 classified professional/support staff, and 665 adjunct faculty.
Among the 580 full-time employees, 62.7% are female, 54.3 are Caucasian, 26.6% are
Hispanic, 7.2% are African-American, 7.2% are Asian, 1.0% are Filipino, 1.5% are
Native American, 1.2% are Other, Non-White, and 1.0% are of an unknown
ethnicity. Among the 665 adjunct faculty, 52% are female, 64.5% are Caucasian,
13.4% are Hispanic, 7.0% are Asian, 9.0% are African-American, 2.4% are Filipino,
0.9% are Native American, 1.4% are Other, Non-White, 0.3% are Pacific Islander, and
1.1% are of an unknown ethnicity.
13
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
TOTAL
Continuing
First-Time
First-Time Transfer
Returning
Other/Unreported
Fall 2001
4.9
100.0
820
16,870
6.5
5.8
971
22.1
3,734
1,100
%
60.7
N
10,245
Fall 2000
N
18,537
1,407
2,205
1,555
3,396
9,974
%
100.0
7.6
11.9
8.4
18.3
53.8
19,984
872
2,377
1,657
3,536
11,542
N
100.0
4.3
11.9
8.3
17.7
57.8
%
Fall 2002
Fall 2004
18,438
926
1,749
1,344
3,182
11,237
N
14
100.0
5.0
9.5
7.3
17.3
60.9
%
Fall 2003
18,845
793
2,099
1,487
3,746
10,720
N
100.0
4.2
11.1
7.9
19.9
56.9
%
Fall 2004
Fall 2006
18,082
548
3,783
964
2,518
10,269
N
100.0
3.0
20.9
5.4
13.9
56.8
%
Fall 2005
N
18,824
407
4,278
727
2,970
10,442
Fall 2007
%
100.0
2.2
22.7
3.8
15.8
55.5
19,751
445
4,285
797
3,299
10,925
N
100.0
2.3
21.7
4.0
16.7
20,484
371
4,232
813
3,488
11,580
N
100.0
1.8
20.7
4.0
17.0
56.5
%
Fall 2008
Fall 2008
55.3
%
Fall 2007
Other/Unreported
Fall 2006
Returning Student
Fall 2005
First-Time Transfer Student
Fall 2003
ENROLLMENT STATUS
First-Time Student
Fall 2002
Fall 2001
Continuing Student
Fall 2000
Enrollment Status
Unduplicated Student Headcount
TOTAL
Male
Female
Unknown
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Gender
61.0
0.3
10,285
51
100.0
38.7
6,534
16,870
%
N
18,537
1
11,284
7,252
N
100.0
0.0
60.9
39.1
%
19,984
1
12,411
7,572
N
100.0
0.0
62.1
37.9
%
Female
18,438
81
11,398
6,959
N
15
100.0
0.4
61.8
37.8
%
18,845
96
11,564
7,185
N
100.0
0.5
61.4
38.1
%
Fall 2004
18,082
133
11,040
6,909
N
100.0
0.7
61.1
38.2
%
18,824
262
11,424
7,138
N
100.0
1.4
60.7
37.9
%
19,751
268
11,838
7,645
N
100.0
1.4
59.9
38.7
%
20,484
339
12,147
7,998
N
100.0
1.7
59.3
39.0
%
Fall 2008
Fall 2008
Fall 2007
Fall 2007
Fall 2006
Fall 2006
Fall 2005
Fall 2005
Unknown
Fall 2004
Fall 2003
Male
Fall 2003
Fall 2002
Fall 2002
Fall 2001
Fall 2001
Fall 2000
Fall 2000
GENDER
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
TOTAL
12.1
16.2
11.1
5.4
2,044
2,728
1,871
908
N
18,537
1,033
2,033
3,009
2,212
5,506
4,744
%
100.0
5.6
11.0
16.2
11.9
29.7
25.6
N
19,984
1,000
2,217
3,066
2,428
6,248
5,025
%
100.0
5.0
11.1
15.3
12.1
31.3
25.2
25 - 29
N
18,438
897
1,866
2,653
2,232
5,934
4,856
%
16
100.0
4.9
10.1
14.9
12.1
32.2
26.3
18,845
785
1,758
2,568
2,227
6,199
5,308
N
N
18,082
762
1,513
2,296
2,090
6,144
5,277
Fall 2006
%
100.0
4.2
8.4
12.7
11.5
34.0
29.2
18,824
796
1,594
2,315
2,190
6,355
5,574
N
19,751
852
1,651
2,406
2,374
6,730
5,738
N
20,484
858
1,601
2,407
2,566
6,893
6,159
N
100.0
4.2
7.8
11.8
12.5
33.7
30.0
%
Fall 2008
Fall 2008
100.0
4.3
8.4
12.2
12.0
34.1
29.0
%
Fall 2007
Fall 2007
100.0
4.2
8.5
12.3
11.6
33.8
29.6
%
Fall 2006
50 or Older
Fall 2005
40 - 49
Fall 2005
100.0
4.2
9.3
13.6
11.8
32.9
28.2
%
Fall 2004
30 - 39
Fall 2004
AGE
Fall 2003
20 - 24
19 or Younger
Fall 2002
Fall 2003
Fall 2002
Fall 2001
Fall 2001
100.0
30.2
5,093
16,870
%
25.0
N
4,226
Fall 2000
Fall 2000
19 or Younger
20 to 24 Years Old
25 to 29 Years Old
30 to 39 Years Old
40 to 49 Years Old
50 or Older
Age
N
1,906
953
6,144
428
6,375
124
65
173
702
16,870
TOTAL
100.0
%
11.3
5.7
36.4
2.5
37.8
0.7
0.4
1.0
4.2
Fall 2000
18,537
N
2,175
1,046
6,494
467
7,223
143
80
182
727
100.0
%
11.7
5.7
35.0
2.5
39.0
0.8
0.4
1.0
3.9
19,984
N
2,328
1,098
6,594
509
8,218
119
85
238
795
100.0
N
11.7
5.5
33.0
2.5
41.1
0.6
0.4
1.2
4.0
Fall 2002
17
100.0
N
11.7
5.6
32.0
2.7
41.6
0.6
0.4
1.3
4.1
Fall 2003
N
2,148
1,024
5,899
503
7,672
110
75
247
760
18,438
Caucasian
36.4%
Filipino
2.5%
African American
11.3%
Fall 2001
Unknown
4.2%
Asian/P.I.
6.3%
Native American
0.7%
Ethnicity
African American
Asian
Caucasian
Filipino
Hispanic
Native American
Pacific Islander
Other
Unknown
Hispanic
37.8%
Other
1.0%
Fall 2000 Semester
Hispanic
43.7%
18,845
N
2,224
1,016
5,612
550
8,186
130
72
259
796
100.0
%
11.8
5.4
29.8
2.9
43.4
0.7
0.4
1.4
4.2
Fall 2004
ETHNICITY
18,082
N
2,122
992
5,211
550
7,881
93
76
284
873
100.0
%
11.7
5.5
28.8
3.1
43.6
0.5
0.4
1.6
4.8
Fall 2005
Other
1.7%
18,824
N
2,195
1,055
5,287
564
8,026
110
110
304
1,173
100.0
%
11.7
5.6
28.1
3.0
42.6
0.6
0.6
1.6
6.2
Fall 2006
19,751
N
2,215
1,077
5,268
601
8,564
129
106
313
1,478
100.0
%
11.2
5.4
26.7
3.0
43.4
0.7
0.5
1.6
7.5
Fall 2007
Unknown
8.4%
20,484
N
2,230
1,114
5,278
589
8,946
139
107
360
1,721
100.0
%
10.9
5.4
25.8
2.9
43.7
0.7
0.5
1.7
8.4
Fall 2008
Caucasian
25.8%
Filipino
2.9%
African American
10.9%
Native American
0.7%
Asian/P.I.
5.9%
Fall 2008 Semester
TOTAL
0 to 2.9 Units
3.0 to 5.9 Units
6.0 to 8.9 Units
9.0 to 11.9 Units
12.0 to 14.9 Units
15 or More Units
Non-Credit
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Unit Load
Attempted
20.6
15.1
21.0
6.8
3.7
3,478
2,542
3,538
1,147
628
100.0
28.4
4,792
16,870
4.4
745
18,533
837
1,124
3,783
2,814
3,776
4,955
1,244
N
100.0
4.5
6.1
20.4
15.2
20.4
26.7
6.7
%
Fall 2001
%
19,984
679
1,237
4,286
3,036
4,319
5,378
1,049
N
100.0
3.4
6.2
21.4
15.2
21.6
26.9
5.3
%
18,438
660
1,235
4,156
2,901
3,889
4,857
740
N
Fall 2004
18
100.0
3.6
6.7
22.5
15.7
21.1
26.4
4.0
%
18,845
511
1,229
4,573
3,006
3,999
4,769
758
N
Fall 2005
100.0
2.7
6.5
24.3
16.0
21.2
25.3
4.0
%
18,082
539
1,237
4,539
2,815
3,802
4,425
725
N
Fall 2006
100.0
3.0
6.8
25.1
15.6
21.0
24.5
4.0
%
18,824
460
1,249
4,681
2,927
4,040
4,795
672
N
100.0
2.4
6.6
24.9
15.5
21.5
25.5
3.6
%
19,751
386
1,272
5,113
3,134
4,262
4,841
743
N
20,484
259
1,235
5,606
3,393
4,393
4,881
717
N
100.0
1.3
6.0
27.4
16.6
21.4
23.8
3.5
%
Fall 2008
Fall 2008
100.0
1.9
6.4
25.9
15.9
21.6
24.5
3.8
%
Fall 2007
Fall 2007
Non-Credit
Fall 2006
15+ Units
Fall 2005
12 - 14.9 Units
Fall 2004
9 - 11.9 Units
Fall 2003
6 - 8.9 Units
Fall 2003
Fall 2002
3 - 5.9 Units
Fall 2002
N
0 - 2.9 Units
Fall 2001
Fall 2000
Fall 2000
UNIT LOAD ATTEMPTED
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
TOTAL
WSCH
DSCH
Pos. Att.
Ind. Study
Accounting
Method
FTES Generated
13.8
0.7
1,677
78
100.0
17.7
2,156
12,157
%
67.8
N
8,246
2000-01
2000-01
N
13,085
211
1,765
2,524
8,585
2002-03
%
100.0
1.6
13.5
19.3
65.6
13,330
198
2,105
1,571
9,456
N
100.0
1.5
15.8
11.8
70.9
%
2002-03
Weekly Census
2001-02
2001-02
13,543
478
2,005
1,900
9,160
N
13,924
650
2,025
2,001
9,248
N
100.0
4.7
14.5
14.4
66.4
%
2004-05
12,901
577
1,644
1,187
9,493
100.0
4.5
12.7
9.2
73.6
%
2005-06
N
2006-07
14,063
962
1,353
2,010
9,738
N
100.0
6.9
9.6
14.3
69.2
%
2006-07
Independent Study
2005-06
Positive Attendance
2004-05
19
100.0
3.5
14.8
14.0
67.7
%
2003-04
Daily Census
2003-04
14,320
1,009
1,084
1,908
10,319
N
100.0
7.0
7.6
13.3
72.1
%
2007-08
2007-08
ANNUAL FTES GENERATED BY ATTENDANCE ACCOUNTING METHOD
14,841
1,283
1,163
1,699
10,696
N
100.0
8.6
7.8
11.5
72.1
%
2008-09
2008-09
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
TOTAL
37
100.0
2.1
212
1,776
11.0
11.9
195
%
75.0
N
1,332
Fall 2000
N
1,909
61
261
251
1,336
%
100.0
3.2
13.7
13.1
70.0
N
2,056
74
308
233
1,441
%
100.0
3.6
15.0
11.3
70.1
N
1,813
80
242
176
1,315
%
20
100.0
4.4
13.4
9.7
72.5
1,912
93
247
190
1,382
N
100.0
4.9
12.9
9.9
72.3
%
Fall 2004
Fall 2006
1,963
82
189
180
1,512
N
100.0
4.2
9.6
9.2
77.0
%
Fall 2005
N
1,933
136
159
165
1,473
%
100.0
7.1
8.2
8.5
76.2
N
2,060
162
154
166
1,578
%
100.0
7.9
7.5
8.0
76.6
2,018
178
117
148
1,575
N
100.0
8.8
5.8
7.3
78.1
%
Fall 2008
Fall 2008
Fall 2007
Fall 2007
Fall 2006
Independent Study
Fall 2005
Positive Attendance
Fall 2004
Fall 2003
Daily Census
Fall 2003
Fall 2002
Weekly Census
Fall 2002
Fall 2001
Fall 2001
SECTIONS OFFERED BY ATTENDANCE ACCOUNTING METHOD
Fall 2000
Weekly Census
Daily Census
Positive Attendance
Independent Study
Accounting
Method
Number of Sections
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
TOTAL
1.1
0.6
0.5
19
11
9
100.0
21.2
377
1,776
%
76.6
N
1,360
N
1,909
9
18
27
421
1,434
%
100.0
0.5
0.9
1.4
22.1
75.1
N
2,056
8
30
26
498
1,494
%
100.0
0.4
1.4
1.3
24.2
72.7
1,813
7
37
31
421
1,317
N
21
100.0
0.4
2.0
1.7
23.2
72.7
%
Fall 2003
Fall 2005
1,912
5
58
27
462
1,360
N
100.0
0.3
3.0
1.4
24.2
71.1
%
Fall 2004
N
1,963
0
93
23
379
1,468
%
100.0
0.0
4.7
1.2
19.3
74.8
1,933
3
93
14
355
1,468
N
100.0
0.2
4.8
0.7
18.4
75.9
%
Fall 2006
2,060
0
109
20
382
1,549
N
100.0
0.0
5.3
1.0
18.5
2,018
0
119
20
367
1,512
N
100.0
0.0
5.9
1.0
18.2
74.9
%
Fall 2008
Fall 2008
75.2
%
Fall 2007
Fall 2007
Other/Unreported
Fall 2006
Fall 2005
Distance Education
Fall 2004
Work Experience
Fall 2003
Fall 2002
Laboratory
Fall 2002
Fall 2001
Lecture
Fall 2001
SECTIONS OFFERED BY PRIMARY INSTRUCTIONAL METHOD
Fall 2000
Fall 2000
Lecture
Laboratory
Work Experience
Distance Education
Other
Instructional
Method
Number of Sections
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
TOTAL
36.4
100.0
647
1,776
%
63.6
N
1,129
1,909
690
1,219
N
100.0
36.1
63.9
%
Fall 2001
N
2,056
749
1,307
%
100.0
36.4
63.6
1,813
666
1,147
N
22
100.0
36.7
63.3
%
Fall 2003
1,912
668
1,244
N
100.0
34.9
65.1
%
Fall 2004
N
1,963
648
1,315
%
100.0
33.0
67.0
1,933
662
1,271
N
100.0
34.2
65.8
2,060
712
1,348
N
34.6
100.0
2,018
646
1,372
N
100.0
32.0
68.0
%
Fall 2008
Fall 2008
65.4
%
Fall 2007
Fall 2007
%
Fall 2006
Fall 2006
Fall 2005
Fall 2005
Occupational
Fall 2004
Non-Occupational
Fall 2003
Fall 2002
Fall 2002
SECTIONS OFFERED BY OCCUPATIONAL STATUS
Fall 2001
Fall 2000
Fall 2000
Non-Occupational
Occupational
Occupational
Status
Number of Sections
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
Fall 2000
Grades on Record
Success Rate
Retention Rate
Percent
Fall 2001
46,489
59.8%
76.8%
Fall 2002
Fall 2000
43,456
59.8%
75.8%
Fall 2001
Fall 2002
52,349
61.4%
79.0%
Fall 2003
49,803
63.2%
81.0%
23
Fall 2005
Fall 2004
52,026
63.7%
84.5%
Retention Rate
Fall 2004
Success Rate
Fall 2003
Fall 2005
51,653
62.6%
84.8%
Fall 2006
SUCCESS RATES AND RETENTION RATES
Fall 2006
52,300
63.1%
85.9%
Fall 2007
Fall 2007
56,547
62.5%
85.0%
Fall 2008
58,478
65.3%
85.7%
Fall 2008
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
TOTAL
28.9
7.5
0.0
443
114
0
100.0
0.0
0
1,531
16.1
247
1,604
0
92
464
0
272
776
47.5
727
100.0
0.0
5.7
28.9
0.0
17.0
48.4
%
2001-02
N
%
1,717
18
79
137
294
284
905
N
2003-04
100.0
1.1
4.6
8.0
17.1
16.5
52.7
%
1,965
36
130
174
487
268
870
N
2004-05
24
100.0
1.8
6.6
8.9
24.8
13.6
44.3
1,748
25
99
124
384
242
874
N
100.0
1.4
5.7
7.1
22.0
13.8
1,683
28
93
77
318
241
926
100.0
1.7
5.5
4.6
18.9
14.3
55.0
%
2005-06
N
2,014
26
95
153
369
289
1,082
100.0
1.3
4.7
7.6
18.3
14.4
53.7
%
2006-07
N
2,131
42
120
201
374
250
1,144
N
100.0
2.0
5.6
9.4
17.6
11.7
53.7
%
2007-08
2007-08
60+ Unit Cert.
2006-07
30-60 Unit Cert.
2005-06
50.0
%
2004-05
18-30 Unit Cert.
%
2003-04
6-18 Unit Cert.
2002-03
A.S. Degree
A.A. Degree
2000-01
2002-03
2001-02
DEGREES AND CERTIFICATES AWARDED
N
2000-01
A.A. Degree
A.S. Degree
6-18 Unit Cert.
18-30 Unit Cert.
30 to 60 Unit Cert.
60+ Unit Cert.
Degrees and
Certificates
Number of Awards
2,311
2
114
584
90
346
1,175
N
100.0
0.1
4.9
25.3
3.9
15.0
50.8
%
2008-09
2008-09
TOTAL
CSUs
UCs
Ind. Institutions
Out of State
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Transfer
Institution
Number of Transfers
16.5
23.2
576
813
100.0
18.2
636
3,496
42.1
1,471
3,514
886
727
385
1,516
100.0
25.2
20.7
11.0
43.1
%
N
N
%
2001-02
2002-03
2000-01
2001-02
3,451
962
630
407
1,452
100.0
27.9
18.2
11.8
42.1
3,737
1,196
600
429
1,512
25
100.0
32.0
16.0
11.5
40.5
%
N
%
N
3,930
1,278
622
415
1,615
100.0
32.5
15.8
10.6
41.1
%
2004-05
N
2006-07
3,769
1,234
573
423
1,539
N
100.0
32.8
15.2
11.2
40.8
%
2005-06
3,874
1,285
576
379
1,634
N
100.0
33.2
14.8
9.8
42.2
%
N
4,345
1,376
1,169
403
100.0
31.7
26.9
9.3
32.1
%
4,084
1,511
664
362
1,547
100.0
37.0
16.2
8.9
37.9
%
2008-09
N
2008-09
2007-08
1,397
2007-08
2006-07
Out of State Institutions
2005-06
Independent Institutions
2003-04
UCs
2004-05
2002-03
CSUs
2003-04
TRANSFERS TO FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTIONS
26
27
Chaffey Community College District Management Organizational Chart 2009-2010
Eligibility Requirements
Eligibility
Requirements
ELIGIBILITY
Chaffey College was last visited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges
(WASC) in spring 2004 and received notification of its continued accreditation with
only two recommendations to continue the initiatives begun. The institution began
preparation for its self study in 2008 for accreditation in 2010 and will continue to
meet eligibility requirements for accreditation in the following areas:
1. Authority
Chaffey College’s authority to operate a degree granting institution is based on
continuous accreditation by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior
Colleges of the Western Association for Community and Junior Colleges, the
institutional accreditation body for California’s Community Colleges (California
Code of Regulations, Title 5, Division 6, Chapter 2, Subchapter 1, §51016).
2. Mission
In the first year of tenure (2007-2008) the superintendent/president began
discussions related to the re-evaluation of the Institutional Mission and
development of a vision statement to follow a three year review cycle to maintain
relevance.
The Institutional Mission was re-evaluated by the Standard I Committee (Mission
and Effectiveness) during the self study writing in 2009 and a revised mission is in
the process of being approved through the shared governance process. The new
mission below adds institutional commitment to teaching and learning (strike outs
are in existing mission).
Chaffey College improves lives within the diverse communities it serves
through equal access to quality learning centered occupational, transfer,
general education, and foundation programs in an learning-centered
environment where student success is highly valued, supported, and
continually assessed.
The institution’s Governing Board members requested to take the mission to the
community on their business cards. The revised Institutional Mission will honor
that request.
Discussion on a vision statement resulted in the development and Governing Board
approval of core competencies, the institutional student learning outcomes.
28
3. Governing Board
The five-member Governing Board governs the Chaffey College District, a single
college district. Members are elected to the Governing Board for four-year terms
from within the college district. The institution’s Governing Board is responsible for
the quality, integrity, and financial stability of the institution and for ensuring that
the Institutional Mission is practiced. To provide continuity of services, the terms of
the Governing Board members are staggered. The student who serves on the board
holds the role of both student trustee and student body president and is elected by
students for a one-year term.
The Governing Board follows the Brown Act holding open monthly meetings with
notices and agendas posted widely in advance. The board conducts business based
on the John Carver Policy Governance Model supported by the Community College
League of California. This model provides for integrated planning efforts for the
institution through its Institutional Goals/Ends Policies.
4. Chief Executive Officer
The superintendent/president of the institution, Dr. Henry Shannon, was hired by
the Governing Board following an extensive national search. He serves as the chief
executive officer with full-time responsibility to the district and the institution. He
has the requisite authority to administer board policies. His tenure began in
September 2007 with his primary responsibility of leadership to the institution.
5. Administrative Capacity
The current administrative staff at the institution consists of three vice presidents,
the executive administrator for the Chino campus, and two executive assistants to
the superintendent/president. A fourth vice president, the vice president of student
services, retired in 2009 and a decision was made not to rehire the position due to
the economic downturn in the state.
Instead, the Governing Board and
superintendent/president assigned the responsibility for Student Services to the vice
president of instruction. With the support of the deans and new management
processes, administrative staff is able to provide sufficient oversight and support for
the institution.
For the Chino campus, the administration consists of the executive administrator,
previously vice president of instruction at the Rancho campus. The Fontana campus
is managed by a director. Both administrators have the qualifications to adequately
provide appropriate administrative oversight. Both and are involved in planning
and decision making with the Rancho campus to ensure that all three locations
comprise one institution following the same policies and procedures.
29
6. Operational Status
The institution has been in continuous operation since its inception and is
celebrating 125 years of providing instruction and services to students.
7. Degrees
The institution offers 89 programs leading to associate degrees (A.A. and A.S.) and
118 leading to certificates. Degrees offered at the Chino campus includes Computer
Information Systems, Industrial Electrical Technology, Hotel and Food Service, and
Nursing as well as most other associate degrees that are currently offered at the
Rancho campus. At the Fontana campus, full degrees are not offered; however,
coursework leading to a degree can be completed by students.
8. Educational Programs
In California, by statute, the Board of Governors has statewide responsibility for the
approval of all new instructional programs in community colleges. All associate
degree majors that are listed by name on a student transcript or diploma require
Chancellor’s Office approval whether they are primarily for employment
preparation or primarily for transfer. The institution’s degree programs are
congruent with its Institutional Mission. (The self study is based on the 2004
mission which is presently being reviewed). The regulatory process ensures that
programs are designed to address higher education fields of study and are
conducted at high levels of quality and rigor leading to student learning outcomes.
The curriculum development process operates using CurricUNET software and
there is one curriculum process for all three campuses.
The institution offers a comprehensive general education curriculum including a
variety of general education, foundation, and occupational courses. Students are
able to complete their general education requirements at the Chino campus without
having to travel 35 minutes to the Rancho campus.
Educational programs offered at the Fontana campus also allow students to
complete their general education requirements and students can begin their
programs in a number of areas including Administration of Justice, Correctional
Science, Business Administration, and Business and Office Technologies.
Learning resources are addressed by providing students at the three campuses with
access to student success centers. Each site has a multidisciplinary center and
Rancho and Chino also offer dedicated centers of Reading and Writing,
Mathematics, or both. The success centers offer educational services to students,
30
including workshops, tutoring, learning groups, and directed learning activities.
The success centers will model the Rancho campus for services offered to students,
including workshops, tutoring, learning groups, and directed learning activities.
9. Academic Credit
Academic credit is based on California Administrative Code, Title 5, § 55002.5.
Statutory requirements govern the granting of academic credits. The College
Catalog 2008-2009 provides information on credit in the Academic Information
Chapter on page 17.
10. Student Learning and Achievement
Learning objectives are a major aspect of the course outlines of record and are
required for course approval by the curriculum committee. The institution has
developed student learning outcomes for instructional and student services
programs. Student learning outcomes have been established for programs and
courses offered. Those outcomes are assessed, data are collected, and results are
examined to determine if students are meeting the learning objectives as expected.
Courses, programs, and degrees offered at all three campuses meet the same
standards.
Learning objectives are also a component of the institution’s systematic assessment
processes. The institution defines and publishes each program’s student learning
and achievement outcomes in multiple locations including the Chaffey College
Outcomes and Assessment website, the Office of Institutional Research website, and
in Chaffey’s Program and Services Review. In addition, the institution’s Core
Competencies/Institutional Learning Outcomes are published on the institution’s
website and in the College Catalog 2008-2009. Equally important, in the institution’s
most recent Program and Services Review all of the outcomes submitted by each
program were reviewed and constructive feedback was provided to each program
by the Outcomes and Assessment Committee. Specifically, the Outcomes and
Assessment Committee completed the evaluation of 355 SLOs from 80 programs,
and 321 AUOs from 52 programs. In total, 113 of the 123 (92%) program’s SLOs
and/or AUOs were evaluated by the task force in March of 2009. Documentation of
the institution’s progress on students achieving occupational, transfer, general
education, and foundation program outcomes is published in the institution’s
Annual Academic Success Report, which is based on the Accountability Reporting
for the California Community Colleges (ARCC). The information from this report is
shared with the institution’s constituencies to assist with planning and is published
on the institution’s Office of Institutional Research website.
31
11. General Education
The minimum requirements for graduation with an AA or AS degree are specified
by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges and the
institution’s Governing Board. The degree will be granted upon completion of 60
semester units. A minimum of 18 units is required in general education to ensure
breadth of knowledge. The general education component requires competence in
writing and computation and is an introduction to major areas of knowledge.
Requirements are the same for the Rancho, Chino, and Fontana campuses.
12. Academic Freedom
The institution, through the shared governance process, has designed an academic
freedom philosophy statement that is included in the institution’s policy handbook.
The statement reads:
Chaffey College’s central function – teaching, learning, research, and
scholarship – depends upon an atmosphere in which freedom of inquiry,
thought, expression, publication, and peaceable assembly are given the fullest
protection. Expression of the widest range of viewpoints will be encouraged,
free from institutional orthodoxy and from internal or external coercion.
It is the freedom to challenge ideas, pose questions, support problem-solving
within the classroom, and encourage students to freely ask questions, suggest
possible solutions, and either accept or reject ideas.
13. Faculty
As of fall 2009, the institution employed 226 full-time and 635 part-time faculty. All
faculty meet or exceed the minimum qualifications for the discipline of hire. Faculty
come from educational institutions, industry, and business to provide the institution
with a faculty with many talents to support students and the diverse program of
offerings demanded and expected of a community college. Faculty make numerous
contributions to the communities in which they reside and to the teaching
profession. They are leaders in business, industry, and the arts; prize-winning
scientists and writers; technical experts, and scholars. They have worked in every
field at every level of education and share their rich experience with their students.
14. Student Services
Supporting the Institutional Mission, the institution provides appropriate student
services to assist students in learning and development. As listed in the College
Catalog 2008-2009, these services include Admissions and Records, Financial Aid,
32
Veterans Services, High School Relations, Student Health Services, Student
Activities, Articulation/High School Tech Prep, Cooperative Education, Counseling,
Disability Programs and Services, EOPS, Guidance, International Students, Learning
and Educational Development, Matriculation, Student Employment, Transfer
Center, and Athletics and Physical Education.
Additionally, special programs that address the needs of the institution’s diverse
students, such as the Puente Project, AMAN/AWOMAN, Learning and Educational
Development, Project Second Chance, Honors, Opening Doors, Early Alert, and the
Global Career Center (GCC) are in place. The Puente Project is designed to provide
individual assistance to students interested in transferring to four-year colleges and
universities. Puente students are provided with intensive English instruction,
focused personal counseling, introductory tours of UC and Cal State campuses, and
helpful personal mentoring. AMAN/AWOMAN is designed to positively impact
retention of African-American students. Students take guidance courses with a
focus on the African-American experience and tour historically black colleges and
universities. The Learning and Educational Development program is a state-funded
initiative with the goal of assisting non-credit students transitioning into credit
sources. Project Second Chance is a support program for individuals who did not
graduate from high school and want to continue their education. The Honors
Program offers enriching experiences to improve the quality of education, provide
challenges, and motivate academically talented students who strive for advanced
academic achievement.
Opening Doors to Excellence assists at risk students through several specialized
programs including academic and/or progress probation by providing enhanced
counseling and specialized instruction. Smart Start and Project Second Chance
assists new students identified through assessment as being at risk. The program
provides enhanced counseling and orientation and specialized instruction. Early
Alert assists instructional faculty with a computerized early warning program to
notify students in their classes by email when they are experiencing academic
difficulty. Early Alert staff send follow up correspondence by mail and make phone
calls to alert students.
It is extremely important for students to make educated and informed career
decisions in this global economy. Professional career counselors are available in the
Global Career Center (GCC) to assist students and members of the community in
formulating their career goals by assessing interests, aptitudes, values and
personality type to help them make their career choices. The GCC also provides
workshops regarding interviewing techniques, resume writing, career networking
opportunities and a career resource library. Several career and personality
assessments are available online through the GCC website.
33
15. Admissions
In concert with Title 5 requirements, the institution is an “open-door” institution.
All high school graduates, anyone who has a Certificate of Proficiency or a G.E.D.,
and anyone 18 years of age or older who can benefit from a course of study are/is
eligible for admission.
High school students, residents of other states and foreign countries, and veterans
may apply under special regulations. High school students may enroll to pursue
advanced scholastic or vocational education. They must have completed the 10th
grade and have a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.5 to be eligible. A variety of
services are provided to international students, including guidance and assistance to
maintain their student visa status, information and assistance regarding change of
status processes, academic guidance, career development housing/homestay
referrals, social and cultural activities, and various other services. Veterans and
eligible dependents who wish to receive VA educational benefits while attending
the institution will meet with the veteran certifying official to begin the process.
Veterans’ services are available at the Rancho, Chino, and Fontana campuses.
Veterans may request elective credit for service schools completed while serving in
the Armed Forces, Armed Forces Reserve, or National Guard.
16. Information and Learning Resources
The Library provides sufficient information and learning resources to maintain
effective learning programs. Resources include reference assistance by librarians,
on-line databases, a print and non-print collection, and access to the Library on an
appropriate schedule.
Extensive learning support is provided through the
institution’s success centers, Supplemental Instruction program, and computer labs.
A full description of library and learning support and technology support can be
found in the self study standard IIC and IIIC.
17. Financial Resources
The institution’s funding base, financial resources, and plans for financial
development are adequate to support student learning programs and services, to
improve institutional effectiveness, and to assure financial stability. In 2008, the
institution became fiscally independent. Most of the financial resources of the
institution come from the State of California, with additional funding from other
state, federal and private sources. All funds are carefully tracked and documented.
The institution maintains conservative financial management policies and practices
that ensure continued fiscal stability.
34
18. Financial Accountability
The institution is audited on an annual basis by an independent audit firm. The
audit firm uses Audits of Colleges and Universities as one of its guides when
performing the audit. The audit is presented annually during a board meeting and
the Governing Board reviews the audit report. The institution files the audit report
with the State Chancellor’s Office and any other public and/or private agencies as
required and/or requested.
In January 2008, the institution hired an internal auditor who provides ongoing
monitoring and assessment of internal controls, safeguarding of assets, and
compliance with laws and regulations. The audits performed mitigate the risk of
financial reporting errors and omissions. In addition, the internal auditor acts as a
liaison between the external auditors and the institution to ensure that
recommendations are implemented.
19. Institutional Planning and Evaluation
A plan to monitor achievement of desired outcomes is in place. The institution
systematically evaluates and publicizes how well and in what ways it accomplishes
its goals. The institution assesses progress in its annual program and services
reviews for every program/service/office. An extensive review process has been
designed and is coordinated by a shared governance PSR committee.
Recommendations from the PSR committee are linked to the institution’s budgetary
and planning process. The institution was commended by the visiting team during
the accreditation process for its integrated processes of planning and evaluation.
The Chino and Fontana campus programs are following the same processes. The
institution has an outstanding Office of Institutional Research recognized in the
State of California for its leadership. Assessment and evaluation of student success,
retention, persistence, transfer, basic skills attainment, and a plentitude of other
variables will be identified, measured, and used in implementation of change.
Chaffey College’s Institutional Effectiveness Process in the Strategic Planning
Framework for Institutional Effectiveness (SPFIE) drives the institution’s effort to
continually assess progress toward achieving its stated goals. Specifically, the SPFIE
guides the institution in the process of an ongoing and systematic cycle of
evaluation, integrated planning, resource allocation, implementation, and reevaluation.
The institution’s SPFIE links Student Learning Outcomes,
Administrative Unit Outcomes, reports to the Governing Board on progress in
achieving predefined Institutional Goals/Ends Policies, Program and Services
Review, resource allocation, implementation, and re-evaluation.
35
Referring the SPFIE, Chaffey College’s Institutional Mission (1) drives its
Institutional Goals (2). Institutional Goals are also referred to as Ends Policies.
Chaffey’s Institutional Goals/Ends Policies also influence the Institutional Mission.
Under the adopted framework, the Institutional Mission will be reviewed annually
to ensure that it fully reflects the goals of the institution and that a symbiotic
relationship exists between Institutional Mission and goals.
Institutional Goals/Ends Policies drive the Program Mission/Program Goals (4). In
order to achieve programmatic goals, specific activities are designed, expressed as
outcome statements (5a). Reflecting the nature of each individual program, outcome
statements are reported as either Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) or
Administrative Unit Outcomes (AUOs). Outcomes statements (5a) represent the
first step at the heart of the framework, the Institutional Effectiveness Process.
Through the new Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness,
specifically the Institutional Effectiveness Process, inherent in all institutional
functions is the expectation that a means of assessment (5b), summary of evidence
(5c), and use of results for planning (5d) will be addressed. This process is
specifically addressed in the institution’s revised Program and Services Review
(PSR) process, administrative unit and student learning outcomes assessment cycles,
and monitoring reports.
Again, referring to the SPFIE, as steps 5e, 5f, and 5g indicate, it is of vital importance
that results of the assessment cycle are used in a meaningful way (i.e., “closing the
loop”). Depending upon the institutional function – SLOs, AUOs, PSR, or
monitoring reports – results are used to inform discussion and promote continuous
improvement of SLOs/AUOs, programs goals, and/or Institutional Goals/Ends
Policies. This completed assessment and planning cycle assists the institution in
determining institutional effectiveness.
As it relates to PSR, evidence is now firmly incorporated into decisions that affect
budget requests and resource allocation (6). Subcommittee recommendations (7),
subsequent larger PSR committee recommendations (8), presidential input (9), and
ultimate acceptance/non-acceptance (10) of resource and budget requests are driven
by the Institutional Effectiveness Process addressing following questions:
•
•
•
•
•
What are the goals of the program?
How does the program plan to assess achievement of goals?
What criteria has the program established to measure goal attainment?
What evidence exists in relation to these goals?
How are results/findings incorporated into future planning?
36
In all instances, programmatic goals and corresponding requests for resources
and/or budget augmentations directly relate to student learning or support
activities which ultimately lead to student learning.
By embracing the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness, a
number of other reporting processes have also been made considerably easier and
more consistent. The executive assistant to the superintendent/president has
incorporated the framework to design AUO in-services for management and
developed a planning schedule for the Governing Board, highlighting the
relationship between monitoring reports and planning documents (now clearly
delineated) and Institutional Goals/Ends Policies and accreditation standards. The
vice president of instruction has used the planning framework to present weekly
instructional updates to the Governing Board. Even clearer linkages will exist in the
future between important institution documents, monitoring reports, Institutional
Goals/Ends Policies, and accreditation standards by adhering to the process.
20. Public Information
The institution’s College Catalog 2008-2009, the schedule of classes, and the website
contain precise, accurate and current information. The Office of Marketing and
Public Relations and the Office of Instructional Support maintain these documents
following guidelines stated by the Education Code and the State Chancellor’s Office.
Information in these publications include (and is not limited to) the Institutional
Mission, instructional information, campus locations, student guidelines and
support.
21. Relationship with the Accreditation Commission
The institution was last accredited in 2004 and received two commendations to
continue its good work in the areas of “serving its communities with innovative and
effective programs in an optimistic and energetic way” and “the collaboration that
characterizes the interactions among its dedicated administrators, faculty, and staff.”
The institution’s Governing Board assures the commission that it adheres to the
accreditation standards and policies of the commission and the eligibility
requirements. The institution describes itself in identical terms to all accreditation
agencies and will communicate any changes in its accredited status if necessitated in
the future. The institution agrees to disclose information required by the
commission to carry out its accreditation responsibilities and will comply with
requests, directions, recommendations, decisions, and policies rendered by the
commission making complete, accurate and honest disclosures.
37
Responses to 2004 Recommendations
Responses to 2004
Recommendations
RESPONSES TO THE 2004 TEAM RECOMMEDATIONS AND
COMMISSION ACTION LETTER
Chaffey College received two recommendations.
1. The team recommends that the institution accelerate its development of an
institution-wide understanding of, and commitment to, Student Learning
Outcomes as an indicator of student success. (Standards 4B.3, 4B.5, 4B.6, 4C.4)
Recommendation 1 was in progress in the 2007 Midterm Report and completed by
November 19, 2009
Response
In response to the accreditation team’s recommendation, the institution has actively
accelerated its Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) development for the institution.
Instructional programs and Student Services have made great progress in
committing to Student Learning Outcomes as success indicators. Following 2004,
both entities embarked on their own development path. The director of institutional
research (IR) was assigned by the previous superintendent/president as the link
between instruction and student services. He served on the Instruction Student
Learning Outcomes Task Force, and co-chaired the Student Services Committee with
the executive assistant (EA) to the superintendent/president who was the 2004 and
is the 2010 accreditation liaison officer.
Following the 2004 Accreditation Team visit, several meetings were held with all
student services managers identifying common student services outcomes across
programs. The question was asked: “What knowledge, skills, and/or abilities do
you want your students to possess after they have been served by your program?”
All managers worked together to identify what they thought would be an answer to
this question. Through collegial dialogue it became clear that there were common
student services learning outcomes with which all individual program managers
could identify. These included social responsibility, self-esteem (professional pride),
independence, accountability, and effective use of appropriate technology. Focusing
on these original common learning outcomes, it was agreed that each Student
Services program would identify no more than three learning outcomes to launch
their initial learning outcomes assessment efforts. The table on page 261 of Standard
II.B (Student Support Services) illustrates the progress that all Student Services
programs have made in respect to the Commission’s SLO rubric. As the table
indicates, all programs are currently implementing SLOs at least at a developmental
38
level, with almost half of the Student Services programs (47.0%) operating at a
proficient level.
After engaging in extensive training and discussion, student services programs
utilized a wide array of assessment instruments and methodologies. While the
majority of student services programs have developed pre/post assessment
instruments for both external (e.g., faculty, staff, employers, etc.) evaluators and
student self-evaluations, a number of programs are also engaged in, or are
exploring, other means of assessment. Behavioral, affective, cognitive, and
performance measures have all been explored and are currently being incorporated
by various student services programs.
In spring 2004 the Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) Taskforce was formed to
begin preliminary, investigative dialogue about student learning outcomes. The
taskforce started by exploring the models, definitions, and issues in relation to SLOs
that were already in place. The faculty SLO facilitators and the director of
institutional research drafted a plan to begin assessment at the program level. Five
pilot projects in Economics, Communication Studies, Business and Office
Management, English, and Chemistry were initiated to develop and assess Student
Learning Outcomes. Information gathered from the pilot project was used to expand
the development and assessment of SLOs to over 90 programs by the end of 2007.
In spring of 2008 the SLO task force initiated conversation about institutional level
SLOs while continuing to expand the development and assessment of program level
SLOs and AUOs. At the beginning of the fall 2008 semester two new SLO cocoordinators were selected from the faculty. One SLO facilitator also serves as the
curriculum chair, which provided the institution a unique opportunity to integrate
SLOs into course outlines of record. The two new SLO co-coordinators worked with
the newly formed SLO Steering Committee to develop Chaffey’s institutional SLOs
(core competencies) which, after going through the shared governance process, were
approved by the institution’s Governing Board in January of 2009. The four core
competencies are: communication, critical thinking and information competency,
community/global awareness and responsibility, and personal academic and career
development.
An assessment schedule has been established for core competencies for the next five
years. Every spring, a different core competency will be assessed campus wide. The
first campus wide assessment, for the critical thinking (CT) core competency,
occurred during the spring 2009 semester. Twenty-two faculty administered the
critical thinking assessment to 1,609 students in 44 courses and 87 sections.
Reflective dialogue occurred during the fall 2009 flex when faculty discussed what
CT looks like in their classes, and how to improve student learning in this area. The
discussion centered on the challenge of identifying a clear definition of CT and how
39
CT was not clearly captured across disciplines because CT is reflected differently in
each program of study.
Over the course of the last six years training has been offered continuously through
flex as well as meetings held with both student services and instructional
departments. For instance, fall 2009 flex offered the following SLO training sessions:
“SLO’s: Deconstructing Fact and Myth,” “A Method to the Madness: A Review of
the institution’s Assessment Cycle,” “I Got the Data, Now What: How to Close the
SLO Assessment Loop,” “Pre and Post Test: An Introduction to a Basic No Nonsense
Assessment Tool,” and “Debriefing the Critical Thinking Assessment.” Training and
support materials are also available online from both the institution’s SLO
assessment website and the Office of Institutional Research web page. In addition,
the Office of Institutional Research and the SLO faculty coordinators regularly
attend department meetings to help facilitate understanding and implementation of
SLOs processes. Equally important, the SLO facilitators and the Office of
Institutional Research staff regularly attend learning outcomes professional
development workshops throughout the state. Moreover, a Learning Outcomes
Handbook has been produced which includes a narrative of Chaffey’s SLO journey,
a timeline of SLO activity, and a glossary of terms. Copies of PowerPoint
presentations, which have been made available to faculty since 2004, review issues
such as SLO myths and best practices regarding assessment. A newsletter, The
S.L.O. Down, devoted to campus-wide learning outcomes issues has been
established, and is electronically distributed campus-wide, on a monthly basis.
Additionally, an in-service manual specifically designed for development of AUOs
has been designed by the accreditation liaison officer. The manual was used to
introduce managers to the AUO process and design of AUOs for Program and
Services Review (PSR).
Tracking of learning outcomes is currently occurring on two systems and both are
continuously revised to improve the process. As was mentioned previously, all of
the program SLOs/AUOs are currently identified in the PSR process, which uses
CurricUNET. This software was recently revised by the SLO and PSR Committees
to connect the institutional effectiveness process from the Strategic Planning
Framework for Institutional Effectiveness to PSR, planning, and allocation of
resources. Initially the Wurtz Wheel, initially created as a teaching tool, was used to
track course level learning outcomes. The Wurtz Wheel used Cardiff Verity
Teleform and Microsoft Access Software, (Access) to allow user to complete the
assessment cycle online and receive a PDF copy of the SLO assessment cycle.
However, starting in the fall 2009 semester, the Wurtz Wheel was replaced by the
COR addendum component in CurricUNET to document course-level SLOs. As
part of curriculum review and modification, all programs are now required to
document course-level learning outcomes as new courses are proposed or existing
courses come up for review in the six-year review cycle. The CurricUNET course-
40
level SLO process adheres to the institutional effectiveness process, requiring all
course-level SLOs to define and document outcomes, means of assessment and
criteria, evidence, and how reflective dialogue is occurring around evidence to
facilitate continuous improvement.
SLOs, AUOs, and authentic assessment are occurring at the program level,
institutional level, and course levels in both instruction and student services. The
institution decided to begin the development of assessing learning outcomes at the
program level and then move down to the course level and up to the institutional
level. This has helped to encourage dialogue within individual departments and to
connect the development of learning outcomes on an institutional level to program
review and resource allocation through the Institutional Effectiveness Process. This
is evident in that 92% of the respondents to the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey
agreed or strongly agreed that the institution maintains an ongoing, collegial, selfreflective dialogue about the continuous improvement of learning and institutional
processes. The process of evaluating each learning outcome submitted by each
instructional and student services program as part of Program and Services Review
(PSR) also demonstrates how the institution has fully addressed recommendation
one from the commission action letter. Implementation of the SLO process is
comprehensive. One hundred and twenty-three instructional and student services
programs participated in this process and had their learning outcomes reviewed by
the Outcomes and Assessment Committee. The purpose of the review was to help
motivate, engage, and educate the institution about the learning outcomes process.
This is demonstrated in typical comments written by trained SLO/AUO reviewers.
It is apparent from the comments that the institution’s goals of motivating,
educating, and engaging faculty and staff in learning outcomes assessment to
“…build a process for ongoing reflection and improvement” are emphasized in the
feedback provided to faculty and staff:
Overall, excellent first effort! For the most part, you have clear outcome
statements and you have been thoughtful about your means of assessment.
Since you have not actually assessed anything yet, you do not need to
complete the summary of evidence and the use of results for planning
sections. We thought it would be helpful to walk you through the AUOs and
provide some specific feedback. Here we go…
The SLO Task Force also completed the evaluation of 355 SLOs from 80 instructional
and student services programs, and 321 AUOs from 52 instructional and student
services programs. In total, 113 of the 123 (92%) programs SLOs and/or AUOs were
evaluated by the task force in March of 2009 demonstrating the link between
learning outcomes and program review.
41
Results of the evaluations show that assessments are used for improvement and
further alignment of institution-wide practices; for example, 95% of the AUOs and
89% of the SLOs are linked to the core competencies and/or Institutional
Goals/Ends Policies. The results of the evaluations also show that dialogue about
student learning is ongoing and pervasive:
•
•
•
•
15% of the programs that have developed an AUO have participated in a
dialogue centering around the results of the assessment of a learning outcome.
dialogue that has generated strategies for using the results to improve planning.
39% of the programs that have developed an SLO have participated in a dialogue
centering around the results of the assessment of a learning outcome.
that has generated strategies for using the results to improve learning.
The institution is continuing to refine its assessment and outcomes processes. For
example, the Outcomes and Assessment Committee, formally the Student Learning
Outcomes Committee, is currently discussing the components of comprehensive
assessment reports and the processes that are involved in updating this information.
Specifically, the learning outcomes coordinators have developed a process in
CurricUNET to capture this information at a course level and the institution is
currently working on developing a system where the information can be easily
extracted for reporting purposes. The institution looks at the development of
Student Learning Outcomes as a continuous dynamic process.
Since 2004, the institution has accelerated the development of student learning
outcomes in instructional and student services programs and faculty and staff
identify learning outcomes as the indicator for student success.
There is
institutional-wide increased understanding of, and “buy-in” to, student learning
outcomes.
2. The team recommends that the college review the manner in which staff
development activities are offered in the interest of establishing a comprehensive,
unified program of services. (Standards 7C.1, 7C.2)
Recommendation 2 was in progress in the 2007 Midterm Report and completed by
November 19, 2009
After the last Accreditation Team visit, the previous superintendent/president
reviewed the staff development functions of the organization and deemed it a
priority for all employee groups. In 2005 a task force was established and charged
with determining the campus needs for centralized program that would include
guidelines and processes for travel and conference, while also providing training
42
and professional development opportunities for faculty and staff. The Report on
Establishing a Comprehensive Professional Development Program for Chaffey
College was presented to the previous superintendent/president and vice president
of instruction in April of 2005.
In accordance with the findings, the college hired a professional development
administrator in August of 2006. This position was designed to provide leadership
and responsibility for the Professional Development Program and the goals and
objectives of the Professional Development Committee. Specifically, this position
included responsibility for committee decisions, oversight of daily operations,
coordination and delivery of programs, program assessment and evaluation, and the
integration of program resources, and the administration of the program budget.
Since 2006, the professional development director position has been held by several
people. Each of them made a meaningful contribution to the expansion and
functionality of professional development efforts. Recently the responsibility for
staff development was assumed by the interim dean of instructional support. Since
fall 2006, the Professional Development Committee has established a series of
meaningful flex opportunities for faculty and staff every semester. Every flex
program includes a comprehensive set of offerings designed to address a number of
needs. In fall, flex offerings span three days of activities, while the spring includes
two flex days. At each gathering, the superintendent/president addresses the
campus community, as do the faculty senate and classified senate presidents. These
events also feature a keynote speaker, who sometimes sets the theme for other
activities during the year.
In spring 2007, Dr. Laurie Richlin from the Claremont Graduate University
presented the keynote address entitled: Blueprint for Learning: Constructing College
Courses to Facilitate, Assess, and Document Learning. Her speech was well accepted
because of the institution’s involvement in student learning outcomes and was
complimented by a presentation by a language arts faculty on Do’s and Don’ts:
Student Retention and Success in Online Classes. Both issues from spring 2007 flex
related to the Institutional Goals/Ends Policies.
The
fall
2007
flex
program
introduced
Chaffey
College’s
new
superintendent/president as part of the fall convocation ceremony. Fall 2007
workshops were related to equity, access, ethics, and technology including: What’s
Race Got to do With it?: Social Disparities and Student Success; Latino and AfricanAmerican Students at Chaffey College: Challenges and Approaches; The Role of Faculty in
Providing Accommodations to Students with Disabilities; Ethics across the Curriculum;
and Using WebCT 6.1.
43
Flex activities for spring 2008 focused on SLOs, Student Learning Outcomes, and
consisted of workshops such as: Academic Integrity and Student Behavior; Assessing
Student Learning Outcomes; and SLOs and Learning Styles. In addition, professional
development held its first annual Health and Wellness Fair in April 2008 with over
thirty vendors participating. Dental and vision insurance carriers also participated
and blood pressure screenings and glucose tests were performed by the Chaffey
Nursing Program. Professional development also sponsored a walking contest; each
employee was given a pedometer beginning in January and encouraged to log their
steps for the three months prior to the fair with first, second and third place winners
awarded prizes. One hundred and eighty-two faculty and staff attended the fair
and participated in the contest, logging a total of 3,068,265 steps walked during the
contest.
Fall 2008 flex featured guest speaker Gerardo E. de los Santos, President and CEO of
the League for Innovation in the Community College, an international organization
dedicated to catalyzing the community college movement. The League develops
web resources, conducts research, produces publications, provides services, and
leads projects and initiatives with more than 800 member institutions representing
15 different countries, over 160 corporate partners, and a host of other governmental
and non-profit agencies. In its continuing effort to make a positive difference for
students and communities, the League is dedicated to improving student and
organizational learning through innovation, experimentation, and institutional
transformation. Flex 2008 offerings encouraged attendance by both faculty and staff
with department meetings and workshops offered in Federal Education Rights and
Privacy Act (FERPA), Library and Success Center Resources, Student Learning
Outcomes, and focused workshops in: AB540 and Other Undocumented Students at
Chaffey College: Challenges, Approaches and Resources; Ethics: Going Beyond Basic Skills;
and Alternate Media and Assistive Technology in the College Setting, to name a few.
At spring 2009 flex, the keynote speaker, Larry Eisenberg, explained how Los
Angeles Community College District (LACCD) is “going green,” which was
valuable since Chaffey’s superintendent/president recently signed a campus climate
commitment. Flex activities featured workshops such as Blackboard Grade Center,
Early Alert Initiative Pilot Program, and Course-Level Student Learning Outcomes
(SLOs) as well as school and department meetings. Professional development also
hosted the second annual Health and Wellness fair in April 2009 with over twenty
vendors participating. To kick off Health and Wellness week faculty and staff were
encouraged to join the Biggest Waist Away, a weight loss contest that ran from
January 12 through April 3, 2009. The event focused on energizing the campus
community toward healthy eating habits, exercise, and weight loss. The male and
female employees who lost the most weight loss won $500.00 gift cards. In 2009, a
total of 114 employees participated in the “Biggest Waist Away” with a total weight
loss campus-wide of 493 pounds. Workshops offered during Health and Wellness
44
week (April 13-17, 2009) included Health and Stress; Healthy Living; and Arthritis –
Preventing & Relieving Joint Disease.
At fall 2009 flex, the convocation speaker, Marc Prensky, explained the needs of 21st
century learners, which will be a theme carried into the spring 2010 flex.
Additionally, in the 2009-2010 year the Committee is planning a Walk-a-thon to
benefit a scholarship program for students, as well as a farmer’s market in the spring
that will feature local produce.
Although flex events since 2006 have featured a “workshop” approach to
professional development, in the fall of 2009 the committee decided to explore a
conference model and offer a thematic approach. Flex participants earned
certification as local experts if they attended four workshops from any of the three
strands offered: Distance Education, Student Success Strategies, or Student Learning
Outcomes. This approach appears to have been very successful and provided
participants a more in-depth learning experience since they attended sessions in
cohorts on the same topics.
In addition to professional development activities for faculty, professional
development opportunities exist for classified professionals to receive either a
general or specialized certificate through the Support Success Certificate Program.
Created in 2008, the program is designed to improve the health, satisfaction, and
skill set of classified employees at every level. Specialized certification can be
obtained in Communication, Customer Service, Leadership, Office Management
Health and Wellness or Technology; general certification can be obtained by
completing a combination of any of these offerings. The first efforts in this program
enjoyed robust participation with 136 participants attending various workshops. In
the spring of 2009, the Professional Development Committee conducted a survey
through the Office of Institutional Research to identify the interests and needs of
classified staff. Guided by the findings from the survey, a new program and
workshop schedule is being designed for the 2009-2010 Support Success Certificate
Program.
In conjunction with classified senate, professional development also co-sponsored
workshops such as Financial Planning/Budgeting, Healthy Eating/Cooking, Office
Ergonomics, Be Fit While you Sit, Dealing with Change the True Colors Way, and
Confidence Coaching/Self Improvement during Classified Appreciation Week. In
2008 and 2009 professional development provided an opportunity for eleven and
twelve classified professionals, respectively, to attend the annual Classified
Leadership Conference in Tahoe City.
The newest innovative aspect of professional development is the Faculty Success
Center, which was conceived as part of the Basic Skills Initiative (known as the
45
Student Success Initiative at Chaffey). As Chaffey engaged in the Basic Skills
Initiative self-assessment process, the Committee determined that intensive
professional development that focused on strategies and methodologies to support
underprepared students was needed. The Faculty Success Center is led by a faculty
member who is fully assigned to planning activities and events to enhance the
instructional and support services provided to students. This person is also the
faculty tri-chair of the Professional Development Committee. A variety of “just in
time” workshops designed to address a number of interests are offered in the
Success Center. In addition, the center annually features in-depth seminars on
targeted topics (e.g., creating effective syllabi, learning community development,
culturally responsive teaching, and critical thinking), providing faculty with both
theoretical and practical support for new ideas. Finally, the Faculty Success Center
facilitates the Summer Institute, a two week intensive class designed to address best
practices for serving underprepared adults. All of these events are open to full and
part-time faculty. In addition to the special events, the center hired a professional
expert to provide technical assistance, much like an instructional designer, to faculty
who wish to use the smart conference room or any other instructional equipment in
the center. She has also been instrumental in making a number of materials
available online.
As the aforementioned activities suggest, the various faculty and classified
professional development activities comprise a holistic and unified program of
service and support. The institution engages in systemic assessment of professional
development to ensure that current and future opportunities address the needs of
the constituencies served and optimize personal and professional outcomes.
46
RESPONSES TO THE 2004 SELF IDENTIFIED ISSUES
Introduction
In 2004, the institution identified 13 plans (self-identified issues) across the 10
accreditation standards. Standard committee members for Standards 1 and
Standard 5 did not develop plans. This response will address the standards that
were in progress in March 30, 2007 at the writing of the mid-term report and show
successful completion of the plans. The response will also provide additional
information for standards identified as completed in the mid-term report.
Standard 1: There was no plan for this standard.
Standard 2: The institution has a readily available Governing Board-adopted
policy protecting academic freedom and responsibility, which states the
institutional commitment to the free pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and
fosters the integrity of the teaching/learning process.
Plan 2.2 To maintain a consistent and efficient implementation of policy, faculty
and administration will review both versions of the academic freedom statement
and agree on a wording that can be disseminated in all official documents
containing college policy. Completed at mid-term report. Additional information
November 19, 2009
Response
The self-identified issues in plan 2.2 were addressed at the time of the midterm
writing in 2007. Since the 2004 team visit the Governing Board approved the
academic freedom statement of philosophy on April 2005. The statement was
designed in concert with district policy and is included in the Board Policy Manual.
To maintain a consistent and efficient process for policy implementation, the
institution subscribes to the Community College League of California’s (CCLC)
policy and procedure service. CCLC issues new policies or changes to policies
throughout the year, and the institution uses those documents as models for local
development. The implementation process begins with the Office of the Executive
Assistant (EA) to the Superintendent/President, who is responsible for updating
and creating policy and procedures with the appropriate units in the institution.
President’s Cabinet is the body that “evaluates” policies prior to Governing Board
approval. This body consists of all deans, vice presidents, and both academic and
classified senate presidents, and is chaired by the superintendent/president. The
47
superintendent/president sends out campus-wide emails to all faculty and staff,
presenting policies for a review and announces placement on the z drive for
additional input. Once approved, policy is moved to the adopted policy section of
the website.
Standard 3: Institutional research is
institutional planning and evaluation.
integrated
with
and
supportive
in
Plan 3A.1 The institution will create an advisory committee as related to the Ends
Policies. Completed at mid-term report. Additional information November 19,
2009.
Response
The self identified issues in plan 3.A.1 were addressed by the time of the midterm
report submission in 2007. Based on evidence, the institution agreed that an
advisory committee was not needed. The Office of Institutional Research (OIR)
responded by creating an online research request form. The form is web-based,
making it accessible 24 hours-per-day, seven days-per-week, to on-campus and offcampus requestors. While faculty and staff have the opportunity to submit requests
directly, copies of the research request are automatically forwarded to the
faculty/staff supervisor (usually a dean or vice president) for approval. All research
requests must be approved by the supervisor. As part of the research prioritization
process, requestors must identify how the requested research will be used and how
it relates to Institutional Goals/Ends Policies; and/or Western Association of
Schools and Colleges (WASC) Accreditation Standards. Links for both are
embedded in the research request form. Most research requests are reviewed and
delegated to an OIR staff member within 24 hours. Submitted research requests also
populate directly into an access database, allowing OIR staff to sort and compare
similar requests, streamline procedures, and bring like-minded requestors together.
The number of similar requests also helps the office set short-range and long-range
research goals. Underscoring the effectiveness of the research request and response
process, Chaffey’s online research request form was acknowledged with a Stuff
Worth Stealing Award bestowed by CAMP Research, a local consortium that
represents approximately 20 community colleges and 50 institutional researchers.
The suggestion to create a research committee has not been raised since a change in
research request management has occurred.
Since 2007 an additional researcher was hired and the constituents learned how to
access the rich data through the Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) cubes.
Addressing research outcome dissemination issues, the executive assistant to the
superintendent/president and the OIR staff contracted in 2008 with a consultant to
redesign the OIR Office websites. The consultant also contracted to provide training
48
to current staff so they have the knowledge, ability, and training to make changes as
needed to the OIR office website. The consultant was also directed to create specific
areas for research briefs and full-length reports, which accompanies all research
activity. The research briefs, designed as one-to-two-page abstracts, are posted
immediately upon completion of every project. Full reports are created for major
research projects, providing interested parties with more detail and background
information (e.g., research methodology, detailed statistical analyses, etc.). Easy-tonavigate sections have also been created for presentations, planning documents,
SLO/AUO Resources, and “Did You Know?”, a new, informative series of bimonthly research findings that are of district-wide interest. Access to the OLAP
cubes is also provided through the OIR website. In conjunction, these resources and
documents (currently over 450 and counting) allow end users to immediately access
OIR research results, increasing opportunities for informed decision making and are
the basis for the accreditation self study and all planning in the institution.
Standard 4A.2: Programs and courses leading to degrees are offered in a manner
which provides students the opportunity to complete the program as announced
within a reasonable time.
Plan 4A.2 The college will develop a two or three year schedule, consisting of
course offerings, time of day, day of week, and room in early spring 2004. In
progress at mid-term report. Completed with updated information November 19,
2009.
Response
The self-identified issues in plan 4.A.2 were identified as “in progress” in the 2007
midterm report. Since that time, the institution has re-evaluated its initial 2004 plan
to develop a two or three year schedule. Other institutional priorities such as the
opening of the Chino campus and more recently the volatility of the state budget
have initiated a re-evaluation of the necessity for a two-three year schedule. The
institution has explored the use of ClassTracks as a potential long-term scheduling
tool, and implemented AdAstra as a room scheduling tool. At present, academic
scheduling begins with an overarching plan, which includes Full Time Equivalent
Students (FTES) targets and goals, from the vice president of instruction, and the
deans implement that vision, with input from the education services coordinators
and counseling. Shifts in offerings are taken into consideration at the planning
phase based on data regarding fill rates, wait lists, and FTES generation from the
previous corresponding term. The OIR provides data to the deans and coordinators
before each scheduling cycle. In addition, modifications to prerequisites or the
graduation requirements are also taken into consideration when planning. This
process for scheduling serves the institution well.
49
In the summer and fall of 2009, the Office of Instruction developed a common
scheduling tool for use by the deans who plan the schedule, the coordinators who
implement the schedule, and the administrative staff who input the schedule into
Datatel. The instrument, which is a sophisticated spreadsheet, includes all of the
data elements required to build a section. In addition, it calculates costs and FTES,
simplifying some of the planning issues with each schedule. The intent of the
universal planning/scheduling tool was to improve data access and reduce errors
after the schedule was constructed. In the summer of 2008, the college was at
approximately 90% efficiency rate, and that number has continued to increase every
semester. Two or three year schedule no longer serves as an appropriate goal for the
institution.
Standard 4A.5: The institution designs and maintains academic advising
programs to meet student needs for information and advice and adequately
informs and prepares faculty and other personnel responsible for the advising
function.
Plan 4A.5 The Counseling Center will continue to increase campus awareness
and inform faculty and other personnel of advising functions. Additional on-line
features, such as discussion boards and a virtual career center are planned. In
2009.
Response
Self-identified issues in this plan have been resolved. The Counseling Department
has become increasingly involved in providing updated communication and
presentations to all faculty, staff, and students and now participates in the “new
faculty orientation program.” Faculty participate taking a tour of the campus and
assessment centers, receive fact sheets, counseling packets, and an information
session about available programs and services offered by the Counseling
Department.
Approximately 25 classroom presentations are conducted by
counselors annually. Information discussions about new or updated services are
presented to faculty senate, departments and at deans meetings. Counseling faculty
collaborate with instructional faculty to create learning communities to serve
academically under-prepared or under-deserved students. Examples of such
communities include students in the AMAN/AWOMAN, Puente, and Opening
Doors to Excellence programs. These programs target at-risk students to provide a
collaborative approach to improving retention and student success. The Counseling
Department is also in the process of reviewing and updating the counseling website,
and the program description in the Faculty Handbook (this is ongoing). All
counseling faculty, including DPS, EOPS, CalWORKs, Career Services and Athletics,
meet a minimum of twice per year for updates and program changes. All
50
counselors are trained to complete educational plans electronically and, if requested,
provide copies to the student during the counseling sessions as well as email copies
to students. In addition, counselors are encouraged to attend professional
development training, CSU/UC conferences, and area specific conferences (first year
experience, at risk students, Puente, Umoja, EOPS, CAPED, and Athletic
Advisement conferences). Adjunct faculty members, including those who teach
guidance courses, receive training workshops in classroom management, True
Colors Strategies, online counseling information and access, and work with a
“mentor.” Adjunct counselors also receive training annually with counselor updates
sent via email.
In an effort to promote campus awareness, the Counseling Department works
directly with high school counselors and offers an annual high school counselor
breakfast (during spring semester) in which all counselors, career techs, and other
high school representatives are invited to the campus to meet. Presentation topics
include high school partnership updates, admissions and records/financial aid
information, special program highlights, and occupational program highlights. The
Counseling Department has also established a pilot program with assignment of
selected counselors to a pilot high school as liaison providing contact information,
institutional updates, and a manual with current information and procedures.
Since the team visit in 2004, the institution offers a host of online features. For
instance, the institution has transitioned to online application services, offered
through CCCApply in both English and Spanish (www.cccapply.org). Students can
download application materials via CCCApply and submit them in person.
Moreover, using MyChaffeyVIEW, students can add or drop classes, pay fees,
review their class schedules and update their registration information (name,
address, phone, email, etc.). In addition, students can access the Online
Appointment Booking System to schedule assessment appointment at all three
campuses. During the spring 2009 semester, the Counseling Department piloted
online advising supported through CCC confer, a password protected, innovative
approach to providing students with advising opportunities, regardless of location.
Evidence was collected to evaluate the CCC confer appointment project and based
on findings it was determined that more equipment (i.e., headset) was needed to
fully implement the system, and additional student information would be required
to more efficiently and comprehensively address the needs of students. As of June
2009, the equipment has been purchased and the necessary changes are being
implemented, in preparation for a re-launch of the pilot version in fall 2009.
A new initiative, undertaken in fall 2008, allows students to use add codes issued by
the instructor to register for classes. The benefit of this new process is that students
can add classes for which they have instructor permission via the web, without the
need to visit the Admissions and Records office in person to submit a signed add
51
card. In addition, official transcripts can be requested online, in person, or via postal
mail. Unofficial transcripts can be accessed via MyChaffeyVIEW and printed on
demand. Also, through implementation of eTranscripts official transcripts can be
electronically transmitted to other participating educational institutions.
The Counseling Department has also upgraded its appointment scheduling system –
known as the Online Appointment Booking System or SARS – to provide students
with online access to scheduling appointments for counseling related services. In an
effort to obtain student feedback regarding the system, the Counseling Department
worked with the OIR to develop and implement an online survey during the fall
2008 and spring 2009 semesters. Findings from the 2009 Student Satisfaction with
the Online Appointment Booking System Survey revealed that students are very
satisfied with various aspects of the online booking system, and the convenience and
ease of use that the system.
The institution has also instituted changes in its Career Services. Effective spring
2009, students seeking career information have access to both the Global Career
Center, located in the Campus Center East, and online information offered through
Virtual Career Resources (VCR) on the website. Students have an opportunity to
complete career inventories, identify research career fields, meet with a career
counselor, attend workshops and develop a resume. The VCR site is designed to be
a framework for ongoing posting of career development resources available to the
entire college community. The Foundation and Alumni Affairs are partnering with
the Global Career Center, a comprehensive model which links alumni to the current
student body for student career enhancement.
Standard 5: There was no plan for this standard.
Standard 6.2 Appropriate educational equipment and materials are selected,
acquired, organized, and maintained to help fulfill the institution’s purposes and
support the educational program. Institutional policies and procedures ensure
faculty involvement.
Plan 6.2 A standardized classroom set-up would allow more flexibility in room
utilization and more consistent presentation methods within and between
department and off campus sites. In progress at mid-term report. Completed with
updated information November 19, 2009.
Response
The self-identified issues in this plan were resolved in 2005-2007. Classroom
technology at the institution is under the purview of the Information and
Technology Services department, with guidance and direction from the Technology
52
Committee.
The Technology Committee is made up of faculty, staff and
administrators, and led by a tri-chair, with representation from each area. During
the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 academic years, the Technology Committee formed a
classroom technology sub-committee. The classroom technology subcommittee was
open to anyone with an opinion, concern or interest in classroom technology, and
solicited advice and membership from outside the Technology Committee.
In 2005-2006, the subcommittee proposed standards for a classroom teaching station
to accomplish the goals of this plan. Through their research, the Technology
Committee standardized the classroom set-up in agreeing that the following
equipment would be standard in each classroom: instructor station, a wall-mounted
screen, a ceiling-mounted or portable projector, document camera, VCR/DVD unit,
speakers, amplifier, closed caption decoder, and a laptop port. Once this standard
was created, vendors were invited to assist the college to settle on a specific brand
for ease of training, maintenance, and use. All faculty and staff were invited to these
demonstrations, and standard manufacturers were selected for each product.
During the 2006-2007 academic year, the sub-committee began to focus on “smart”
classroom technology. The subcommittee visited several other colleges and
institutions, such as Crafton Hills College, California Baptist University, Mt. San
Antonio College, Palomar College, and Riverside Community College. After these
visits and some product research, the subcommittee agreed to invite Crestron
Electronics to demonstrate their equipment. Crestron donated equipment to create a
pilot classroom in Wargin Hall (WH-1). This pilot has been well received by faculty,
and the college is looking to expand the pilot to several meeting rooms, the Board
room, and several classrooms in the Measure L Construction Project.
Currently, all of the classrooms at Chaffey that require any type of AV equipment
have some portion of the standard classroom equipment installed. Approximately
50% have complete installation, based on the 2005-06 equipment standards, 29%
have complete installation, based on the newest standards adopted in 2008-09, and
another 10% are currently being completed. All of the labs and classrooms included
in the Measure L Projects have been, or will be, outfitted with the complete
equipment list, as well as labs and classrooms in the renovation projects. The
remaining classrooms are being retrofitted as funds become available.
The institution assures technology support in the classroom by involving
instructional faculty and staff across all locations in decisions regarding technology
in the classroom. Department dialogue centering on technology in the classroom is
based on currency in their particular field, assessment of students’ needs, and
budgetary concerns. For example, additional photography program classes, like
hybrid classes, have been developed and added to the program to accommodate
evolving technology. Beginning Digital Photography PH-7 is offered in both a
53
traditional classroom environment and as a hybrid class with one class session held
traditionally in a classroom and the second weekly session as an online
lecture/tutorial available to students online at any time.
By using the standardized classroom set-ups as a baseline, the institution has been
able to modify the equipment to fit specific academic needs in certain situations.
One classroom in Language Arts was outfitted with a camera and microphone to
accommodate the taping of courses for use in the distance learning program at the
California Institution for Women at Chino. Several rooms are scheduled to be
outfitted in the School of Visual, Performing, and Communication Arts to include
high resolution projectors and 5.1 surround sound for theatre and music classes.
Additionally, the broadcasting classrooms will be outfitted with multi-disc DVD
systems and HD projectors to comply with current and future industry standards.
The institution used the standardized classroom set-up to assure flexibility in room
utilization on all three campuses.
Standard 6.4 The institution has professionally qualified staff to provide
appropriate support to users of information and learning resources, including
training in the effective application of information technology to student
learning.
Plan 6.4 Develop a broad program of staff development, including service to
provide training and assistance for faculty in the use of media and technology. In
2009
Response
Results for plan 6.4 has been discussed extensively as part of the answer to the
Accreditation team’s recommendation 2 which addressed the creation of a
comprehensive unified staff development program.
Training and assistance for faculty in the use of media and technology is provided in
Information Technology Services. The Information Services Distance Education
component trains faculty in the use of digital recording devices; editing and creating
digital media, such as photographs; and developing web pages. Primary training is
focused on the use of the course management systems used by institution
(Blackboard and WebCT) and other software, such as Respondus and Camtasia.
Training familiarizes faculty with the use and integration of online services, such as
Turn It In. The Distance Education department is also responsible for the
administration and upkeep of the Blackboard and WebCT servers, and support for
the students taking online and hybrid courses.
54
Training is generally provided on a one-on-one basis, with faculty members meeting
in person and/or by discussions on the telephone. Both new and tenured faculty
request training, averaging about eight faculty per month. The Distance Education
Department presents workshops during the semester, which focus on an
introduction to the course management systems (Blackboard and WebCT) and
generally has between 10 and 20 faculty in attendance. The Distance Education
Support Specialist (DESS) participates in the new faculty orientation sponsored by
the vice president of instruction for discussions on available online resources. Until
recently, she also functioned as the Help Desk; however, in the fall of 2009 the
institution purchased Blackboard Help Desk support from a company called
Presidium. This service allows both faculty and students to download information
artifacts at will online, as well as “submit a ticket” or live chat to resolve issues
related to their distance education courses. The service was used by over 1000
students in its first few weeks of operation. The dean of instructional support and
the DESS specialist conduct monthly meetings with the company to ensure the
quality of the help students and faculty receive. The DESS also links with the
Distance Education Committee and the Professional Development Committee
discussed in the answer to Recommendation 2. Objectives in both committees focus
on the development and implementation of a comprehensive, institutional training
component, including online training.
In order for faculty to teach online, they must be certified by the institution. The
Distance Education Committee is particularly interested in ensuring that faculty
provided regular effective contact through a distance education delivery. To that
end, the Distance Education Committee developed the Online to Excellence
program, which is an online course that provides comprehensive training to
prospective distance education instructors. Once faculty successfully completed the
course, their names are forwarded to the dean and are deemed appropriate to be
scheduled for DE courses. In addition to the online class, fall 2009 flex offered a
series of workshops of which faculty had to complete four hours, in order to earn
their certification. The session on regular communication was required in order to
complete the certification process. Other sessions included training on new
technologies, online grading procedures, and Blackboard basics.
55
Standard 6.5 The institution provides sufficient and consistent financial support
for the effective maintenance, security and improvement of its information and
learning resources.
Plan 6.5 While activation of the building intrusion and alarm system is nearing
completion, the swipe card component that will identify persons entering
buildings or rooms after hours remains to be finished. Work on this is being
accelerated, with priority given to areas or buildings that contain critical
equipment and/or data, specifically Information Services, Skills Lab, Vocational
and Student Support and the Library. In progress at mid-term report. Completed
with updated information November 19, 2009
Response
The institution updated information since the 2007 self study shows completion of
the self-identified issues in this standard. The institution has developed new
standards for the design, construction, and remodeling of existing and new
buildings. A thorough analysis was conducted by a small task group, which
included the information systems director, following the 2004 team visit
maintenance director, director of facilities development, and the chief of
police/director of public safety, to evaluate access control/security/video
surveillance systems.
Based on outcomes, a new integrated access control/security/video surveillance
system was installed at all three campus locations. The new system’s primary
function is to regulate access through specific doors, gates, or barriers to secured
areas of the institution. This is accomplished through the issuance of proximity
access control cards or key fobs. Cards or fobs are issued to staff to gain access into
areas they are granted permission to access.
Also based on the evaluation, the institution chose a new vendor for security/access
control/video surveillance. Siemens Building Technologies, SiPass Access
Control/Security, was selected as the campus standard. The SiPass system installed
in all new buildings and in renovated buildings is part of the Measure L
Construction Program. The new system utilizes proximity access cards or proximity
key fobs.
The existing functioning access control/security systems use the existing swipe card
in the Library, Information Services, and Child Development Center. These will be
supported until they are changed to the SiPass system in the future.
The institution monitors the integrated SiPass access control/intrusion /detection/
video surveillance that has been installed in the following campuses locations.
56
Rancho campus
Student Services/ Administration Building
Berz Excellence Building
Zimmermann Hall
DesLauriers Laboratory
Beeks Laboratory
Chino campus
Main Instructional Building
Health Science Building
Community Center
Chemistry
Health Science
Physical Science
Center for the arts B
Center for the arts C
Center for the arts E
Fontana campus
Ralph M. Lewis Center
The system utilizes proximity control cards or key fobs when presented at the card
reader, unlock the door, and disarm the alarm. Integrated video surveillance,
electronic door position monitoring (door contracts), motion detection devices, and
panic/duress buttons complete the system. All systems reside on the institution’s
data network using existing data infrastructure.
Standard 7B.1 The evaluation of each category of staff is systematic and
conducted at stated intervals. The follow-up of evaluations is formal and timely.
Plan 7B.1 To ensure systematic and timely evaluations, the district is developing
a centralized method of electronically tracking the evaluation processes for all
faculty and staff using the Datatel Colleague database to incorporate systematic
feedback between Human Resources and each school with respect to expected
timelines and outcomes to facilitate completion. Completed at mid-term report.
Additional information November 19, 2009.
Response
Additional information since 2007 clearly confirms that the centralized method of
electronically tracking evaluations is working. In collaboration with Information
Technology Services, the Office of Human Resources has implemented an electronic
evaluation notification process for respective employee groups. The project
included system set-up and configuration, establishing evaluation tables,
programming for electronic notifications, process testing, and training of end users.
Team members who contributed to the implementation of this process included
human resources generalists and their supervisor, the executive director of human
resources, director of administrative systems; and the systems specialist, information
services.
57
The centralized process tracks the evaluation process electronically. The system is
working well with e-mail reminders sent to appropriate managers in advance
including forms for classified contract and part-time staff, certificated contract
faculty and adjunct faculty, management, and confidential employees. The forms
can be accessed on the network drive (Z Drive). Messages consist of reminders of
upcoming evaluations and due dates. Additionally, past-due email notifications are
sent to the supervisor responsible for the review and the appropriate vice president.
Contractual evaluation schedules for each employee group are imbedded in this
centralized process. Since implementing this process, Human Resources staff has
noticed at least a 50% decrease in the number of late-evaluations received.
Standard 7C.1 The institution provides appropriate opportunities to all categories
of staff for continued professional development, consistent with the institutional
mission.
Plan 7C.1 The superintendent/president’s office is considering a proposal for the
redistribution of responsibilities for the management of ongoing staff
development programs. Completed at mid-term report. Additional information
November 19, 2009.
Response
Additional information updates are presented in the response to recommendation 2.
Extensive survey evidence has resulted in a stellar staff development program.
Standard 8.1 The institution ensures that adequate physical resources are
provided to support its educational programs and services whenever and however
they are offered.
Plan 8.1 The college is assessing the infrastructure and campus theme to ensure
that required modifications are accomplished, and it will continue to evaluate
needs of the community and campus, and to improve facilities through prudent
identification of projects that will be submitted to the state under the scheduled
maintenance program. Completed at mid-term report. Additional information
November 19, 2009.
Response
The dates in the response developed for the 2007 midterm report has been updated
indicating the new status of building infrastructure.
As indicated in the institution’s Accreditation Self Study of May 2004, residents
within the district passed a general obligation bond with the goals to rehabilitate
58
classrooms, science labs, and deteriorating infrastructure; upgrade electrical capacity
and wiring for technology; and construct classrooms to accommodate student
enrollment. The Master Plan Projects were organized into seven groupings.
Group
No.
1
1
1
1
1
Project
Status
Construction of a new Science Complex
Construction of a Visual and Performing
Arts Complex
Construction of an Athletics Complex
Construction of two instructional
buildings
4
4
4
4
Construction of relocation of the
Maintenance and Warehouse facilities
New Student Services/Administration
Building
Remodeling/renovation of Campus
Center West
Remodeling/renovation of Physical
Education facilities
Renovation/use changes of Life Science
buildings
Renovation/use changes of Physical
Science building
Renovation/use changes of Theatre
Renovation/use changes of Campus
Center East
Renovation/use changes of Art Building
Renovation/use changes of
Fashion/Consumer Studies Building
Renovation/use changes of
Museum/Gallery
Renovation/use changes of Health
Science and Vocational Education
Buildings
Renovation to Aeronautics
Renovation to Auto Tech Lab
Renovation to Business Education
Renovation to Information Services
4
4
Renovation to Language Arts
Renovation to Library
4
Renovation to southeast quadrant of
Planetarium
Renovation to Skills Labs
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
Completed
Construction phase
Bid / Construction
One building included in building of
Visual and Performing Arts; Final project
proposal for the other building has been
approved by the state
Planning
Completed
Construction of new building design phase
completed; preparing to bid project
Preparing to bid project
Completed
Completed/ Northwest and Southeast
buildings in design
Completed
Design phase
Completed
Completed
Completed
Health Science Completed; Vocational
Education is in planning
Completed
Completed
Design phase
Conversion of Skills Labs to server and
central communications hub; south side
Completed
Planning
Exterior painting and lighting upgrade has
been completed; major renovation in
planning
Planning
Completed
59
Group
No.
4
4
Project
Renovation to Social Science
Renovation to Wargin Hall
5
Renovation special project
5
General site improvements parking
facilities
5
General site improvements to
infrastructure
Expansion and renovation of satellite
centers and instructional equipment
6
7
Status
Completed
Duct cleaning completed; seat replacement,
light upgrade and roof replacement
completed
Charter Communications cable TV,
AutoCAD standards manual/campus
integration, staff dining room, design
standards completed; Promenade/fire lane
lighting Completed
Initial phase of the second campus in the
Chino Valley
College Drive, a road to encircle the
campus on the south and east sides,
completed; north parking lot completed;
constructed three new parking lots
Completed Central Plant and associated
infrastructure
Completed construction of new
Administration Building / Bookstore at
Fontana Center and expanded parking
facility Completed
Construction of the main instructional
building is Community Center, Health
Science building maintenance building,
and expanded parking facility completed
Standard 9C.4 The institution has a plan for responding to financial emergencies
or unforeseen occurrences.
Plan 9C.4 Chaffey will continually revise the budget to address any unforeseen
financial problems. Completed at mid-term report. Additional information
November 19, 2009
Response
Additional information has been included to address the period between 2007 and
2009.
The institution’s conservative budgeting policies and procedures have served the
institution well during the worldwide economic crisis that has impacted all
community colleges. Staff has acted proactively to reduce cost which has allowed
the institution to remain fiscally sound during this economic downturn.
Management, faculty, and staff continuously review budgets and operational cost to
offer as many classes and services to students as resources will support while
maintaining a board reserve of 7%.
60
Standard 10A.4 In keeping with its institutional mission, the Governing Board
selects and evaluates the chief executive officer and confirms the appointment of
other major academic and administrative officers.
Plan 10A.4 Formal training for individuals on hiring committees are
recommended as having the potential to enhance this process. Completed at midterm report. Additional information November 19, 2009.
Response
There is additional information since the training procedures are in place at the
institution since 2007 and are used consistently across all locations.
Standard 10B.8 The institution has written policy which identifies appropriate
institutional support for faculty participation in governance and delineates the
participation of faculty on appropriate policy, planning and special purpose
bodies.
Plan 10B.8 Create an administrative procedure reflective of the board policy that
delineates faculty’s complete role in governance and participation on appropriate
policy planning and special purpose bodies. Completed at mid-term report.
Additional information November 19, 2009.
Response
No additional information is presented because the Shared Governance Statement of
Philosophy designed by Faculty Senate and approved by the Governing Board on
November 17, 2005 is fully integrated in the institution’s governance processes
regardless of location.
61
Abstract of the Self Study
Abstract of the
Self Study
ABSTRACT OF THE SELF STUDY
STANDARD I INSTITUTIONAL MISSION AND EFFECTIVENESS
STANDARD I A. MISSION
Chaffey College’s mission provides guidance to the institution and, as a part of the
Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness, is integrated
throughout the development of the Institutional Goals/Ends Policies, objectives, and
the Program and Services Review (PSR) process. More than 96% of the responders to
the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey agreed that the Institutional Mission drives the
goals of the institution. Examples of the institution’s focus on its mission are
observed in the creation and operation of instructional and student services
programs such as the Office of Professional Development, the Faculty Success
Center, and President’s Equity Council. Additional examples of the institution’s
commitment to offering learning programs, academic programs, and student
services to meet the needs of the population the institution serves include the basic
skills transformation, success centers, the Puente program, EOPS, DPS, SmartStart,
supplemental instruction, opening doors, the African-American Male Academic
Network
and
the
African-American
Woman’s
Academic
Network
(AMAN/AWOMAN), and the partnership with the California Institution for
Women in Chino, to name a few. As part of the 2010 self study the Mission standard
committee re-affirmed the Institutional Mission and concluded that it should be
changed as indicated below:
This mission is presently discussed through the institution’s shared governance
process. The institution’s core competencies, developed after extensive dialogue
among faculty, staff, and administrators, further inform the Institutional Mission,
and serve as the foundation, along with the Institutional Goals/Ends Policies, for the
institution’s student learning outcomes.
62
STANDARD I INSTITUTIONAL MISSION AND EFFECTIVENESS
STANDARD I B. IMPROVING INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
Dialogue is an important aspect of Chaffey’s institutional effectiveness and is very
apparent when looking at the process the institution has undergone to incorporate
learning outcomes into its planning. This is supported by the finding from the Fall
2008 Accreditation Survey showing that 92% of the institution’s employees agree or
strongly agree that the institution maintains an ongoing, collegial, self-reflective
dialogue about the continuous improvement of learning and institutional processes.
In the six years since the last accreditation self study, the institution has made the
incorporation of learning outcomes a central focus. Concurrently, the institution has
made significant improvements to the planning, resource allocation, and evaluation
processes and re-structured these processes to support an institution-wide
concentration on learning outcomes supported by Chaffey’s Governing Board and
constituents. By embracing the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional
Effectiveness, the institution has established a comprehensive set of processes to
guide planning that link the Institutional Mission, Institutional Goals/Ends Policies,
program goals, Program and Services Review (PSR), and resource allocation as
important components in improving institutional effectiveness. For instance, the
vice president of instruction has used the planning framework to present weekly
instructional updates to the governing board. Additionally, a planning schedule has
been developed for the Governing Board clearly delineating and highlighting the
relationship between monitoring reports, planning documents, Institutional
Goals/Ends Policies, and accreditation standards, which are now clearly delineated.
STANDARD II STUDENT LEARNING PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
STANDARD II A. INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS
Chaffey College is committed to ensuring that all instructional programs address the
Institutional Mission, in concert with the California Community College System
Strategic Plan. Based on the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey, approximately 98% of
the institution’s employees believe that educational programs are of high quality
and are consistent with the Institutional Mission, “Chaffey College improves lives
within the diverse communities it serves through equal access to quality, learningcentered occupational, transfer, general education, and foundation programs”. The
institution is committed to ensuring diverse offerings of courses that facilitate
student learning and program completion including general education and transferlevel courses to help students acquire Core Competencies. To address the
educational preparation needs of students, the institution has extensive foundation
course programs in reading, writing, math and ESL for students who are underprepared for college level coursework. Students are assessed in the matriculation
63
process and placed at the appropriate level to maximize their success in achieving
the skills needed to advance. The institution’s partnership with appropriate
businesses, school districts, and community entities provides quality learning as
well as practical experiences for students. Instructors utilize a wide variety of
traditional and alternative instructional methodologies such as: lecture, lab and class
discussion, individual and group projects, in class and research assignments,
fieldwork, volunteer work, independent study, service learning, learning
communities, supplemental instruction, and hands-on learning to address differing
learning styles. In addition, the institution’s student success centers provide
extensive delivery modes for a variety of learning needs. Based on the identified
educational needs of students, the institution supports programs that actively
promote accessibility to instruction through outreach to potential student
populations who would not traditionally consider pursuing a college education.
Maximizing equal access is an important part of the Institutional Mission and is
reflected in all instructional program offerings.
To ensure institutional integrity, all institutional programs and services adhere to
the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness, culminating in
formal program assessment that occurs annually through the Program and Services
Review (PSR) process. This process ensures that the various schools evaluate their
disciplines in terms of currency, teaching, enrollment patterns, and student success,
and determines the extent to which the institution’s programs and services assist in
achieving its adopted mission and goals. Embedded within the PSR process, the
institution directly assesses instructional and non-instructional program learning
STANDARD II B. STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES
The institution is committed to the provision of services that are accessible,
inclusive, and sensitive to the needs of its diverse student body at its three campus
locations, in Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana and Chino campuses (please note,
although the facilities in Chino and Fontana are centers, the Chaffey constituents
and the community, as well as this self study, refer to all three sites as campuses).
Focused programs and services seek to increase student access, retention,
satisfaction, opportunity, and achievement. The institution’s Executive Expectations
(Board Policy Category 5), and Institutional Goals/Ends Policies (Category 8)
directly address equitable access for students including admissions and records,
cashiers, financial aid, EOPS/CARE, Disability Programs and Services, counseling
and matriculation, athletics, health services, transfer center, Child Development
Center, student government and student organizations. Pathways for these services
are characterized by support for access, progress, learning and success as evidenced
by the informed decision-making approach. The institution determines the learning
64
support needs of students at all three campus locations. Support is evidenced by
building the Marie Kane Center for Student Services. This center offers students a
one-stop shop for both face-to-face and web-based access to a host of student
support services. The institution evaluates student support services via bi-annual
institution-wide surveys and program-specific student learning and administrative
unit outcomes. Student Support Services embrace the institution’s Strategic
Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness that focus evidence-based
decision making for continuous program improvement. In line with the institution’s
Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness, the evidence of such
evaluations are consistently used as the basis for improving student support
services.
STANDARD II C. LIBRARY AND LEARNING SUPPORT SERVICES
The Chaffey College Library, along with the learning support services offered by an
expansive network of success centers, are sufficient to support the institution’s
various instructional programs, regardless of location or means of delivery. The
Rancho Campus Library, the Chino Campus Cybrary, the soon to arrive Fontana
Campus Cybrary, and the success centers across all three campus locations
collectively offer the library services, collections, learning support services,
computer laboratories, and the learning technology development and training
necessary to sufficiently meet the needs of students. The institution provides access
and training to students so that library and other learning support services may be
used effectively and efficiently, as evidenced by the high utilization rates of the
success centers, the book collection and online access to a variety of databases via
computers and WIFI at the Rancho Library and the Chino Campus Cybrary. There
are numerous library-hosted workshops designed to improve students’ information
competency and understanding of cutting-edge technological resources. The
institution evaluates library and learning support services via satisfaction surveys
and a host of student learning outcomes conducted across all campus locations.
Additionally, the success centers have been thoroughly researched and evaluated on
a consistent basis since their inception by Institutional Research. In line with the
Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness, and through the
Program and Services Review Process (PSR), the evidence based results of such
evaluations are consistently used as the basis for improvement and future planning.
65
STANDARD III RESOURCES
STANDARD III A. HUMAN RESOURCES
The institution abides by a comprehensive and inclusive employment process to hire
qualified faculty, management, and staff who possess the experience, training, and
education required for a particular position. The Human Resources Staffing Plan
outlines the recruitment prioritization process for qualified personnel in each
employee group. In accordance with the Institutional Mission, an important priority
for the institution is employing a workforce to meet the diverse needs of the student
population. A multi-faceted approach has been used to attract a workforce sensitive
to and proficient in working with the diversity of the community college population
and the institution’s service area. The institution ensures personnel policies are
provided and adhered to on a consistent and equitable basis through the utilization
of various resources and practices. This is evidenced by policies such as: attention to
equal employment opportunity laws, requiring in-service training for all hiring
committees, and maintaining confidentiality with personnel records. Processes
ensure the integrity of employment procedures including compliance with the
institution’s recruitment and selection policy, state, and federal regulations. As a
measure for determining employees’ awareness of the institution’s establishment
and adherence to written policies, ensuring fairness in all employment practices, a
question was included on the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey to address this item.
Approximately 80% of survey respondents agreed to the statement, “The institution
establishes and adheres to written policies, ensuring fairness in all employment
practices.” Evaluations at the institution adhere to regulations of the unit contracts
and policies and procedures. Evaluation of each category of staff is systematic and
conducted at regular intervals. The institution supports its diverse personnel
through the Professional Development Program and the Faculty Success Center and
recognizes the value of a workforce committed to life-long learning. Professional
growth of all employees is supported through staff development, conferences, inservice training, and workshops. Results from the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey
suggest that 86% of survey respondents believe the institution plans appropriate and
meaningful professional development activities to meet the needs of its personnel,
including 83% of full-time faculty, 94% of adjunct faculty, 84% of classified staff, and
84% of administrators and managers.
STANDARD III B. PHYSICAL RESOURCES
To facilitate and sustain the ongoing educational efforts and support student
learning programs and services, the institution offers instructional and student
services programs at the Rancho Cucamonga campus, the Chino campus, and the
66
Fontana campus. To address the diverse communities served and ensure that the
unique needs of student populations are met, the institution offers instructional
programs at three primary locations throughout the district — the Rancho Campus,
the Chino Campus, the Fontana Campus (please note, although the facilities in
Chino and Fontana are Centers, the Chaffey constituents and the community, as
well as this self study, refer to all three sites as campuses). Other locations include
The Learning Development Center in Rancho Cucamonga, the California Institution
for Women (CIW) in Chino, Rancho San Antonio Medical Center and several high
schools.
Health Science programs provide training and ensure learning
opportunities through classes offered in Upland, Colton, Chino, Ontario, Pomona,
Claremont, Fontana and Loma Linda. While the institution has expanded section
offerings at physical locations throughout the district, significant growth has also
occurred in the offering of online and hybrid sections. All three campus locations
have full-time faculty and staff assigned to the location, provide access to parking,
student success centers, counseling, student services staff, technology resources,
bookstore, and library services. The overarching 2001-2010 Chaffey College
Educational Master Plan, 2001 Chaffey College Educational and Facilities Master
Plan, and the Chaffey College Facilities Assessment Report were completed in 2001
for a ten year period. The three documents, developed by faculty and staff with the
assistance of consultants, identified the need to improve the physical resources of
the institution. The external as well as the internal data reviewed by the institution
confirmed the need to repair/replace old/deteriorating buildings, reduce
overcrowding, improve nursing/health care program facilities; improve campus
lighting/security;
remove
asbestos/safety
hazards;
construct,
acquire,
repair/upgrade
classrooms,
libraries,
plumbing,
electrical
systems,
science/computer labs, and educational facilities. In order to accomplish the agenda
to improve and align the physical resources with the educational programs and
services, the Governing Board authorized the institution to place Measure “L” on
the November 2002 ballot to solicit voter approval to issue a $230 million bond. The
proposition was approved by the voters, and the major effort to upgrade existing
facilities, construct new facilities, and to replace outdated equipment and purchase
new state-of-the-art equipment is ongoing since the 2004 reaffirmation of
accreditation. From the beginning faculty were involved in determining the
effective use of space to assure quality in programs and services. According to
findings from the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey, the majority of administrators,
faculty, staff, and students believe that the institution plans, builds, maintains,
upgrades, and replaces physical resources in a manner that assures effective
utilization and the continuing quality necessary to support its programs and
services.
67
STANDARD III C. TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Chaffey College information technology supports students, faculty, and staff to
facilitate the learning process for students. The primary governance body
addressing technology issues is the Technology Committee. This committee
(consisting of eleven faculty, six classified, one confidential and three managers)
engages in inclusive, informed, and intentional dialogue through its regular,
standing monthly meetings during the primary terms. To ensure that various types
of technology needs to support teaching and learning, research and institution-wide
communication and operations are identified and met, the Technology Committee is
chaired by the Director of Technical Services, a Computer Information Systems
Faculty member, and a staff member. Equally important, provisions for technology
resources are decided on collaboratively between the Datatel Colleague Steering
Committee, the Web Working Group, the Distance Education Committee, and the
Program and Services Review (PSR) Committee through the Strategic Planning
Framework for Institutional Effectiveness.
The institution has integrated
information technology into the instructional programs in the context of the Faculty
Success Center (i.e. professional development), multi-media classrooms, success
centers and instructional labs, online courses, and PSR. According to their needs all
faculty, staff, and students have access to the following information technology
services: the institution’s information system (Colleague), WebAdvisor
(MyChaffeyVIEW), web-based resources for e-mail (MS Exchange), room/event
scheduling and analysis (Ad Astra), a curriculum database, online faculty/staff
directory, online course management system (Blackboard), online student
orientation and assessment, online advising, help desk, maintenance service
requests, network security, and wireless access. To make the application of
information technology effective to students and personnel, the institution provides
training through three major components; training for faculty and staff, support
services for training students, and technology instruction in the classroom.
Specifically, training for faculty and staff is multilayered and takes place in person
and online. Results of the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey indicate that 88% of
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that appropriate technology training and
resources are available on campus. In addition, the technology training question
had the second highest average agreement rating indicating that the institution’s
employees are more likely to believe that the technology training provided at the
institution far exceeds the 58 other areas that were rated.
68
STANDARD III D. FINANCIAL RESOURCES
The institution plans and manages to ensure financial stability using the
Institutional Mission and Institutional Goals/Ends Policies as part of the foundation
for institutional and financial planning. Each year during their annual retreat, the
Governing Board determines which Institutional Goals/Ends Policies, already
established and approved through the shared governance process, will be
emphasized during the budget development process.
These Institutional
Goals/Ends Policies are included in the budget development handbook that is
presented at the faculty and staff budget workshops and used throughout the
institution during the budget development process. Financial planning and
budgeting processes are documented in the annual budget development handbook,
the adopted budget book and other reports such as the institution’s investment
policies. The budget development handbook is used to provide a consistent process
for the development of the annual budget, future budgets and financial planning.
The adoption of the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness
strengthens the relationship between financial resource planning and institutional
planning integrating both to improve institutional effectiveness. The institution has
incorporated into the planning process the obligations and needs identified in the
annual budget, facilities master plan, strategic plan and annual Program and
Services Review. To assure long-term financial stability, the institution has a clear
and comprehensive outline of its future obligations and identified how they will be
met. This outline is contained in the annual financial audit and stipulates the future
obligations of the institution and the related funding sources. As identified in the
Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey, approximately 85% of informed survey respondents
agree or strongly agree that financial planning is integrated with and support
institutional learning.
STANDARD IV LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE
STANDARD IV A. DECISION-MAKING ROLES AND PROCESSES
Institutional leaders have established systematic governance traditions that promote
and assure inclusion in decision-making processes at all levels. This is supported by
the finding that a large majority of the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey responders
(92%) believe that the institution maintains an ongoing, collegial, self-reflective
Institutional leaders ensure that faculty, staff, students, and administrators
communicate openly and freely on a regular basis by providing appropriate forums
in which to do so. These include shared governance structures such as President’s
Cabinet and College Council, as well as faculty and staff meetings, committees and
69
retreats. All constituents are encouraged to voice ideas and concerns that contribute
to planning and decision making. Recently the superintendent/president has
created a web page specifically related to input on handling the budget crisis asking
for any suggestions from constituents (http://www.chaffey.edu/president/
index.shtml). The institution has committees with various levels of activities.
Faculty and classified senates are empowered to select representative members to
every committee. By encouraging broad-based participation, the institution fosters
an environment in which faculty, students, staff and administrators play a
significant role in institutional decision making. In the course of these activities, the
centrality of the institution’s Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional
Effectiveness and initiatives is emphasized with particular concern for improving
student learning and fostering student success. A strong institutional commitment
and a respected tradition ensure broad committee representation and encourage
participants to effectively share divergent ideas. Choosing to serve on institutionwide and/or focused committees is considered to be both a right and a
responsibility for the institution’s employees.
STANDARD IV LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE
STANDARD IV B. BOARD AND ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION
The institution’s Governing Board adheres to the Carver Policy Governance Model
to establish board policy. The Board Policy Manual was designed with a particular
emphasis on chapter one, governance. That chapter includes the Carver Model
principles of mission, board style, ethics and conflicts of interest, the board’s job
description, policy making principles and processes, board organization, board
officers’ duties, board committee principles, board meetings, the annual board
planning cycle, board education, the board self-evaluation, and the governing
expenses. The Governing Board, on behalf of the communities it serves, guarantees
the accountability for the institution by developing, maintaining and adhering to
policies and procedures that guide their activities and those of all the institution’s
employees. Consistent with the Institutional Mission and Institutional Goals/Ends
Policies, the Governing Board ensures the quality, integrity, and improvement of
student learning programs and services, assuming responsibility for the oversight
of the institution’s educational programs including standards for graduation and
curriculum development. The board monitors educational quality through
monitoring reports presented throughout the year at board meetings. The
superintendent/president guides institutional improvement of the teaching and
learning environment. The Governing Board’s Institutional Goals/Ends Policies
are adopted by the board, including any changes that are necessitated throughout
the years, but staff is allowed to decide means (how to accomplish the goals). The
administrative structure at the institution is organized to handle the complexity
and size of the institution with shared governance as the principle philosophy in all
70
decision making. A process is in place that assures the institution functions
effectively and has the leadership and management capabilities necessary for
success. The President’s Cabinet utilizes a collaborative process and gains
consensus from its members on policy and procedures and other governance
issues.
71
Accreditation Standard 1 - Institutional Mission and Effectiveness
Jann Garcia, Student
Admission, Records, Financial Aid and Cashiers Offices on the Rancho Cucamonga Campus
Chairs
Michael Dinielli
Sonia Juarez
David Karp
Dean, Language Arts
Student Activities
Instructor, Business
Administration/Business Law
Standard I
Thierry Brusselle
Instructor, Business & Business
Management
Accreditation Standard 1 Committee
Angela Bartlett
Russell Baty
Jackie Boboye
Peggy Cartwright
Abel Chen
Instructor, English
Instructor, Aviation
Maintenance Technology
Counselor
Director, Marketing &
Public Relations
Instructor, Business
Administration/Business Law
Sean Connelly
Jenny Dannelley
Timothy Greene
Instructor, English
Director, Transfer Center &
International Student Programs
Instructor, History
Sandy HardieTownsend
Instructor, Biological Sciences
Robin Ikeda
Instructor, Child Development
Daniel Kern
Carmen Navarro
Bob Olivera
Yvonne Palos
Mary Jane Ross
Instructor, Philosophy
Instructor,
Communication Studies
Dean, PE/Athletics
Language Arts
Multidisciplinary Center
Neil Watkins
Instructor, English
Standard I Institutional Mission and Effectiveness
The institution demonstrates strong commitment to a mission that emphasizes
achievement of student learning and to communicating the mission internally and
externally. The institution uses analyses of quantitative and qualitative data and
analysis in an ongoing and systematic cycle of evaluation, integrated planning,
implementation, and re-evaluation to verify and improve the effectiveness by
which the mission is accomplished.
Standard I A. Mission
The institution has a statement of mission that defines the institution’s broad
educational purposes, its intended student population, and its commitment to
achieving student learning.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The Chaffey College Institutional Mission1 frames the activities and objectives of the
institution and, as such, is integral to the development and execution of the Strategic
Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness.2 The Institutional Mission is
incorporated into the language and purpose of each of the Institutional Goals/Ends
Policies,3 as well as in the Program and Services Review (PSR) process.4 The
Institutional Mission acknowledges the complexity of the learning process and
demonstrates the institution’s commitment to student learning. In 2006, the
Governing Board requested that the Institutional Mission be inscribed on all
business cards to assist in communicating the Institutional Mission to the
surrounding community. The Institutional Mission also provided the foundation for
campus-wide dialogue that facilitated the development of the Core Competencies5
from 2008 to 2009. The College Catalog 2008-2009,6 Chaffey business cards, and the
most current Class Schedule (Fall 2009)7 describe the commitments outlined in the
Institutional Mission, as detailed below.
Institutional Mission
The Institutional Mission is as follows, “Chaffey College improves lives within the
diverse communities it serves through equal access to quality, learning-centered
occupational, transfer, general education, and foundation programs.”
The
Institutional Mission reflects the institution’s purpose, which is to provide a
comprehensive, student-centered education to the diverse community through an
accessible and effective learning environment, which aids students in their pursuit
of transfer, career preparation, personal fulfillment, job advancement and re-training
goals. (Please see p. 79 for anticipated change of mission.) The institution is
committed to serving students and communities through high quality,
73
comprehensive programs, offering a balanced curriculum, promoting teaching
methods for diverse learning styles, and involving and enriching the community.
Using the Institutional Mission as a guide, four Core Competencies5 for student
mastery were established: communication, critical thinking and information
competency, community/global awareness and responsibility; and personal,
academic, and career development.
College Core Competencies
To achieve the Institutional Mission, the institution’s community works together to
help students master the four core competencies. The Core Competencies, as
mentioned above, were developed after extensive dialogue among faculty, staff, and
administrators. They were approved in January of 2009 after review by the Faculty
Senate and Student Learning Outcomes Committee (SLO Committee). Faculty cochairs championed them through the shared governance process. These
competencies represent the major skills that all students need in order to succeed
and become lifelong learners. The institution is committed to fulfilling this promise:
when students have met the requirements for the A.A. or A.S. degree or have
completed the general education sequence, they will be competent in the following
ways:
•
•
•
•
Communication
Students will demonstrate effective communication and comprehension skills.
Critical Thinking and Information Competency
Students will demonstrate critical thinking skills in problem solving across the
disciplines and in daily life.
Community/Global Awareness and Responsibility
Students will demonstrate knowledge of significant social, cultural,
environmental and aesthetic perspectives.
Personal Academic and Career Development
Students will assess their own knowledge, skills and abilities; set personal,
educational and career goals; work independently and in group settings; identify
lifestyle choices that promote self reliance, financial literacy and physical, mental,
and social health.
SELF-EVALUATION
An example of the institution’s focus on its Institutional Mission1 and Institutional
Goals/Ends Policies,3 is the creation and operation of the President’s Equity
Council. Pursuant to both the Institutional Mission’s goal of improving lives within
its diverse communities by providing quality educational programs, and pursuant
to Institutional Goals/Ends Policies I, II and V, this committee is tasked to design
and implement an integrated equity program that brings together the various
interests, activities, and mandates related to diversity. The President’s Equity
74
Council reports to the superintendent/president, is chaired by the executive
assistant to the superintendent/president, and is made up of representatives from
the community, students, faculty, and staff. The council uses research data to
inform the decision-making process and collaboratively discusses the results of the
research in developing the goals and objectives for achieving the identified
outcomes.8 The implemented recommendations ranged from developing a “major
day,” to evaluating the Success Center environment, to helping identify how
students could access Success Center materials.
The institution’s commitment to achieving student learning comes also through the
Office of Professional Development and the Chaffey College Professional
Development Committee. The purpose of professional development is to provide
opportunities for improvement for faculty and staff that lead to the enhancement of
student learning and student success. The intent is to improve the overall
effectiveness of the institution by providing professional development opportunities
that encourage innovation, stimulate continued professional growth, and enhance
the learning and working environment at the institution. The Professional
Development Committee develops goals and objectives, identifies activities,
supports and sponsors those activities, and performs an annual review of the
committee's progress.9
A vital element that defines the institution’s broad educational purpose to further
the achievement of the Institutional Mission is the creation of the Faculty Success
Center (FSC). Located in the ATL Building on the Rancho campus, the Faculty
Success Center opened in fall 2008. This center provides a location where faculty can
meet formally and informally to learn about effective teaching methods and to
share, discuss, and engage each other in ways that will further faculty success and
student learning. Experienced faculty members serve as coordinators of the center.
In addition to on-campus programs and activities, such as flex10 (flex is the term the
institution uses for professional development activities held on mandatory inservice training days), the FSC provides the following.
•
•
•
•
•
Travel and conference support so that faculty can attend seminars and meetings
intended to improve faculty performance and promote student learning
An excellent online teaching program designed to examine and showcase best
practices, with the objective of creating a cadre of master online instructors
prepared to assist and mentor other faculty engaged in online instruction
A software bank of programs that cannot otherwise be funded and are specific to
faculty members’ work in their disciplines
Other resources to assist members in meeting their professional responsibilities
more effectively
The Summer Institute on Teaching, which is designed to promote and support
teaching innovations that improve student learning11
75
I.A.1 The institution establishes student learning programs and services aligned
with its purposes, its character, and its student population.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The Institutional Mission1 shows the institution’s commitment to offering learning
programs and student services to meet the needs of the population it serves. This is
achieved through the institution’s general education curriculum, associate degree
programs, occupational/vocational education certificate programs, foundational
and basic skills instruction, lower division transfer education, and the counseling
and student services programs.
In order to align learning programs and services with the Institutional Mission and
meet the needs of students, the institution offers a wide array of courses, reflecting
our commitment to occupational, general, transfer, and foundation education. The
institution has also developed a broad range of support services and programs to
meet the needs of its various student populations. The most notable of these was the
Basic Skills Transformation in 1998, which led to the reorganization of programs and
created the basic skills philosophy for the development of the Success Centers;
restructuring curriculum in English, ESL, math, and reading, the reforming of
student testing and placement, and the expansion of academic support services.
Additionally, the institution established learning programs and services that
respond directly to a diverse range of student needs, to retain and support them
throughout their education. These include the Student Success Initiative, Opening
Doors to Excellence program, Puente, the African-American Male Academic
Network
and
the
African-American
Woman’s
Academic
Network
(AMAN/AWOMAN), distance education, the student Health Center, service
learning, supplemental instruction, student-athlete counseling, Online to College,
the Career Center, the Extended Opportunity Program and Services (EOPS),
Disability Program and Services (DPS), the Honors program, Gateways to Teaching,
Continuing Education, Contract Education, and Workforce Preparation, among
others.
In the summer of 2004, to align the institution’s programs and services with student
needs, the institution developed an educational partnership with the California
Institution for Women (CIW) in Chino. The CIW program promotes education as a
rehabilitation measure through sustainable programming and services leading to
marketable job skills and associate-degree completion. The program is committed to
providing CIW inmates with the same high quality programs and services available
to all Chaffey students. In addition to having access to a complete course pattern
leading to the associate’s degree, all students at CIW are eligible for EOPS which
provides assistance with textbooks, counseling needs, the admissions and
registration process and financial aid. Students are also supported by counseling
76
services, DPS services, and a Success Center within the institution. This
extraordinary effort to provide access to higher education to all those within the
district's boundaries was recognized by the Chancellor's 2008 Student Success
Award,12 an award recognizing programs that uniquely embrace and serve the
California Community College System Office’s vision “to foster access, success, and
lifelong learning for all students.”
The institution has a strong service orientation. Communicating the availability of
all programs and services to students is a priority. For example, at the beginning of
each semester, the institution hosts an information booth called PAWS (so named
because of our mascot, the panther), which is run by volunteer staff, faculty, and
administrators. PAWS provides copies of the Student Handbook,13 program
guides,14 book grant applications,15 registration information,16 and general assistance
to new and returning students. This fulfills the Institutional Mission1 by directly
connecting Chaffey staff with the students served while simultaneously raising
awareness of the various programs and services available to students. In addition to
established programs, Chaffey is currently piloting an Early Alert program to
provide an efficient and consistent method for instructors to communicate with
students about their progress. Finally, the institution’s presence in both Fontana and
Chino, in addition to the campus in Rancho Cucamonga, demonstrates the
institution’s commitment to making education accessible to students in all areas of
the district.
Pertaining to establishing student learning programs and services, the Office of
Institutional Research (OIR) is an indispensable resource for data collection, analysis
and evaluation, as well as providing evidence to help inform the decision-making
process at Chaffey. There are numerous examples where OIR has been contacted to
provide information in the development of student learning programs including,
but not limited to, the basic skills transformation (success centers), Opening Doors,
Early Alert, Early Assessment, service learning, supplemental instruction, Gateways
to Teaching, all instructional programs and courses through needs assessments, and
the Faculty Success Center, among others.
SELF-EVALUATION
To establish student learning programs and services, the institution identifies needs
through systematic research and planning, by utilizing the data provided by the
institution’s Office of Institutional Research (OIR). The OIR provides useful and
user-friendly data and reports to administrators, faculty, and staff. Data and reports
are used for short- and long-range planning; institutional, school, and departmentlevel decision-making; accountability; evaluation of institutional effectiveness and
institutional planning; student learning outcomes (SLOs)17 and student success;
effective enrollment management; Program and Services Review (PSR);4 federal and
77
state-mandated research; federal and state-mandated compliance; and federal and
state funding. As the aforementioned indicates, the OIR’s mission directly supports
the Institutional Mission.1 All research activities incorporate the Institutional
Mission and goals and support the successful attainment of the Institutional
Goals/End Policies,3 specifically monitoring reports and other identified student
learning and performance outcomes. To initiate requests for research support,
requestors must specifically identify how the proposed research relates to either:
Institutional Goals/End Policies, learning outcomes (SLOs, administrative unit
outcomes or AUOs,18 or program-level outcomes), and/or accreditation standards.
Research-driven planning assures the relevance of the institution’s programs to its
students and community. Results of the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey19 conducted
among faculty, staff, and administrators supports this conclusion. Ninety-six percent
of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the following statement: “District
research is incorporated into planning and evaluation.” None of the respondents
strongly disagreed with the statement. In addition, 90% of respondents agreed or
strongly agreed that the institution uses research results to identify priorities for
improvement.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for I.A.1
I.A.2. The Mission statement is approved by the governing board and published.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The early design of the Institutional Mission resulted from the 2003 writings of the
Standard I Committee for the 2004 Accreditation self-study.20 Through the shared
governance process, the current Institutional Mission, “Chaffey College improves
lives within the diverse communities it serves through equal access to quality,
learning-centered occupational, transfer, general education, and foundation
programs” was conceived.
The Institutional Mission was approved by the Governing Board on January 22,
2004, after an extensive dialogue during which all constituents were represented,
including the previous superintendent/president, vice presidents (VPs), deans, the
Faculty and Classified Senate presidents, the Chaffey College Faculty Association
(CCFA), and the Associated Students of Chaffey College (ASCC). Because of the
diverse objectives of students attending the institution, the Institutional Mission was
designed to address a comprehensive range of students’ needs, with an emphasis on
diversity, equal access, and quality learning. In addition, the Institutional Mission
78
was also designed to “fit on the back of a business card” as requested by the
Governing Board to increase its visibility.
SELF-EVALUATION
As discussed previously, the Institutional Mission1 is widely published and found in
many of the institution’s primary documents. These documents include all Chaffey
College business cards, the Chaffey College Catalog 2008-2009,6 the Schedule of
Classes,7 and the Chaffey College website. Since its approval on January 22, 2004,
the Institutional Mission statement has remained unchanged until the writing of this
self-study, and has been central to institutional planning and decision-making.
During the writing of the institution’s self-study for the 2010 re-affirmation the
Institutional Mission standard committee concluded, in conjunction with input from
the June 2008 Management Retreat discussions, that the Institutional Mission should
be changed to better align with the institution’s commitment to student learning and
evidence based assessment.
Just as in 2004, the self-study committee for Standard I, Institutional Mission and
Effectiveness brought forth an addendum to the existing Institutional Mission in
2009 (strike outs are in existing Mission) stating,
This request is now going through the shared governance process. The self-study is
based on the 2004 Institutional Mission, but when the team arrives the institution
may have amended the Institutional Mission.
PLANNING AGENDA
I.A.3. Using the institution’s governance and decision-making processes, the
institution reviews its mission statement on a regular basis and revises it as
necessary.
79
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution utilizes the six-year cycle of accreditation as an opportunity to
regularly review, discuss, and consider changes to its Institutional Mission.1 As part
of the Accreditation Self-Study writing in 2009, the Standard I Self-Study Committee
reviewed, evaluated, and revised the Institutional Mission. The revision is being
reviewed through the shared governance process and once approved by faculty,
staff, and college constituents such as the Faculty Senate, Classified Senate,
Associated Students of Chaffey College (ASCC), College Council, and President’s
Cabinet it goes to the Governing Board for information and approval. The institution
changed its policy to annually review the Institutional Mission. On January 2006, the
Governing Board reviewed the Institutional Mission and decided that the
Institutional Mission was to become an integrated part of every Chaffey employee’s
daily activities. Subsequently, as mentioned earlier, the Institutional Mission was
printed on the back of all Chaffey College’s business cards.
Discussions related to the Institutional Mission have occurred on a regular basis
during Governing Board workshops when the superintendent/president has
discussed the institution’s goals. For example, the Governing Board has consistently
maintained that its commitment to the community is enhanced by having the
Institutional Mission printed on business cards. In addition, the institution’s
superintendent/president has also used the Institutional Mission as a foundation in
his welcome statement in the College Catalog 2008-2009.6 He wrote: “Our mission is
to provide a comprehensive, student-centered community college education. We
are committed to equality by providing equal access for our students, our faculty
and staff, and the district we serve.”
In addition to Governing Board workshops, discussion about the Institutional
Mission occurs regularly in other venues. For instance, at the management retreat in
June 2008, representatives from faculty, classified staff, and management reviewed
and discussed the Institutional Mission as well as those of other institutions. While
the group concluded that they were satisfied with the Institutional Mission, it was
decided that each year the superintendent/president would initiate a review of the
Institutional Mission. This review is now incorporated in Board Policy 2.1.2E:21 The
superintendent/president shall “Provide leadership in institutional planning and
development, in response to changing social, legal, technological, community, and
student needs, and in recognition of public accountability requirements including an
annual review of [the] Institutional Mission and Institutional Goals/Ends Policies.”
SELF-EVALUATION
Most of the respondents (88%) to the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey19 agreed or
strongly agreed that they were familiar with the Institutional Mission. At the same
80
time, as a result of the review process that occurred during the management retreat
in June 2008, the management retreat team along with the mission standard
committee suggested that the Institutional Mission be amended to include an
emphasis on student learning. It was suggested that language highlighting the
institution’s commitment to student learning and continuous assessment be added.
PLANNING AGENDA
I.A.4 The institution’s mission is central to institutional planning and decisionmaking.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The Institutional Mission1 is a basis for institutional planning, operations, and
program development from the Governing Board to the superintendent/president
and all constituents. Visibility of the Institutional Mission is a priority, and it is
therefore communicated in the College Catalog 2008-2009,6 Schedule of Classes,7
Report to the Community,22 Student Handbook,13 Program and Services Review
(PSR),4 and on the college’s business cards.
Much dialogue took place during 2008 and 2009 regarding planning and decisionmaking. Although the institution has always been proud of its strong evidencebased planning championed by the Office of Institutional Research (OIR),
discussions in 2008 focused on the relationship of the various planning functions
and how to strengthen decision-making based on planning. What resulted is an
institution-wide consensus to adopt the Strategic Planning Framework for
Institutional Effectiveness2 that allows the institution to link all planning processes.
The framework allows the institution to use qualitative and quantitative evidence
and a systematic cycle of evaluation for integrated institutional planning through
the Program and Services Review (PSR) process including integration of student
learning outcomes (SLOs),17 administrative unit outcomes (AUOs),18 budgeting,
building processes and monitoring reports. Most importantly, the institution will
use the framework in fall 2009 to update the Educational Master Plan.23
SELF-EVALUATION
The Institutional Mission is an important part of the institution’s planning and
decision-making processes. Survey results indicate that most faculty and staff agree
that the Institutional Mission guides planning and decision-making throughout the
institution. Specifically, in the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey,19 84% of faculty and
81
staff agreed or strongly agreed that the Institutional Mission guides planning and
decision-making.
PLANNING AGENDA
Standard I B. Improving Institutional Effectiveness
The institution demonstrates a conscious effort to produce and support student
learning, measures that learning, assesses how well learning is occurring, and
makes changes to improve student learning. The institution also organizes its key
processes and allocates its resources to effectively support student learning. The
institution demonstrates its effectiveness by providing 1) evidence of the
achievement of student learning outcomes and 2) evidence of institution and
program performance. The institution uses ongoing and systematic evaluation
and planning to refine its key processes and improve student learning.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
In the six years since the last accreditation self-study, the institution has made the
incorporation of learning outcomes a central focus in the institution. Concurrently,
the institution has made significant improvements to the planning, resource
allocation, and evaluation processes and also re-structured these processes to
support a college-wide concentration on learning outcomes supported by a strategic
planning framework. This framework demonstrates the institution’s efforts to
produce, support and measure student learning through evidence-based planning.
In 2007, as the institution began to prepare for its 2010 accreditation site visit, it
immediately became apparent that a consistent, comprehensive institutional
planning framework did not exist. Recognizing the need for an integrated,
comprehensive planning model, the accreditation liaison officer created a small
work group consisting of administrators, faculty, classified staff leaders, and the
Office of Institutional Research (OIR) staff. In spring 2008, the work group
developed the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness2 in
concert with the existing Carver policy governance model.24 The framework was
unveiled and unanimously approved at the June 2008 Chaffey College Management
Retreat.25 The framework went through the shared governance process; was
reviewed and approved by the Faculty Senate, Classified Senate, Student
Government, President’s Cabinet, and other decision-making groups; and was
approved and adopted by the Chaffey College Governing Board in October, 2008.
82
Description of the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness
Figure 1 (p. 84) illustrates the adopted Strategic Planning Framework for
Institutional Effectiveness. As Figure 1 indicates, a number of the institution’s
functions are now linked in one comprehensive model:
•
•
•
•
Student learning outcomes (SLOs)
Administrative unit outcomes (AUOs)
Governing Board Monitoring Reports presented to the governing board on the
institution’s progress in achieving predefined Institutional Goals/Ends Policies
Annual Program and Services Review (PSR) process for all programs and
services
Referring to Figure 1 (p. 84), Chaffey College’s Institutional Mission1 (1) drives its
Institutional Goals/Ends Policies (2).3 Under the adopted framework the
Institutional Mission will be reviewed annually to ensure that it fully reflects the
goals of the institution and that a symbiotic relationship exists between the
Institutional Mission and the Institutional Goals/Ends Policies.
83
Figure 1. Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness
The next aspect of the framework illustrates how the Institutional Goals/Ends
Policies (2) drive the Program Mission/Program Goals (4). In order to achieve
84
programmatic goals, specific activities are designed, which are expressed as
Outcome Statements (5a). Reflecting the nature of each individual program,
outcome statements are reported as either Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) or
administrative unit outcomes (AUOs). Outcome statements (5a) represent the first
step at the heart of the framework, the Institutional Effectiveness Process (see Figure
2, below).
Figure 2
Through the new strategic planning framework—specifically the institutional
effectiveness process—inherent in all the institution’s functions is the expectation
that a Means of Assessment (5b), a Summary of Evidence (5c), and Use of Results for
Planning (5d) will be addressed by all programs and services (Figure 1, p. 84). This
process is specifically addressed in the institution’s revised PSR process, in the
administrative unit and student learning outcomes cycles (Figure 3, p. 86), and the
Governing Board Monitoring Reports, which clearly are linked to Institutional
Goals/Ends Policies.
85
Figure 3. Chaffey College SLO/AUO Assessment Cycle
Referring to Figure 1, (p. 84), as steps 5e, 5f, and 5g indicate, it is of vital importance
that results of the assessment cycle are used in a meaningful way (i.e., “closing the
loop”). Depending upon the institution function – SLOs, AUOs, PSR, or Ends Policy
Monitoring Reports – results are used to inform discussion and promote continuous
improvement of SLOs/AUOs, programs goals, and/or Institutional Goals/Ends
Policies.3 This completed assessment and planning cycle assists the institution in
determining institutional effectiveness.
86
Specifically as it relates to PSR, evidence is now firmly incorporated into decisions
that affect budget requests and resource allocation (Figure 1, p. 84, Resources
Needed/Budget Requests (6) Subcommittees Recommendations (7), subsequent
larger PSR Recommendations (8), the input of the President (9), and ultimately the
President’s Response to PSR Recommendations (Acceptance/Non-acceptance) (10)
are all driven by the Institutional Effectiveness Process (5). The process requires
answering the following questions:
•
•
•
•
•
What are the goals of the program
How does the program plan to assess achievement of goals
What criteria has the program established to measure goal attainment
What evidence exists in relation to these goals
How are results/findings incorporated into future planning
In all instances, programmatic goals – and corresponding requests for resources
and/or budget augmentations – directly relate to student learning or support
activities which ultimately lead to student learning based on the Institutional
Goals/Ends Policies.3
By embracing the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness,2 a
number of other reporting processes have also been made considerably easier and
more consistent. For instance, the vice-president (VP) of instruction has used the
planning framework to present weekly instructional updates to the Governing
Board.26 Additionally, a planning schedule that adheres to this process has been
developed for the Governing Board. This schedule highlights the relationship
between monitoring reports and planning documents, which are now clearly
delineated in the Institutional Goals/Ends Policies and accreditation standards. In
the future, even clearer linkages will exist between other important documents,
monitoring reports, Institutional Goals/ Ends Policies, and accreditation standards.
Processes to Improve Institutional Effectiveness
The Institutional Mission, Institutional Goals/Ends Policies, and Core
Competencies5 articulate clear goals for how the institution intends to serve its
students. Over the last ten years the institution has been designing, implementing,
and refining procedures for improving institutional effectiveness through initiatives
like the Basic Skills Transformation,27 the Student Success Initiative, and Alternative
Learning Strategies28 such as supplemental instruction, to name a few.
The processes for developing and implementing the Chaffey College Educational
Master Plan23 and the Chaffey College Educational and Facilities Master Plan29
provide direction for the institution as a whole. The program planning processes
like PSR4 drive the effort to improve institutional effectiveness at the department
and program levels and are ultimately guided by the Institutional Mission,1
87
Institutional Goals/Ends Policies,3 Core Competencies,5 and Strategic Planning
Framework for Institutional Effectiveness.2
Chaffey College Educational Master Plan
The Chaffey College 2001-2010 Educational Master Plan sets direction and guides
resource allocation for the institution as a whole. The review and updating of this
plan, scheduled for fall 2009, engages the institution in evaluating progress towards
meeting its goals and informs the setting of new goals.
The criteria for the creation of the master plan was developed in conjunction with
the Chaffey College Educational and Facilities Master Plan and validated through
on-campus visits and interviews with faculty, staff, administration and students by
consultants tBP/Architecture and MAAS Companies. In addition the master plan
consultant team conducted extensive analysis relative to the instructional program,
the instructional delivery system and student support services. The Strategic
Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness had not been adopted at the time
the current master plan was developed.
The purpose of the existing master plan is to provide the necessary data and
philosophical foundation upon which the instructional- and support-service-facility
needs of the institution can be addressed and met through 2010. The master plan
provides guidelines for evidence-based decision-making and action, as well as
facilitates the development of other plans such as the facilities plans, technology
plans, and human resources plans. The Strategic Planning Framework for
Institutional Effectiveness highlights the evidence-based decision-making process
delineated in the master plan.
Chaffey College Educational/Facilities Master Plan
The current Chaffey College Educational and Facilities Master Plan was adopted in
2001 to explain why and how facilities will be improved to meet the educational
mission and accommodate future enrollment at the Rancho campus. The Facilities
Plan is being used to demonstrate the value of projects in funding requests, and to
implement projects in an order that bests serves the changing needs of the
institution and the community. The planning committee for the Facilities Master
Plan was comprised of key faculty, staff, students, and administrators. In addition,
the process included discussion with the college, community, and the Governing
Board to broaden the plan’s perspective and to enhance the acceptance of the
proposed development.
The Facilities Plan had four main recommendations that have guided the agenda for
improving and expanding the college facilities:
1) Provide an easy-to-find “starting place” for new students,
88
2) Provide additional and appropriate space for learning,
3) Eliminate streets that divide the campus and
4) Develop clear routes to circulate around the campus.
Accordingly, the Facilities Plan has guided the construction of the Student
Services/Administration Building, the four-building Science complex (Beeks Labs,
the Chemistry Building, the des Lauriers Labs, and Zimmermann Hall), the
reconstruction of College Drive, the Visual and Performing Arts buildings and
remodeling, and the new Physical Education building. In addition to the Facilities
Plan, which mostly speaks to the facilities at the Rancho Campus, three additional
facility plans have been developed and/or updated that speak to the facilities at the
Fontana Campus,30 the new Chino Campus, 31 and the Rancho Campus.29
Program and Services Planning
Another major planning process for improving institutional effectiveness is the
Program and Services Review (PSR)4 planning process. This process has been in
place for more than fifteen years, changing over the years. The PSR planning
process occurs annually for each instructional program, student service, and
administrative program at Chaffey. In 2008, PSR was not conducted in order to
align the PSR process with the new Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional
Effectiveness.2 This newly developed planning process uses the Institutional
Effectiveness Process to drive PSR (see Figures 1, 2, and 3, pp. 84-86). In 2009, the
Learning Outcomes Committee became involved in the PSR process evaluating
learning outcomes from over 100 programs. The members provided constructive
feedback on 359 SLOs17 and 322 AUOs.18
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for I.B
I.B.1. The institution maintains an ongoing, collegial, self-reflective dialogue
about the continuous improvement of student learning and institutional
processes.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Evidence that the institution embraces an ongoing collegial, self-reflective dialogue
to improve student learning and institutional processes is demonstrated by the
institution’s strong commitment to shared governance. Collegial dialogue occurs on
the department and program level through flex activities10 (flex, as aforementioned,
is the term the institution uses for professional development activities held on
mandatory in-service training days). Departments meet throughout the year and
invite individuals who have knowledge on issues that arise in regards to learning,
89
teaching, and institutional processes, such as research on retention, efficiency levels
for the institution, the feasibility of a four-day teaching schedule and the impact on
learning. Structured dialogue on learning improvement also takes place through the
institution’s committee structure and institutional processes. Open meetings with
the Governing Board are frequently related to learning, through the presentation of
faculty sabbatical reports, and to improvement of process, through managers’
presentations of monitoring reports. These reports follow the Strategic Planning
Framework for Institutional Effectiveness2 by showing outcome-based evidence and
planning future improvement based on this evidence. The institutional level of
dialogue regarding learning occurs among the superintendent/president, vicepresident’s level, executive assistants, director of marketing, the President’s Cabinet,
the Faculty Senate, the Classified Senate, the Associated Students of Chaffey College,
the College Council, President’s Equity Council, Student Services Council, the
Dean’s Council, the Student Learning Outcomes Committee (SLO Committee), and
the Multi-Campus Taskforce.
One strategy used to facilitate an ongoing, collegial, self reflective dialogue about
the continuous improvement of student learning and institutional processes at the
institution is through the committee structure used at the college. The institution
has constituted committees that have to review their membership annually.
Representatives from these groups work together to improve student learning.32
The President’s Cabinet convenes twice monthly under the leadership of the
superintendent/president. The cabinet consists of college administrators (including
all vice presidents, executive assistants to the superintendent/president, deans,
associate deans, assistant deans, and executive directors), the Faculty and Classified
Senate presidents, and both bargaining unit presidents. The cabinet reviews
administrative procedures and policies, considers input from constituent groups,
and makes recommendations concerning governance, planning, budgeting and
student learning to the institution as a whole.
Comprised of faculty representing all Chaffey College locations, schools, and
departments, in the institution, the Faculty Senate is a vibrant voice for student
learning and all faculty of the institution. The Faculty Senate encourages its
members and their constituents to “share in responsibility for excellence in the
college.” This shared responsibility means that faculty are involved in decisions
regarding curriculum, institutional policies and procedures, grading policies,
committee membership (including hiring committees), institutional planning,
professional development, program review, and student success initiatives. The
Senate’s philosophy emphasizes a “spirit of partnership” and “effective consensus
building.”
90
The Classified Senate is similarly comprised of representatives of staff from all
Chaffey locations, schools, and departments at the institution. The senate
membership provides a strong voice for student learning and improvement of
processes. The Classified Senate was the first governance group to examine the
Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness,2 which governs
planning in the institution for support staff. The senate’s mission emphasizes
“cooperation with faculty and administrators to provide students with the support
needed to achieve an excellent educational experience.” Furthermore, the Classified
Senate promotes “excellence in all aspects of support services provided to the
college community.” The Senate does so by involving classified staff in decisions
regarding institutional policies and procedures, committee membership (including
hiring committees), and budget processes. The Classified Senate also encourages
“the exchange of ideas [and] understanding . . . between classified staff, faculty,
administrators, and students”. 33
The process of instituting learning outcomes at the institution over the last five years
is a good example of how the institution maintains an ongoing, collegial, selfreflective dialogue about the continuous improvement of student learning and
institutional processes. The dialogue regarding student learning outcomes (SLOs)
has taken center-stage in the institution. Whereas in the beginning of SLO
discussions, faculty were very concerned about academic freedom and other issues,
all employee groups have embraced the concept of SLOs and have provided support
for implementation. The SLO Committee (previously called the SLO Taskforce from
2005 to 2007) its two faculty co-chairs (specifically hired to support the learning
outcomes philosophy), and the Office of Institutional Research (OIR) are an integral
part of the institution’s commitment to student learning and success. The
committee, led by the faculty co-chairs in concert with the OIR, oversees the
development and assessment of student learning and administrative unit outcomes
across the institution. The committee members include faculty, OIR staff, deans, the
VP of instruction, and the executive assistant to the superintendent/president (who
is also the accreditation liaison officer). One of the SLO facilitators’ primary goals
was to develop and finalize the institutional core competencies, with institutionwide dialogue. The competencies were approved by the Governing Board on
January 2009 and reside in Board Policy 8.1.6. The SLO facilitators, along with the
SLO committee and Institutional Research have the responsibility to assist in the full
integration of SLOs into program review, and to work with departments to develop
course-level SLOs that are in line with program and institutional goals.
Assessment of student learning outcomes (SLOs)17 and administrative unit
outcomes (AUOs)18 follows the evidence-based Strategic Planning Framework for
Institutional Effectiveness. SLOs and AUOs are housed in Program and Service
Review4 (PSR) documents as well as in Program Outcomes Binders and the SLO
website.34
91
As described previously, the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional
Effectiveness,2 developed in 2008, provides a mechanism for the institution’s
dialogue on student learning. This comprehensive strategic planning framework
connects all planning to the Institutional Mission1 and Institutional Goals/Ends
Policies3 of the institution including Program and Services Review (PSR), SLOs,
AUOs, and Governing Board Monitoring Reports.35 The benefit of this multiple-step,
recursive process is that it connects independent activities and reviews them in a
larger college-wide network of planning and assessment.
The Program and Services Review (PSR) process also encourages an ongoing,
collegial, self-reflective dialogue about the continuous improvement of student
learning. Namely, the PSR Committee adopted the institutional effectiveness
planning process2 for incorporation into the PSR cycle during the 2008 – 2009
academic year. Writers are asked to identify how each program’s or service’s
mission and goals relate to the Institutional Mission and goals. In addition, for each
program goal, programs are asked to identify an outcomes statement, a method of
assessment, criteria for assessment, summary of relevant evidence, and plans that
document how the program is using results for continuous program improvement.
Each year the departments, programs, and offices at the institution conduct their
annual `-program-level reviews. Since 2005, this process has been streamlined and
become more evidence-based with the use of CurricUNET software36 for the PSR
self-studies. Each program-level review is submitted to the senior manager of each
area for review and then to the PSR Committee, led by a faculty co-chair and
management co-chair appointed by the superintendent/president. The committee
members (comprised of faculty, staff, and administrators) determine the extent to
which the institution’s programs and services assist in achieving its adopted
Institutional Mission. This college-wide committee makes recommendations to the
superintendent/president regarding changes in operations, staffing, and budget
allocations.
In addition, the institution’s strong shared governance philosophy and use of the
Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness leads to collegial, selfreflective dialogue. Such dialogue produced awareness that some programs or
services support student learning through SLOs while others do so through AUOs,
and a few through both SLOs and AUOs. Embedded within the PSR process, writers
identify SLOs and/or AUOs, write and document the means of assessment and
criteria, and how the evidence findings are being used for continuous improvement
including future plans. These plans should relate directly to student learning or
administrative unit support of student learning.
Aligning the Governing Board Monitoring Reports35 with the Institutional
Effectiveness Planning Process (Figure 2, p. 85) also facilitates dialogue among the
92
individual programs and the community when these reports are delivered to the
Governing Board. These reports are the institution’s way of holding managers
responsible for using evidence to support decision-making and improving student
learning, rather than simply reporting activities to the Governing Board by
“announcing how wonderful we are.” All monitoring reports include outcome
statements (activities) that relate to one or more Institutional Goals/Ends Policies,3
an identified means of assessment that clearly measures progress toward goal
achievement, a summary of evidence to determine whether the goal was achieved,
and a plan for how the institution will sustain goal achievement or use results to
make future progress toward goal achievement. Monitoring reports, just as PSR, are
based on the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness.2 In
addition, weekly updates provided by the vice presidents37 to the Governing Board
are an aspect of the institutional effectiveness planning process and also facilitate
dialogue among the campus community. Each area highlighted in the weekly
Governing Board update provides an outcome statement, a means of assessment,
summary of the evidence, and a description of how the results will be used for
future planning.
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution prides itself in maintaining a collegial and effective dialogue
regarding student learning and student success. Some of this dialogue comes from
institutional processes as well as from informal, periodic activities. From the annual
Program and Services Review (PSR) process to lunchtime talks with the
superintendent/president, the faculty, staff, and administrators of the institution are
committed to improving student achievement. Other current activities include
workshops and round-table discussions at the new Faculty Success Center (FSC). In
addition, in 2006/2007, the previous superintendent/president organized leadership
academies.
The Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey19 strongly indicates that the commitment to a
dialogue on success is evident at all institutional levels and in all positions. For
example 92% of the institution’s employees agree or strongly agree that the
institution maintains an ongoing, collegial, self-reflective dialogue about the
continuous improvement of learning and institutional processes. Furthermore, 82%
agree or strongly agree that the institution informs its members on the status of the
institution’s progress toward achieving institutional goals. Information is also
shared effectively with the Governing Board; 97% agree or strongly agree that the
institution clearly documents the achievement of institutional objectives through
Board Monitoring Reports.35 The institution’s Program and Services Review (PSR)4
process is also seen as effective; 75% agree or strongly agree that the PSR process
provides an effective mechanism for review of programs and services. In addition,
the data also indicate that for each of these questions, there are no statistically
93
significant differences between administrators, contract faculty, adjunct faculty, and
classified staff. At the same time, contract faculty, in contrast to adjunct faculty, are
more likely to have knowledge of whether this dialogue takes place in most of these
areas.
Chaffey College staff and faculty are aware that adjunct faculty, are often much less
likely to be aware of procedures and/or services. The institution makes a concerted
effort to include adjunct faculty in the dialogue. Therefore, whenever the institution
seeks to create or improve procedures and services the institution makes a concerted
effort to include adjunct faculty in the dialogue. One of the many examples of this
occurred with the creation of the Faculty Success Center (FSC). As part of the
process of creating the FSC, a survey was distributed to all faculty who were
teaching in spring 2008. Of the 265 faculty who completed the survey, 49% of the
respondents were adjunct faculty, and 51% were contract faculty.38 There were no
statistically significant differences between full-time (contract) and part-time
(adjunct) faculty in the professional development areas that they felt were most
important to help improve student success. Critical-thinking skills and maintaining
rigor and standards with under-prepared students were identified as being the most
important professional development topics by all faculty. On the other hand, parttime faculty were statistically significantly and substantially less likely to feel that
they incorporated student Success Center activities, and that they maintained
appropriate rigor and standards with a significant number of under-prepared
students to improve student success. Conversely, part-time faculty were also
statistically significantly and substantially more likely to feel that they connected
successfully with students of differing backgrounds on a regular basis to improve
student success.
The information learned from this survey, especially the data about the differences
and similarities among faculty, was used to develop professional development
activities. For instance, the Summer 2008 and 2009 Institutes were attended by over
eighty faculty, most of whom were adjunct. The overriding theme of both Summer
Institutes was facilitating learning among under-prepared students, which was one
of the professional development topics categorized by both faculty groups as being
“most important.” The results of faculty research projects are published in a
compendium titled, Developing a Community of Practice-A Report of Innovations
Inspired by the Chaffey College Faculty Success Center.39
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for I.B.1
94
I.B.2. The institution sets goals to improve its effectiveness consistent with its
stated purposes. The institution articulates its goals and states the objectives
derived from them in measurable terms so that the degree to which they are
achieved can be determined and widely discussed. The institutional members
understand these goals and work collaboratively toward their achievement.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
As described above, the institution relies on multiple planning and evaluation
processes. As outlined in the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional
Effectiveness,2 the Institutional Goals/Ends Policies3 are clearly articulated in Board
Policy and are used in every step of planning for the institution. The goals link all
program, resource, and services planning and are pivotal in defining a program’s or
service’s measurable outcome statements. Programs and services are required to
base their missions and purposes on the Institutional Mission1 and their goals and
outcomes statements on the Institutional Goals/Ends Policies in their annual
Program and Services Review (PSR) report.4 Program self-studies are based on the
Institutional Mission and linked to Institutional Goals/Ends Policies. The PSR
Committee, consisting of faculty, staff, and administrators, evaluates all self-studies
documents and makes recommendations regarding hiring and budgeting for each
program. The recommendations go to the superintendent/president who assesses
the budget prior to sending the results to the President’s Cabinet for college-wide
planning and coordination. The cabinet ultimately makes decisions regarding
budgeting, hiring, and facilities development and improvements. This process is
charted out in the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness
(Figure 1, p. 84).
Furthermore, with the development of the Strategic Planning Framework for
Institutional Effectiveness in 2008, learning outcomes statements are measurable and
guided by both the means of assessment and criterion for assessment. This process
allows the institution to evaluate what it is doing, summarize the evidence, and
utilize evidence to make informed decisions for future planning.
As mentioned earlier, the mission-driven Institutional Goals/Ends Policies, adopted
by the Governing Board, are based on the Carver policy governance model.24 In
1999/ 2000 the Governing Board participated in several workshops provided by the
then director of the Community College League of California, Dr. Cindra Smith.
The workshops resulted in the Board Policy Manual.40 The Institutional Goals/Ends
Policies became the guiding goals for the Governing Board and the institution, and
board agenda items were linked to the Institutional Goals/Ends Policies. The
continual process of planning at the institution has led to new components being
added to the planning model, including the Educational Master Plan,23 Strategic
Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness, and the Economic Impact
95
Studies.41 The PSR process was aligned with the Institutional Effectiveness Process
(IEP)2 while the Institutional Goals/Ends Policies are addressed in measurable terms
in each Program and Services Review (PSR).
The institution makes a significant effort to ensure that its stakeholders are aware of
its mission and goals by articulating the Institutional Mission, goals, and purposes in
a number of formats including but not limited to the College Catalog 2008-2009,6
Schedule of Classes,7 the Chaffey College’s Website,42 the college business cards, and
program brochures. Both the previous and the present superintendent/president
share their goals at the annual convocation and through emails with all constituents.
As part of the institution’s continuing commitment to improving effectiveness and
student learning, the institution continually refines its planning processes,
employing collaborative governance while responding to budgetary constraints and
to the changing communities in the Chaffey Community College District. The
degree to which the institution’s goals are met is determined through the
Institutional Effectiveness Process, which is highlighted in Chaffey College’s
Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness (Figure 1, p. 84; Figure
2, p. 85). Governing Board Monitoring Reports35 are presented to the Governing
Board annually to identify achievement of the institution’s Institutional Goals/Ends
Policies in a systematic, ongoing cycle of evaluation. Similarly, the reports identify
areas needing improvement. The following monitoring reports are scheduled
throughout the year: the Library Report, the Student Services, the Board Partnership
Report, the HR Recruitment/Staffing Report, the Quarterly Facilities Development
Report, the Measure L: Honoring the Promise Report, the Staff Development Report,
the Citizens’ Oversight Committee Report, the Report to the Community, Fall
Enrollment Report, the Grant/Foundation Report, the Audit Report, the Marketing
Report, the Occupational Education Report, the Workforce Development Report, the
Alternative Learning Strategies Report, the Spring Enrollment Report, the Fontana
Report, the Chino Report, the Student Academic Success Report, the Learning
Outcomes Report, the Technology Report, the PSR Report, and the Curriculum
Report.
The reason for presenting the monitoring reports to the Governing Board is to
widely discuss what has been achieved by a program. The report process, as
covered before, involves all components of the Institutional Effectiveness Process2:
reporting information to the Governing Board involves reporting outcome
statements, describing the means and criterion for assessment, providing a summary
of evidence, and recommending how the results will be used for planning. Prior to
the planning framework, board reports tended to describe “how wonderful we are”
and failed to stimulate engaged responses. Now the reports substantiate such
claims with measurable outcomes and inspire informed discussion.
96
Figure 4.
The Enrollment and Growth Management Committee (EMC) is one example of how
constituents work collaboratively to articulate and develop goals and measurable
objectives so that they can be widely discussed (Figure 4, above). The EMC consists
of approximately thirty faculty, staff, and administrators who meet regularly. The
goal of enrollment management at Chaffey is to create a responsive, flexible,
educationally and financially sound, research-based approach to course scheduling.
Inherent in this planning process are issues of meeting enrollment targets, marketing
programs, ensuring student access, meeting community needs, and managing
practices that support student retention and persistence. The enrollment
management plan uses the Institutional Effectiveness Process to delineate the
enrollment strategy, the responsible area, outcomes, means of assessment, criteria
for success, a summary of evidence, and the planned use of results. For example,
referring to Figure 4, the EMC wanted to increase the likelihood of student success
in distance education (DE) courses. As a result, the EMC and the Office of
Institutional Research (OIR) worked collaboratively to conduct a research study
(Activity) to identify educational background measures that predict success. The
97
educational background characteristics identified as likely to lead to success
(Evidence) were then used to generate placement recommendations to students
interested in enrolling in DE courses (Use of Results).
Another example of how the institution articulates goals and collaboratively works
toward their achievement is apparent in the implementation of SLOs. The institution
began implementing SLOs in 2005 through the development of a representative SLO
Taskforce, which was renamed the SLO Committee in 2008. The SLO committee
includes a member from each academic school on campus, three members from the
Office of Institutional Research, the Dean of Counseling and Matriculation, the
executive assistant to the superintendent/president, accreditation liaison, the
curriculum chair, various faculty and staff, and the vice-president of instruction.
To begin the collaborative SLO improvement process, in 2005, the SLO Task Force
developed a pilot project with the idea that it would lead to fuller participation by
all college groups over the next few years. The pilot included one faculty program
from each school. Each pilot group was charged with articulating five learning
outcomes for their respective programs and presenting the experience during the
fall flex43 activities. Faculty received a small stipend for their efforts and leadership.
The committee conducted training and support sessions for the pilot groups; hoping
that the participants would become mentors for the process in their own schools. In
essence, the intent was to “grow” mentors and ambassadors. Faculty from the pilot
groups subsequently became mentors demonstrating the possibilities and answering
many questions regarding the SLO process.
The effort is co-chaired by two faculty members. The committee has adopted a
variety of methods for communicating with the college community regarding SLO
issues, including live activities (i.e., flex and departmental presentations), e-mail,
and an e-newsletter entitled The S.L.O. Down: Chaffey College’s Official SLO
Newsletter,44 first published in November 2008. Presentations regarding SLOs have
covered both the creation of SLOs and the assessment/measurement of them. For
example, Preparing Student Learning Outcomes was presented in Fall 2005; Student
Learning Outcomes @ Chaffey College, in January 2006; SLO Assessment: A Panel
Discussing Varying Approaches, in January 2007; Assessing Student Learning
Outcomes “SLOs,” in January 2008; and both Course-Level Student Learning and
SLO Assessment at the Course Level, in January 2009.
Numerous other
presentations were made to faculty at departmental meetings and Faculty Senate
sessions.
The institution decided to start the SLO process by creating SLOs at the program
level, and has now embarked on the process of creating SLOs at the course level.
Institutional SLOs/Core Competencies5 have been completed
98
The institution has created an SLO website.34 This site includes a variety of
information, including an SLO FAQ, an SLO Glossary, and a variety examples and
documents designed to inform and assist in the creation of SLOs. In addition, the
OIR also has created an SLO/AUO Resources website.45 This website provides links
to learning-outcomes resources, examples of assessment rubrics, instruments, and
briefs.
Besides promoting understanding, discussion, and use of SLOs, the SLO Committee
has helped in integrating SLOs/AUOs and assessment into the PSR4 process. As of
spring 2009, program-level SLOs must be linked with discipline-specific course-level
SLOs and the SLO assessment process. Departments have to address specific
program goals, program SLOs, means of assessment, and summarize the evidence.
The SLO Committee evaluates each program’s SLOs and makes recommendations to
the programs as to the efficacy or usefulness of the written SLOs and AUOs as part
of the review process.
Each PSR requires writers to respond to prior
recommendations, thus continuing the collaborative cycle of improving institutional
effectiveness.
Through broad dialogue, the institution recognizes the importance of SLOs/AUOs
to the achievement of its mission and student learning. The significance of these
steps regarding SLOs and AUOs is that Chaffey has institutionalized SLOs and
AUOs into the institution’s Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional
Effectiveness,2 and requires all parts of the institution to have missions and goals
consistent with those of the institution as a whole. Under this approach, all such
goals take student learning into account.
All programs are required to write a PSR and, thus, are required to have SLOs17 and
AUOs.18 The institution has embarked upon a course of action in which all
activities, whether administrative or faculty, are evaluated as part of a continuous
improvement cycle, and decisions are made based on expected outcomes, all of
which must be tied to the Institutional Mission.1
As of the time of this self-study, the framework is in place, SLOs and AUOs are
either in development, or, in many cases, have been developed. The classified and
faculty senate understand and totally support the idea of learning outcomes and
assessment. The institution is fully and enthusiastically engaged in this process.
All of these examples are born of the institution’s collaborative efforts to achieve its
Institutional Mission. Indeed, they are products of the institution’s long history of
commitment to shared governance.46 All constituencies, classified staff, faculty and
administration, are committed to achieving the institution’s goals.
This is
demonstrated by the many committees committed to student learning.
99
Committees32 are composed of members of all institutional constituencies, all with
objectives directed toward achievement of the institution’s goals.
An excellent example of the institution’s College-wide commitment to collaboration
in its efforts to achieve institutional objectives is the effort in connection with SLOs
and AUOs described above. Another example is found in the preparation of this
accreditations self-study. This self-study is the product of the combined efforts of
159 of Chaffey students, faculty, classified staff, administrators, and Governing
Board members. The effort was lead by tri-chairs, one each representing the faculty,
staff, and administrative constituencies; ten Accreditation Standards Committees
researched, gathered, and evaluated information, as well as drafted and revised the
self-study. Each of these Accreditation Standards Committees was chaired by at
least one representative from each constituency and one of the three OIR staff served
on each committee. The chairs of the ten Accreditation Standards Committees also
joined with the three tri-chairs to form an Accreditation Steering Committee. Thus,
this self-study, the culmination of an exhaustive effort spanning well over one year,
is truly a collaborative product developed from the bottom up by members gathered
from all institutional constituencies.
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution makes a conscious effort to continually improve its effectiveness
creating an environment that promotes student learning and effectiveness in
achieving its Institutional Mission.1 The process, outlined in the Strategic Planning
Framework for Institutional Effectiveness2 (Figure 1, p. 84), was designed to
implement and measure institutional progress in a collaborative way, producing key
documents clearly articulating the continual cycle of goal formation, planning,
implementation, assessment, analysis of evidence, and subsequent modification of
goals and plans. The institution is fully and enthusiastically engaged in this process,
with the complete understanding and support of all constituents.
A sophisticated software system generated out of the Office of Institutional Research
(OIR) called Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) Cubes47 is an essential part of
using the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness. Also known
as the Data Information System at Chaffey (DISC),48 DISC provides a broad range of
data on institutional effectiveness and student outcomes, including success and
retention rates, demographic information, enrollment data, course offering
information, FTES (Full-Time Equivalent Students) data, grade distribution, and
Success Center utilization information. DISC allows the user to select and compare
a variety of variables by department, schools, and location. The DISC system can be
accessed by members of internal or external communities using the employee’s user
name and password. While the system initially was used only by a small group of
research-oriented faculty and administrators, recent usage statistics suggest
100
significant increases in the “hits” on the system, most likely as a direct result of the
vice president of instruction encouraging the use of DISC in the Program and
Services Review (PSR)4 process. DISC or OLAP cubes were used to analyze data
collected in the aforementioned Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey19 for incorporation in
this self-study.
The Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey, conducted by the OIR indicates that the
institution’s faculty, staff, and administrators are aware of the Institutional Mission
and goals. Eighty-seven percent of the respondents agree or strongly agree that they
are familiar with the Institutional Mission. In connection with the Institutional
Mission, nearly 96% of the responders agree that the institution strives to meet the
varied educational needs of its students, and 98% of respondents agree that the
institution’s educational programs are of high quality and are consistent with the
Institutional Mission.1
Additionally, more than 96% of the responders agree that the Institutional Mission
drives the goals of the institution, while over 90% feel that they could “describe their
role in helping the institution to achieve its goals.” A large majority of survey
responders (92%) believe that the institution maintains an ongoing, collegial, selfreflective dialogue about the continuous improvement of learning and institutional
processes. Nearly 81% feel that the institution goals are clearly articulated, and 88%
agree that the institution makes information on its objectives readily available to
institutional members. Ninety-six percent of the survey participants understand
that institutional research is incorporated into planning and evaluation, and 90%
agree that the institution uses research results to identify priorities for improvement.
Seventy-four percent agree that appropriate constituents are included in the
development of institutional plans. A strong majority of responders (82%) agree that
the institution informs its members of its progress toward achievement of the
institution’s goals.
The Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey also indicates that responders are aware of, and
participate in, the planning process. Nearly 91% agreed that the Institutional
Mission and Institutional Goals/Ends Policies3 guide planning and decision-making
throughout the institution. More than 75% agree that the Institutional Goals/Ends
Policies provide the framework for resource allocation through the Program and
Services Review (PSR) process. Almost 97% of responders agree that the institution
clearly documents the achievement of institutional objectives through monitoring
reports35 to the Governing Board.
The successful process of implementing a planning process at Chaffey is
demonstrated by the large majority of responders (86%) who agree that the
institution uses systemic planning and evaluation to improve programs and
services. The numbers indicate that not only are institutional stakeholders aware of
101
the Institutional Mission and goals, they are familiar with, participating in, and
committed to the planning process designed to achieve them.
Furthermore, research also shows that the institution is fulfilling its Institutional
Mission by meeting transfer, vocational, and basic skills objectives. The overall
transfer success rate increased 1.5% from the 2000/2001 to 2005/2006 school years
with transfers to the University of California system simultaneously increasing by
4.2%. Likewise, over these years, the institution experienced a 2.4% increase in
vocational course success rates as well as a consistent increase in the basic skills
improvement rate.49
PLANNING AGENDA
I.B.3 The institution assesses progress toward achieving its stated goals and
makes decisions regarding the improvement of institutional effectiveness in an
ongoing and systematic cycle of evaluation, integrated planning, resource
allocation, implementation, and re-evaluation. Evaluation is based on analyses of
both quantitative and qualitative data.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution has created and adopted the Strategic Planning Framework for
Institutional Effectiveness,2 which is laid out in a flow chart (Figure 1, p. 84). The ten
steps of the flow chart do not proceed in a chronological order, but rather loop and
repeat in a continuous cycle to ensure all institutional members are participating in a
constant striving to both fulfill and refine the Institutional Mission,1 Institutional
Goals/Ends Policies,3 program missions, and programs goals. Embedded in the
strategic planning framework is the Institutional Effectiveness Process (IEP),2 which
is the essential way for the institution’s quantitative and qualitative research to
fulfill and refine, the institution- and program-level missions and goals, the courselevel goals and other more specific goals of all the institution’s varied constituencies
(faculty, staff, and administration), programs, services, and committees.
In addition, the Institutional Effectiveness Process (IEP) is used by the Governing
Board, and by students who are actively and directly involved in many of the
institution’s programs, services, and committees as both student employees and
representatives. Under the leadership of Student Activities, the International
Student Office, the Associated Students of Chaffey College (ASCC), and the InterClub Council (ICC) students also call upon the Office of Institutional Research (OIR)
and may use the IEP. Importantly, students, as well as the community members of
the institution, are the people from whom and about whom the institution gathers
102
data via quantitative and qualitative research conducted in professional, ethical, and
accurate ways. Students in K-12 schools or high schools, who are potentially future
Chaffey College students, are particularly of interest to committees such as the
Enrollment and Growth Management Committee and High School Petitions
Committee. Some programs and services, such as Online to College attempt to
foster relationships with such students before they arrive at Chaffey and both
qualitative and quantitative research addresses their paths.
A systematic cycle of addressing stated goals is annually presented to the
community in the Report to the Community monitoring report.22 All Governing
Board Monitoring Reports35 are part of the Strategic Planning Framework for
Institutional Effectiveness; thus, many of the institution’s community members are
also participants in the institution-wide ongoing and systematic cycle of evaluation,
planning, implementation of said plans, assessment of the plans and their
implementation by the evidence-driven IEP, and, finally, re-evaluation, which
“closes the loop.” Serving the needs of the community is essential to the Institutional
Mission and goals, and data collection regarding these needs come also from local,
county, state, and federal sources which become part of the institution’s cycle of
“evaluation, planning, resource allocation, implementation, and re-evaluation.”
An examination of the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness
(Figure 1, p. 84) reveals that the program progress and achievement of goals are an
integral part of and addressed by Program and Services Review (PSR),4 the PSR
Committee, Governing Board Monitoring Reports, the Governing Board, the
superintendent/president, the SLO Committee, the Instructional Equipment
Committee, the Budget Advisory Committee, the President’s Cabinet, and the
Technology Committee to name a few. As PSR is involved, so are all programs and
services and their administrators, staff, and faculty who must read and approve the
individual PSR self-studies that make up the annual PSR Final Report. The many
campus committees, planning documents, and the master plans are key in
addressing the systematic cycle of evaluation.
Most importantly, however, the OIR is the sine qua non of the Institutional
Effectiveness Process(IEP), the key stage of the Strategic Planning Framework for
Institutional Effectiveness as it is the way in which the institution decides; what
evidence is needed; what evidence can be located and what should be collected; how
to collect, understand, analyze, summarize, and interpret the evidence; and how to
select and incorporate appropriate evidence into future planning, thereby restarting
the entire IEP cycle.
Even before the development and implementation of the Strategic Planning
Framework for Institutional Effectiveness and IEP, the institution had a wellestablished culture of evidence that was, and continues to be, used in many
103
decision-making processes. The OIR conducts approximately 300 studies each year,
and many of these are specifically requested to help with the decision-making
process and to identify whether the programs are addressing the needs of students
referred to as a needs assessment.
The OIR assists with the steps of the IEP by providing data to help inform the
decision-making process through the Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) cubes,47
also known as the Data and Information System at Chaffey (DISC).48 OLAP cubes
enable even the statistically challenged to sort through and understand the masses
of statistical data collected by the institution and the OIR. For example, data from
the application process, transcripts, and various surveys such as the Intake Survey
and the Student Climate Survey are made accessible and understandable via OLAP
cubes. The OIR, however, is there to make the data even more available and
comprehensible by providing a wealth of descriptive and inferential statistics
including, mean, standard deviation, t-test, anova, and regression analyses.
In addition, institutional performance indicators have been established to measure
progress in such areas as student success, transfers, and basic skills improvement;
these are just some of the Accountability Reporting for Community Colleges
(ARCC)50 performance indicators. The annual Student Academic Success Report49 (a
Board Monitoring Report) tracks and publicizes the institution’s progress towards
the goals noted above using the ARCC performance indicators. Equally important,
the Student Academic Success Report also identifies strategies and services that are
related to the ARCC performance indicators using sophisticated statistical
techniques to help inform the planning involved in increasing student achievement
of the ARCC outcomes. The OIR also analyzes data from other sources like grades,
data collected from surveys, or obtained from other valid sources such as the federal
Census bureau and the Chaffey Alumni Association to help inform the decisionmaking processes at the institution. Faculty, staff, and administrators can also
interface with the data via DISC. The institution initiates comprehensive studies
related to specific stated goals and strategic priorities, making available data to help
inform decision-making in an ongoing planning cycle.
Some specific examples of how programs use the Institutional Effectiveness Process
(IEP), OIR, and research to address the needs of students were given above (Figure
3, p. 86; Figure 4, p. 97). Another example of how programs use research to address
the needs of students is the Smart Start Program. The Smart Start program was
created in the Counseling Department to identify and assist entering students who
might be more likely to experience academic probation. In the developmental stages
of the program the coordinator contacted the OIR to help with identifying students
who would be more likely to experience academic probation. The OIR used
statistical techniques and information obtained during the initial matriculation
assessment to identify which students might best respond to the additional support
104
offered by Smart Start and that would prevent them from experiencing academic
probation. As a result, these students are offered the particular guidance class
(GUID 592), counseling services, and the supplemental instruction that have been
shown to increase the likelihood that students will successfully complete their
courses.
There are many instances demonstrating the institution’s commitment to assessment
of progress and ongoing commitment to evaluation. One illustration is the
institution’s commitment to the Success Centers (Multidisciplinary, Math, Writing,
Reading, and Language). Fundamental to establishing, funding, running, and
improving the Success Centers is the data collected by the centers and analyzed by
the center staff and the OIR. This data plays a key role in each Success Center’s SLO
assessment34 process and Program and Services Review (PSR) self-study, not to
mention their budgeting and accountability to the state.
For example, data collected from 2000/2001 to 2005/200651 revealed the following,
which enabled the centers to make changes to improve effectiveness and progress
towards the achievement of their SLOs and the Institutional Mission and goals:
•
•
•
Students who accessed a Success Center (especially first-time college students)
were more likely to successfully complete a course than students who were
enrolled in the same section and did not access a Success Center.
Regardless of gender or ethnicity, students who accessed a Success Center were
statistically significantly more likely to successfully complete a course than
students who were enrolled in the same section and did not access a Success
Center.
The Success Centers had the largest impact on the success rates of first time
college students, male students when compared to females, and on African
American students when compared to other ethnicities.
As another example, the 2007 – 2008 Academic Success Report49 annually identifies
programs and services that impact student progress. The most effective programs
and services are shared with the Governing Board, as well as the campus
community through the board monitoring report and by meetings and other shared
governance venues — all to help increase student success. Specifically, the 2007 –
2008 Academic Success Report used sophisticated research techniques (i.e.,
Segmentation Modeling) to pinpoint areas where improvements can be made. As an
illustration, this report noted that the following student behaviors increased the
likelihood of student success:
•
•
•
Assessing prior to the student’s first start date
Seeing a counselor on a consistent and regular basis
Following placement recommendations
105
•
•
•
Meeting course prerequisites
Accessing the Success Centers on a regular basis
Placing into MATH-410 (Elementary Algebra) or higher
The results from each annual Academic Success Report are shared with the
Governing Board, administration, faculty, and staff annually to help in the planning
process and to help inform the decision-making process. In addition to reporting
the institution’s progress on these measures, the report uses statistical techniques to
identify programs and services that impact student progress.
The institution also uses qualitative data to evaluate the achievement of program
goals for planning. For example, qualitative data was used in a learning outcomes
assessment of the transcript ordering system for Admissions and Records. Even
though the quantitative data strongly indicated that students were satisfied with the
transcript ordering system, an analysis of the qualitative data indicated that students
were dissatisfied with the requirement of having to fax a signature to Admissions
and Records.52 In response to the findings, the Admissions and Records Office
worked towards eliminating the signature requirement. Another example involves
incorporating the open-ended responses from the spring 2008 Success Center
Satisfaction Survey53 with the quantitative data. This mixed-methods study
highlighted some interesting findings in relation to the services provided by the
Success Centers that would not have come to light if the open-ended responses had
not been combined with the quantitative data. One of the instructional specialists
made the following comment when asked about the usefulness and the ability to
process the results of the survey:
By combining quantitative data with narrative responses from open-ended
questions, the 2008 Student Satisfaction Survey provided a more accessible
tool to communicate program efficacy to the various constituent groups that
support and rely on the Chaffey College Success Centers. When showcasing
results in this manner to department faculty and administrators, individuals
had a much clearer understanding of the information and had less difficulty
relating that information directly to student success.
As mentioned previously, quantitative and qualitative data is made available and
used for assessing progress planning in a wide range of venues. The OIR analyzes
and interprets data for easy understanding and makes this information available for
planning on a regular basis. There are numerous examples of the evaluation of
institutional effectiveness based on data and evidence housed on the Institutional
Services/ Office of Institutional Research website.54
The institution’s ability to assess stated goals and make decisions to improve
institutional effectiveness is validated by a recent example of the use of data
106
generated by the OIR. The Enrollment and Growth Management Planning
Committee requested fourteen studies over a two-year period to help with their
planning and decision-making process.55 The studies examined enrollment trends
ranging from characteristics of students who are most likely to enroll to the
application rates of district high schools. It was found that the following student
behavior statistically significantly increased the likelihood of student’s being
successful in their coursework:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Assessing prior to the student’s first start date
Seeing a counselor on a consistent and regular basis
Following placement recommendations
Meeting course prerequisites
Accessing the Success Centers on a regular basis
Utilizing Supplemental Instruction
Successfully completing transfer level English and math within three years of the
student’s first enrollment at Chaffey
Findings indicated that students were 17 times more likely to enroll and 6 times
more likely to earn a grade on record if they tested prior to the start date of the term.
Evidence-based decision-making also resides at the heart of the institution’s 2008-09
Student Success Initiative (SSI) Basic Skills Action Plan.56 As the college engaged in
the self-assessment process recommended in the Basic Skills as a Foundation for
Student Success in California Community Colleges57 document, one of the three
major work groups created was an Assessment Task Force. The Assessment Task
Force took a global approach, examining the institution as a whole and reporting
back to the SSI Steering Committee at a spring retreat. Adhering to the tenets of the
Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness and the Institutional
Effectiveness Process (IEP), the SSI Steering Committee only funded activities that
linked to an institutional strategy, had articulated, well-crafted intended outcomes,
and could demonstrate identifiable means of assessment and criteria. To sustain
these efforts, the expenditure plan includes a line item for research to ensure that
means of assessment, identification of criteria, and clearly articulated outcomes are
documented and that the Steering Committee has tangible, empirical evidence on
which to base subsequent strategies and plan for continuous improvement.
Another example of data used for the evaluation of institutional effectiveness comes
from student services. The Early Alert Planning Committee, developed as a
counseling intervention, conducted a survey of both faculty and students.58 The
survey administered to faculty focused on the top-rated student-risk issues and
gathered information from open-ended responses.
The random survey
administered to students focused on the best methods identified by students for
contacting students and identifying what would motivate students to seek help.
107
The program used the results to design successful interventions. Similarly, data
from the OIR department enabled the institution to identify underperforming
student groups and design a program8 addressing those student needs. The
AMAN/AWOMAN Program, Early Alert Program, Student Success Initiative,56
Faculty Success Center, Distance Education,59 and Smart Start programs are all
prominent examples of student support programs and services effectively
developed based on OIR data such as the Early Alert survey results.
The institution has developed a system for comprehensively assessing institutional
effectiveness. This system incorporates the Strategic Planning Framework for
Institutional Effectiveness,2 Program and Services Review (PSR),4 and Board
Monitoring Reports35 to provide specific evidence of progress and evaluate the
amount of progress that has taken place. The planning framework provides the
Governing Board members and the President’s Cabinet a foundation upon which
they can evaluate the effectiveness of the institution and as a basis for guiding future
planning.
SELF-EVALUATION
Since 2004, the institution has created robust links between the setting of goals, the
acquisition of data, planning, action, the assessment of results, and the adjustment of
action to facilitate the accomplishment of its goals. Since then, the institution has
worked to strengthen and deepen those links. In the area of facilities, the
Educational and Facilities Master Plan,29 the Chaffey Community College District
the
Chaffey
College
Fontana
Center
Building/Facilities
Plan,60
30
Educational/Facilities Master Plan
and the Fontana Center Locus Plan
61
Addendum, collectively, provide a noteworthy example. As a result of the use of
data acquired in the latter study, the institution was able to adjust decisions based
upon the prior studies that have lead to the construction of more instructional space
to meet the identified community needs while using far less of its resources than
would otherwise have been possible.62
The college’s Institutional Effectiveness Process in the Strategic Planning Framework
for Institutional Effectiveness2 links efforts throughout the institution to address
achievement of goals to increase institutional effectiveness (Figure 1, p. 84). These
processes work college-wide through the Board Monitoring Reports,35 Program and
Services Review (PSR),4 and through the process of developing and assessing
learning outcomes. These planning processes and iterative evaluations are focused
on Institutional Goals/Ends Policies,3 delivery of instruction and delivery of student
services including facilities and classrooms for instruction.
108
Evaluation of program outcomes has traditionally discussed retention, persistence
and success of students. In the last four years, the institution has added to that
discussion a focused dialogue on outcomes based on assessment. Improvement of
institutional effectiveness is clearly and systematically tied to the integration of
outcomes based on assessment into the PSR cycle, which is, in turn, linked to
resource allocation and evidence in evaluation.
At present, the institution has multiple, integrated planning cycles to assess
achievement of goals.
The Institutional Core Competencies5 are, in turn,
represented in the Institutional Goals/Ends Policies and are central to the mission
and goals of each program. There is, therefore, a strong relationship between the
Institutional Mission1 and goals and those of each program. Accordingly, both
institutional and program-specific goals have clearly defined outcome statements,
describing activities that reflect whether these goals have been carried out (for
example Student Equity Plan8 and Community Outreach Monitoring Report,63
respectively) and how the outcomes will be used in next year’s cycle for
improvement of programs. The institution has made a Herculean effort, since
midyear of 2008, to create and implement a planning model that systematically
engages its members in a highly integrative and collaborative process of planning,
assessment, and implementation. The very methods by which this self-study report
was conceived, utilizing the efforts of 159 faculty, staff, and administrators, evidence
the enormity of the institution’s keenness to engage the institution-at-large in the
application of this planning model.64
The Program and Services Review (PSR) process of the 2008-2009 academic year is a
potent outgrowth of the institution’s commitment to creating a culture of evidence,
from which integrated planning and assessment springs. In a clear move in the
direction of comprehensive assessment of the viability and efficacy of programs,65
PSR writers reported outcomes (student or administrative, and often both), means of
assessment, and demonstrated use of results for planning. The PSR self-studies
were reviewed, both by the PSR Committee and the SLO Committee, with the
former providing feedback regarding the alignment with requests for resources with
goals and evidence, and the latter providing feedback on both the outcome
statements and the Institution Effectiveness Process (IEP)2 reported on each one.
The Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey19 asked seven questions dealing specifically with
how well the institution embraces planning, uses data for planning, and the
planning processes at Chaffey. On average, respondents were more likely to agree
or strongly agree with each statement. For example, 88% of the respondents agreed
or strongly agreed with all of the following 7 statements.
1) 90% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the Ends Policies provide the
framework for resource allocation through the PSR process
109
2) 96% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the institution research is
incorporated into planning and evaluation
3) 86% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the institution uses systemic
planning and evaluation to improve programs and services
4) 90% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the institution uses research
results in order to identify priorities for improvement
5) 85% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Human resources planning is
integrated with institutional planning
6) 81% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Physical resource planning is
integrated with institutional planning
7) 85% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that financial planning is
integrated with and supports institutional learning
The institution has made major strides at integrating planning processes into PSR,
Board Monitoring Reports, learning outcomes, and resource allocation. This is an
ongoing process and the institution continues to evaluate its planning processes and
frameworks. This is most evident in the need to update the Educational Master
Plan.23 The changes that have been made through the Strategic Planning Framework
for Institutional Effectiveness are now deeply integrated into institutional processes
and have been carried out with the kind of dialogue necessary to effect change at the
institution.
PLANNING AGENDA
Beginning in fall 2009, the superintendent/president asked the vice president of
instruction and student services and the Faculty Senate president to co-chair an
effort that would culminate in a new educational master plan. The institution, with
the help of the institution’s architect, will follow and establish timelines to develop a
new educational master plan to replace the 2001 Educational and Facilities Master
Plan.29
I.B.4 The institution provides evidence that the planning process is broad-based,
offers opportunities for input by appropriate constituencies, allocates necessary
resources, and leads to improvement of institutional effectiveness.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution has numerous mechanisms for participation in planning that are
based on shared governance.46 Specifically, the institution enjoys broad-based
planning processes through the committee structure. Planning, implementation,
and evaluation of plans occur across all institutional constituencies and the three
campuses. For example, this self-study involves participation from 159 faculty, staff,
managers and students who have the initial voice in addressing standards.
110
However, beyond this input, the involvement is much broader with all employees
being encouraged to contribute, give feedback, and ask questions. Such feedback
and questions came from several faculty and staff who participated in one of the ten
Accreditation Standards Committees. The various stages of the self-study drafts for
each of the standards are advertised as “sitting” on the institution’s shared drive66 (Z
drive) where all full-time employees can access it to review.
The superintendent/president team develops and discusses, plans prior to
implementation and sharing with the President’s Cabinet, which includes all firstand second-level managers, the Faculty and Classified Senate presidents and
bargaining unit chairs. When outside consultants plan for the institution, their plans
are introduced to cabinet for discussion. These discussions afford constituents the
opportunity for input and are often very lively when resource allocations are
involved. The senate presidents, both classified and faculty, take information to
their constituents for further discussion and input, as do the managers.
In recent months, budget planning has been a major focus of the institution. Input is
sought from all constituents. Faculty and staff have brought forth ideas, and the
superintendent/president has held open forums to discuss the economic downturn.
The budget planning process is an integral part of the institutional planning process
and involves the institutional community. The process begins in January by
establishing the budget calendar, which summarizes chronologically the
responsibility for the process and approvals, as well as a responsibility matrix. The
process continues until the adoption of the budget by the Governing Board in
August. Virtually all departments, schools, programs, and services are involved in
the preparation and review of their budgets, and many participate in budget
workshops provided by Budgeting Services.
Evidential support of a broad based institution planning process is also available in
regards to the Learning Outcomes Committee. The Learning Outcomes Steering
Committee consists of the vice president of instruction, the executive assistant to the
superintendent/president, the accreditation liaison, the dean of counseling and
matriculation, the interim dean of instructional support, the director of institutional
research, two Office of Institutional Research (OIR) classified staff members, and the
two Faculty Learning Outcomes facilitators. In addition, the Learning Outcomes
Committee consists of approximately 20 administrators, faculty, and staff.
The institution has allocated the necessary resources to support institutional
effectiveness. In fact, Chaffey College is one of the few institutions in the state
where two facilitators contribute .5 FTE each to learning outcomes and one
researcher primarily conducts learning outcomes research. In addition, research on
learning outcomes is also spread out among the other researchers in the OIR.
111
Implementation of outcomes based assessment has sparked much discussion at the
institutional level.
The physical resources planning at Chaffey provides another example for
participation in college planning.
The Administrative Services Department
systematically integrates the physical resources planning efforts in order to
implement changes that will improve programs and services. The dynamics of the
institutional environment require frequent updates and dissemination of
information pertaining to the constant changes to its physical resources. The college
community is informed through weekly updates to the Measure L website67 and
reports to the college constituents68 from the project/construction management
team, and through weekly and monthly meetings.
The mechanisms for
participation in the capital improvement program at the institution are
accomplished through a three-tiered approach including the executive management
construction team, the responsible managers, and the user groups.
The
executive
management
construction
team
includes
the
superintendent/president, the vice presidents, and the Measure L program
manager. The directors of purchasing and facilities development serve as resources
to this team. Facilities development projects are defined by parameters of budget,
timeline, and scope as determined by adherence to space allocation models by
Cambridge West Partnership space analysis.69 In some cases, sequencing is
dependent upon the interrelationships between projects.
When a project is ready to begin the initial planning stages, the appropriate vice
president is designated by the superintendent/president as the responsible manager
for the project. Depending on the scope of the project, the vice president may
designate a manager(s) (dean or director) as the assistant responsible manager for
some or all components of the project. The responsible manager is the liaison
between the architects, executive management construction planning team, project
management team, and the users of the space.
User groups include full-time faculty, managers and supervisors, and staff who
work in the space. These groups of staff are kept informed about the progress of the
project at all phases; they are consulted about adjacencies, space layout, and
furniture in the spaces in which they have a function. When the project includes
special technical aspects, the faculty and staff who have the most knowledge of
those technical aspects are involved in their planning. The responsible manager and
the program manager ensure that meeting schedules for user groups are developed
in advance, with adequate notice so that participants are able to attend. Although
the primary work and involvement of user groups takes place between the initial
phases of planning and the completion of design, user groups have some concern
that plans need to be shared right up to the time building begins and during the
112
building phase to make sure space works most efficiently for all users. This is
especially important when plan changes are made. The project moves into
approval, bid, and construction phases, which are managed by the college program
manager, and coordinated with the executive management construction planning
team.
SELF-EVALUATION
Emphasis on integrating SLOs17 and AUOs18 into planning processes has taken
center stage. Resources for this movement in the institution have afforded two
faculty facilitators and one researcher whose work mostly consists of learning
outcomes research who champion development, evidence based outcomes and
planning for the future through the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional
Effectiveness.2 Broad based input to the task force has resulted in the evaluation of
SLOs/AUOs following submission of the annual PSR.4 At the programs level,
planning occurs across programs with leadership by committee chairs.
Broad involvement in institutional planning is guaranteed through the Policy
Making Principles and Processes at the institution,70 which states that participation
in policy-making shall include the input of any constituent group such as faculty,
staff, or students that is impacted by the policy. In addition, both the faculty and
classified staff have statements of philosophy on shared governance. In the faculty’s
statement,71 it states that “The purpose of shared governance is to create a working
partnership with common overall goals and objectives for the organization, yet
recognize different areas of authority and responsibility, different areas of expertise
and perspective, and the different needs and wants of each of the partners.”
Likewise, this is also evident in the shared governance statement of philosophy from
the classified staff72 which illustrates how they value a set of shared set of goals
encompassing the establishment of a foundation of trust, joint effort, and
transparency.
The institution also uses the Educational Master Plan,23 the Educational and
Facilities Master Plan,29 and the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional
Effectiveness2 to prioritize the allocation of resources. The institution also has an
extensive number of grants that are often used as a primary strategy for securing
resources to realize goals. For example, in 2007/2008 the institution received $3.6
million in funding from 35 grants, which helped to ensure the continuation of
important programs and services for students.73 In the 2008/2009 academic year, the
institution received funding for a two-year $2.2 million STEM grant,74 another Title
V grant requesting funding for $2.8 million for over five years to specifically fund an
Alternative Learning Strategies Coordinator was not funded.
113
There are numerous changes that have occurred as a result of broad-based planning
processes. Examples of this have already been highlighted with previous references
to the Early Alert Program, Opening Doors, the Basic Skills Transformation,27 and
Enrollment Management. The themes in the process of planning these programs
have been one of shared governance and evidence-based decision-making, which
demonstrates the institution’s commitment to both strategies.
Overall, the institution’s planning and resource allocation processes and its culture
consistently provide opportunities for all stakeholders to contribute to the planning
process. When stakeholders were asked to rate their awareness of these processes in
on the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey,19 most felt that they were aware of the
mechanisms involved in the planning and resource allocation processes.
•
•
•
•
•
87% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they were familiar with the
Institutional Mission1
90% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they can describe their role in
helping Chaffey to achieve its goals
61% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they knew how to access
information about institutional performance and evaluations
62% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they knew how and where to
access information about institutional performance and evaluations
81% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that within the current economic
climate, the institutional budget effectively supports programs at all locations
throughout the institution
In addition, the five questions above were combined (Cronbach’s Alpha = .74) into
one measure to compare the overall responses between faculty and staff to examine
if there were any differences in their awareness of the processes involved in
planning and the allocation of resources. On average, both faculty (Mean = 3.10)
and staff (Mean = 2.99) agreed or strongly agreed that they were familiar with the
mechanisms and processes involved in planning and the allocation of resources, and
the difference was not statistically significant.
PLANNING AGENDA
I.B.5. The institution uses documented assessment results to communicate
matters of quality assurance to appropriate constituencies.
114
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Assessment results are documented and available through three primary venues:
the college websites; the institution’s Z drive66 and the Office of Institutional
Research (OIR). These venues provide quality information on assessment results to
all constituents in addition to facilitating specific requests by individuals and
programs.
College Websites
The institution maintains two websites.
The primary website, located at
www.chaffey.edu, provides a wide variety of assessment data and results in the
form of progress reports on the institution’s budget, financial status, recruitment,
academic success, educational programs, and many other topics. These reports are
generated both by Chaffey constituents and by outside evaluators such as the
Citizens’ Oversight Committee on Bond Expenditures.75 The website also provides a
feedback link that allows the general community to comment on the Chino and
Fontana campuses and on college services. Additionally, the website provides links
to the college homes for SLO17 and AUO18 data and for the Office of Institutional
Research (OIR).
The institution maintains a second website dedicated specifically to curriculum and
program review at www.curricunet.com/chaffey. Course level data, including
course revision history and assessment/prerequisite validation studies, is available
at the primary CurricUNET website.36 Program reviews, which are conducted
yearly, are submitted and reviewed at www.curricunet.com/chaffey_reviews.
College Shared Drive (Z: Drive)
The institution’s internal network provides the college community with easy access
to assessment data. Complete copies of assessment data from a variety of offices
such as Human Resources and Admissions and Records, departments including
academic disciplines and programs such as Extended Opportunity Program &
Services (EOPS) and Disability Programs & Services (DPS), and committees such as
the Curriculum Committee and the Calendar Task Force can be accessed in this
manner. Most shared drive (Z: drive) folders are divided into two categories: public
and private. Public folders can be accessed by anyone in the college community.
Private folders are password protected. Z: drive folders provide a convenient and
efficient venue to access documents useful to members of the college community.
Institutional Research
The Office of Institutional Research (OIR) maintains a web at www.chaffey.edu/
research providing Internet access to more than 400 reports and presentations on
short and long range planning and decision-making, institutional effectiveness and
accountability, student learning outcomes and student success, program and
115
services reviews, and federal and state-mandated reporting. Additionally, more
detailed data is available to college faculty and staff via the OLAP cubes,47 which
can be accessed over the internet with a college username and password. The OIR
home provides links to research briefs, presentations, research reports, survey
results, course level information, planning documents, SLO/AUO data, a search
engine to search for reports, and other data in the following categories:
Research Briefs
Accessible executive summaries of recent research studies can be accessed at
http://www1.chaffey.edu/research/research_briefs.htm. Recently posted briefs
include the 2008-09 Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey Results, the Answers to the Top
Ten "Don't Know" Survey Responses,19 Honors Program: Student Demographics
and Course-Taking Behavior,76 Results from Spring 2008 Biology and Engineering
Survey,77 and the Aeronautics Program Student Demographic Characteristics and
Enrollment Data: 2003-04 to 2007-08.78 The briefs listed here are just a few of
examples of how the OIR helps to document assessment results to communicate
matters of quality assurance to the appropriate constituencies.
Research Presentations
Power Point presentations can be found at http://www1.chaffey.edu/research
under Presentations. The presentations provide simplified overviews of complex
assessment data. Folders are divided into presentations on enrollment, academic
success, student services research studies, satisfaction surveys, career technical
education, student equity, and miscellaneous topics such as developing an
integrated planning framework.
Research Reports
Reports (http://www1.chaffey.edu/research/research_reports.htm) are available to
the general public and are the heart of the Institutional Research public database.
Links to folders containing enrollment reports, academic success studies, student
services research studies, satisfaction surveys, career and technical education
studies, student equity studies like the student campus climate survey, and other
studies dating back to 2003 are provided. Hundreds of reports are available in this
category, from general assessment studies such as climate and satisfaction surveys,
to more specific studies such as term reports on enrollment data and demographics,
to specialized studies on specific courses and majors. Quality assurance is an
outcome of assessment in the reports and they are used by constituents for planning
and to inform decision-making.
“Did You Know?”
One report on specific assessment topics are presented in a reader-friendly,
newsletter format that is available online at http://www1.chaffey.edu/research
under the “Did You Know?” link as well as on the college shared drive (Z drive).
116
The newsletter is also emailed bi-monthly to faculty and staff. Topics range from
the behavior and needs of older students to prerequisite validation, with data
summarized in text and also presented in brief, simple tables. Recent volumes have
included the titles First Semester Performance of Recent (2008) High School
Graduates,79 Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Accreditation Standards and
Requirements,80 Primary Non-English Languages Spoken at Home by Students,81
and Chino Campus and Fontana Center Credit Enrollment Patterns.82
OLAP Cubes
A tremendous amount of assessment data is provided for faculty and staff through
the OLAP Cubes,47 which are password protected. The Cubes are the only data on
the Institutional Research website that is not internet accessible to any viewer.
Topics include accreditation survey results; assessment data on select student
populations, student services, schools and disciplines, and instructional assistance
labs and success centers; and archives of historical data on institutional success and
retention.
Research Request Form
Members of the college community can request research studies by submitting an
online form, which also automatically provides the requester with a PDF copy of the
file. Research categories available for request include state and federal mandates;
Governing Board goals and ends policies; accreditation requirements; department
policies; department, individual, and college-wide projects; program reviews;
student learning and success; and other projects by request. Once approved, the
Office of Institutional Research prioritizes requests by time sensitivity and need.
Planning Documents
Information related to the nature and effectiveness of institutional processes is
available to the public at http://www1.chaffey.edu/research under the Planning
Documents link. This link provides information on such topics as the college
strategic planning framework for institutional effectiveness, economic contributions
to the institution, facilities planning, human resources faculty and staff planning,
categorical program self-evaluation, student equity planning, the student success
initiative, and technology replacement plan.
SLO/AUO Resources
Information to assist the college community in the development of student learning
outcomes (SLOs)s17 and administrative unit outcomes (AUOs)18 is available in
folders containing examples of SLO45 and AUO assessment rubrics,45 instruments,
and briefs. College links are also provided to the CCC Network for the Student
Learning Outcomes Assessment website.34 In addition, the OIR has created an SLO
Diagram titled the Wurtz wheel83 that was originally designed to provide a visual
representation of the Institutional Effectiveness Process (IEP).2 The form is available
online and when completed provides a visual representation of the components of
117
the learning outcomes process. The information is stored in a database available on
the college shared drive where users can update their information as it becomes
available (including summary of evidence and use of results).
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution has made an extraordinary commitment to provide quality
assurances to all constituents, addressing various needs using documented
assessment and evaluation evidence based decision-making through research and
assessment. Together the college websites, the college shared drive (Z: drive), and
the Office of Institutional Research (OIR) provide a rich pool of data to guide the
institution through rigorous self-assessment. The institution’s investment in the
OIR, in particular, has produced a plethora of data on virtually every aspect of the
institution’s programs and services. Detailed studies on student demographics,
basic skills preparation, course success and retention, and completion rates are built
into reports each semester. Further, programs are required to conduct self-reviews
yearly, and courses must be reviewed and updated every six years. The amount of
available data has raised the bar for requests, reports, and reviews within the college
community and at the staff level. Subjective and anecdotal analyses are increasingly
deemed insufficient unless they are supported by quantifiable data. Evidence-based
studies have become the norm rather than the exception.
As part of the move toward evidence-based evaluation, the institution is increasing
its emphasis on learning based assessment. The SLO Committee, described
previously, is overseeing this process. Programs with articulated SLOs are already
being supported through an assessment phase, and approximately twenty-five
additional programs have begun the assessment phase in spring 2009. SLO
assessment34 has also been made a mandatory component of the annual PSR4
process.
The Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey19 results revealed that a significant minority of
the college community is unaware of the breadth and depth of assessment
information available to them (47 – 48%). In response, the institution has
implemented efforts to increase faculty and staff awareness of available data
through college-wide emails, information sessions at college meetings facilitated by
the OIR, and dissemination of the OIR newsletter “Did You Know?”.
PLANNING AGENDA
118
I.B.6. The institution assures the effectiveness of its ongoing planning and
resource allocation processes by systematically reviewing and modifying, as
appropriate, all parts of the cycle, including institutional and other research
efforts.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The self-study process has been one of the primary mechanisms for systematic
review and modification of the institution’s planning and resource allocation
processes. This cyclical process was one of the main driving forces behind creating
the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness,2 which has
provided a consistent and sound methodology for evaluating planning and resource
allocation.
In 2007, the institution began discussions about the need to update the Educational
Master Plan,23 the superintendent/president commissions the “Economic
contribution of Chaffey College-Analysis of Investment Effectiveness and Economic
Growth” study,84 and has used the results during convocation and in community
ventures. Discussions involved the evaluation of what the institution may be able to
do in-house and what aspects need to be addressed by consultants. An initial
proposal was addressed with President’s Cabinet.
Financial resources will
determine the scope of outside consultants.
Chaffey Community College Educational Master Plan
The 2001 Chaffey Community College Educational Master Plan23 is an update of the
institution’s previous master plan completed in 1993. The overall purpose of the
plan is to provide the necessary data and philosophical foundation upon which the
instructional and support service facility needs of the institution can be addressed
and met over ten years. The master plan provides guidelines for decision-making
and action. It has facilitated the development of other plans for the institution,
including capital expenditures, technology, personnel and those of a budgetary
and/or fiscal nature. The master plan is a dynamic and flexible document that has
been reviewed each year as new educational trends emerge and the needs of
students evolve. Accordingly, based on the plan and the philosophy of evidencebased decision-making, the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional
Effectiveness was developed and will be the spring board for the re-development of
the master plan.
Educational and Facilities Master Plan
In 2002, a bond measure was passed to establish a new campus in the southern area
of the district in the city of Chino. In 2004, the Chino Campus Plan31 was created to
establish a 30 year vision and overall plan for the physical facilities of a campus that
will eventually accommodate 15,000 students. A principle component of the
119
Educational and Facilities Master Plan was to identify projects to be constructed
within the available funds of Measure L67 and to develop longer range plans for
growth and building projects in three five year cycles beginning in 2010 and
continuing through 2020 to position the institution for adequate state funding
ensuring orderly expansion over the next 15 years. The 30 year vision will delineate
building sites for design and construction beyond 2020. Forecasts for the Fontana
Center were originally included in the institution’s 2001 Educational Master Plan,23
but greater than anticipated growth required a revised Fontana Plan30 in October
2004. This plan provides an updated and extended vision for the future needs of the
Fontana Educational Center. Space need projections are now extended to the year
2020. Revised space needs for 2010 are also forecasted. All of these plans include
the driving philosophy expressed in the original Educational and Facilities Master
Plan, which stated that the facilities need to provide an easy-to-find starting place
for students and appropriate spaces for learning. The Chino Center was accredited
in July 2008. Although both Chino and Fontana are officially centers, the institution
has decided to call all three locations “campuses” (the Chino campus, Fontana
campus and Rancho campus).
The New Educational Master Plan
The Educational and Facilities Master Plan for the institution was developed in 2001.
At that time, some educational planning was included in the document, however,
most of the document centered on facilities needs for the aging campus.
Additionally, only a handful of faculty members were included in this effort. After
the completion of this document, the college secured a bond (Measure L) which
provided a funding stream for the facilities discussed in the 2001 Educational Master
Plan and an additional Facilities Plan was completed in 2004. However, the
educational planning piece was not revisited in the 2004 document.
Between 2004 and 2009, the college built several new buildings (for example, new
Chino campus, second building in Fontana, the science complex, the Student
Services Administration building, the Berz Excellence Building, the new
gymnasium, and the Visual, Performing, and Communication Arts buildings at the
Rancho campus). Because of the significant adaptation including the adjustment of
offerings and temporary relocation of programs, this construction by the educational
and support units involved in updating the Educational Master Plan23 was delayed.
Beginning in fall 2009, the superintendent/president asked the vice president of
instruction and student services and the Faculty Senate president to co-chair an
effort that would culminate in a new educational master plan. With the help of the
institution’s architect, HMC, a timeline for the development of the new plan was
developed. More importantly, however, is the fact that a new structure which
places educational programming and support services at the forefront of the plan is
120
in place. Several work groups are in place and are addressing the required
components of an effective educational master plan which include:
•
•
•
•
•
Updating the institution’s progress since the 2001 Educational Master Plan
document
Conducting an internal scan which includes collection of data and interviews
with programs and schools
Connecting the Institutional Mission1 with core values and goals for the
educational master planning steering committee
Identifying the trends and educational initiatives to which the institution should
be responsive
Conducting external and environmental scans to ensure the institution is
meeting the needs of the service communities and constituents
At present, that new structure is represented as follows:
Governing Board
Dr. Shannon
Educational Planning
Steering Committee
HMC – Community
Outreach/Interviews
HMC
External Scan
Internal
Internal Scan
Scan
Core Values,
Mission, Goals
Trends,
Educational
Initiatives
Environmental,
External Scan
2001 Progress
Analysis
Complete Educational
& Facilities
Master Planning Group
The Educational Planning Steering Committee crafted the following mission
statement as they began their efforts:
The purpose of the 2010-2016 Educational Master Plan for the institution is to
provide a vision for the future of the college’s educational programs, services,
and facilities. The educational master plan provides a framework for
evidence-based decision-making, informs the college’s instructional and
student support initiatives, and drives the plans that address the facility and
technology infrastructure necessary to support the initiatives.
121
The committee is on schedule to have a draft of the educational planning piece of the
plan by January 2010.
Student Learning Outcomes
One of the more significant changes documenting assessment results to the planning
framework was the addition of the learning outcomes process to the Strategic
Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness2 (Figure 1, page 84). The process
linking the different aspects of planning is the Institutional Effectiveness Process
(IEP),2 which is based on the Five Column Nichols Learning Outcomes Model.85
This process has connected all aspects of planning and evaluation including
Program and Services Review (PSR)4 which has been modified to include the IEP,
the Monitoring Reports35 which have been modified to include the IEP, and the
learning outcomes process which is based on the IEP. Specifically, learning
outcomes (SLOs) are being defined and assessed through a cyclical model
throughout the institution, including all constituents in programs and services
academics and student services. Learning outcomes facilitators work closely with
the OIR, the Student Learning Outcomes Committee, college faculty and staff to
produce meaningful and accurate outcomes and assessment tools. Reflective
dialogue is encouraged among all participants, including students, in informing and
enhancing student learning. Learning outcomes at the institutional level (Core
Competencies), program level and course level are written and revised, in some
manner, on a semester basis. All materials regarding learning outcomes are
currently available on the institution’s shared drive66 and webpage34 and are
available to college faculty, classified staff and management.
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution has effectively used the accreditation standards and the self-study
process to collaboratively develop the Strategic Planning Framework for
Institutional Effectiveness.2 What is most important about this statement according
to the accreditation liaison officer is “that all constituents agreed that we are not
evaluating and assessing because of accreditation re-affirmation, but we are doing so
because we felt it was important for the institution to re-affirm how we are using an
evidence-based model”. The accreditation self-study writing provided the support.
The development and implementation of the framework has effectively linked
planning across departments, programs, instruction, and student services. In
addition, the 2001 Educational Master Plan23 will be revised and updated, in the fall
of 2009. Equally important, 92% of the respondents to the Fall 2008 Accreditation
Survey19 agreed or strongly agreed that the institution maintains an ongoing,
collegial, self-reflective dialogue about the continuous improvement of learning and
institutional processes.
PLANNING AGENDA
122
Chaffey College will continue to assure the effectiveness of institutional planning
and resource allocation. With the Office of Institutional Research, the Strategic
Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness will be systematically reviewed
and modified to ensure that planning is evidence based across all locations.
I.B.7. The institution assesses its evaluation mechanisms through a systematic
review of their effectiveness in improving instructional programs, student
support services, and library and other learning support services.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Since 2004, the institution has assessed its evaluation mechanism on an annual basis,
and has revised this process annually, determining that the process has not been
adequate to review the effectiveness of programs and services. Although there were
clear linkages between plans since 2003, it was not until 2009 that Program and
Services Review (PSR)4 was linked to the Strategic Planning Framework for
Institutional Effectiveness. This cyclical process is managed by a faculty and
management co-chairs through a committee of 32-38 people, including faculty,
management, and classified staff. Student membership has been encouraged, but
usually students drop out due to their schedules. The latest review of the
effectiveness of the process led to the re-write of several sections in the template,
added the SLO17/AUO18 component, and revised the linkages to the budgeting
process. These revisions were made collaboratively following much dialogue with
input from faculty, staff, and administrators.
A systematic review of the curriculum committee processes resulted in the purchase
of CurricUNET36 in Fall 2005. This process created a streamlined method for faculty
to develop and seek approval for new courses, and to also more effectively ensure
that program content meets student needs, follows developed objectives, and
remains current.
In the past, the institution has measured the effectiveness of its instructional
programs using indicators such as course retention and completion, certificate and
degree completion rates, and student satisfaction. Systems have been developed to
collect and report these statistics and the planning and resource allocation systems
have been designed to make extensive use of these indicators for evaluating the
effectiveness of programs and services. Over the last three years, the institution
dialogued about the systematic inclusion of SLOs and AUOs into the PSR process.
Including learning outcomes as measuring institutional effectiveness has become a
reality this spring (2009). The emphasis is now on identifying what students are
expected to learn and determining how the institution’s processes will gauge
whether students in fact have learned what is expected. This is a substantial
123
departure from previous ways of measuring institutional effectiveness. Three years
ago, the institution began building processes for establishing student learning
outcomes at the program and college level. All college programs are now also
working on systematically embedding the assessment of learning outcomes in all
major planning processes. During this development phase, assessment and change
are widely discussed and a systematic review of SLOs and AUOs is now embedded
in the PSR process. The institution continues to evaluate whether the new processes
are resulting in improved outcomes.
Additionally, the process was automated further for easy development of each selfstudy. All programs in the institution are writing a program review annually as a
self-evaluation and as a mechanism for planning future goals. All budget requests
are linked to the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness. The
framework requires identification of program goals related to Institutional
Goals/Ends Policies,3 measurable outcome statements/activities, means and criteria
of assessment, a summary of evidence and planning for next year. There are ten,
three-member subcommittees, made up of a mix of faculty, management and
classified staff, each subcommittee reviews 10-12 program reports. Subcommittees
generate reports with commendations and recommendations about programs in
general. The PSR co-chairs read all self-studies following a first review. Questions
triggered from this review process lead to subsequent reviews with input from the
entire PSR committee. Most questions are related to funding recommendations
made by subcommittees. If any disagreement exists at that point, the matter is
referred back to the responsible officers for an additional self-study.
Responsible officers can come before the entire committee for oral appeal. The
number of times the entire PSR committee can meet and discuss a program or
request is three times. Chaffey allocates appropriate resources to conduct Program
and Services Review (PSR) of meaningful quality. Chaffey uses this process to align
the results of PSR to resource allocation. PSR has been in place since the 80’s and is
implemented regularly. The recommendations by the PSR committee are presented
to the superintendent/ president and integrated into decision-making and planning
processes. There is regular dialogue about PSR results as part of the ongoing
discussion about institutional effectiveness.
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution assesses its evaluation mechanisms. For example, this year the
Student Learning Outcomes Committee reviewed all of the learning outcomes
submitted during Program and Services Review (PSR). The committee reviewed
over 600 SLOs17 and AUOs18 and provided specific feedback to each program on
how to improve their learning outcomes. As an illustration, the text below is an
example of the type of feedback provided to each program:
124
You have done a wonderful job of creating measurable outcome statements
and, in most cases, clearly delineating your means of assessment. For
example, in AUO # 1 regarding the Foundation’s database, you clearly explain
how you would measure the outcome and you have established your goal
(benchmark) at 25%. We will be using this first one as an example of properly
worded AUOs. The only AUO without a benchmark was # 3 (increase
communications). What percentage of growth or increased communication
are you working toward? You are clear about the methods, just specify the
benchmark.
Very well done! If you have any questions or would like to discuss these
ideas, please let us know. We would be happy to meet with you. Thanks!
As was mentioned in the prior section, a large majority of respondents to the Fall
2008 Accreditation Survey19 felt that the institution assesses its evaluation
mechanisms through a systematic review of their effectiveness in improving
instructional programs, student support services, and the library and other learning
support services. The institution has embedded learning outcomes and their
assessment in the planning, evaluation, and resource allocation process and is
committed to the continuous evaluation of the effectiveness of this process.
For example, the institution demonstrated its commitment to its Institutional
Mission1 by dramatically improving its infrastructure for delivering Success Center
activities: The College devoted an entire floor of a newly constructed building on the
Rancho Cucamonga campus to Language and Multidisciplinary Success Centers.
This multi-million dollar facility, the Donald Berz Excellence building, includes
offices for the full-time faculty and staff dedicated to the Centers, classrooms
purposed solely for Success Center use, study rooms, testing rooms, and banks of
computers with Internet access available for use by students.
Increasingly, resource allocation is based upon the demonstrated use of assessment
results for planning, and the need for the resources as an outgrowth of planning.
Judgments about the alignment of budget requests with planning, assessment and
goals begins with the PSR Committee, and flows through the
superintendent/president and the various specialized committees, the chairpersons
of which also sort requests into appropriate budget categories such as, technology,
categorical funds, supplies, books, instructional equipment, and general fund.
Because communication among budget committee chairs is so fluid, items may be
funded by more than one means, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful
requests.
125
The 2001-2010 Chaffey College Educational Master Plan23 is about to outlive its
usefulness. In terms of facilities needs, many of the goals it identifies have been
reached. The institution intends to utilize the plans that are generated in this selfstudy as the starting point of the next cycle of long-range strategic planning (the
outgrowth of which is to generate a new educational master plan). The Educational
Master Plan anticipated steps that had to be taken in order to serve the future needs
of the institution and its students as delineated in the Institutional Mission and
Institutional Goals/Ends Policies.3 The Educational and Facilities Master Plan,29 a
specialized sub report of the Educational Master Plan of 2001, anticipates future
structural and material needs of the institution for the next decade. The overall
recommendations of the plan suggest that facilities provide an easy-to-find starting
place for new students, additional and appropriate space for learning, eliminate the
streets that divide the campus, and develop clear routes to circulate around the
campus. These objectives have guided facilities planning at Chaffey since 2001.
An example of how institutional budgeting of resources follows planning can be
found with the Student Equity Plan.8 The Student Equity Plan, which is updated
annually,86 analyzes student success data such as pass rates and transfer rates, and
sorts this data by gender, ethnicity, and disability. Information from the Student
Equity Plans is used to focus attention and resources to underperforming groups.
For example, the AMAN/AWOMAN program was founded in spring 2006 on the
basis of this data in order to improve success rates and transfer rates of AfricanAmerican students.
The Perkins funding process is another planning process used by the vocational
programs for asset allocation.87 In an annual process, similar to and integrated with
PSR, programs applying for funds are required to substantiate their requests with
data such as FTES, FTEF, census enrollment and success and retention rates.
Reports must also demonstrate how the requested resources support SLOs and
Institutional Goals/Ends Policies. It should be noted that, since the last
accreditation, programs applying for PSR and Perkins funding have had to identify
SLOs, provide assessment standards and evaluate those standards to see whether
the SLOs are being achieved. Many programs have now completed evaluations of
their original SLOs, have identified new SLOs and assessment standards, and are
now evaluating the new SLOs.
For example, the PSR Committee now uses the Institutional Effectiveness Process
(IEP)2 to identify how the program mission and goals relate to Institutional Mission
and goals. For each program goal, programs are asked to identify a method of
assessment, to summarize relevant evidence, and to document how the program is
using results for continuous program improvement.
126
The institution’s planning processes in PSR identifies resources required to meet the
goals and activities (outcome statements). The planning processes do not allocate
resources, but rather identify budget needs and inform budget allocation. For
example, through the PSR process, programs identify needs in areas such as
instructional equipment, supplies, books, and technology. Based on evaluation of
the needs by PSR subcommittees and in relationship to stated outcomes by the
program, funding is suggested and is presented to the superintendent/president at
the close of the PSR process. Resource allocation depends on several factors but is
clearly integrated with the planning and implementation process. For instance a
faculty or staff will not be hired unless PSR has identified and validated the need.
In addition, Board Monitoring Reports35 also occur on an annual basis and in some
cases monthly, or even weekly and rather than simply reporting activities to the
Governing Board, all monitoring reports include a goal that relates to one or more
Institutional Goals/Ends Policies, and identified means of assessment that clearly
measures progress toward goal achievement, a summary of evidence to determine
whether the goal was achieved, and a plan for how the institution will sustain goal
achievement or use results to make future progress toward goal achievement.
PLANNING AGENDA
References – Standard I Institutional Mission and Effectiveness
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Governing Board Policy Manual, Section 1.2, Board Policy 1.2.1 Institutional Mission
Chaffey College Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness
Governing Board Policy Manual, Policy Category 8, Ends Policies
Program and Services Review (PSR)
Governing Board Policy Manual, Section 8.1, Ends Policy 8.1.6 Core Competencies
College Catalog 2008-2009
Schedule of Classes 2009
Student Equity Plan 2005-2007
Professional Development Committee, Minutes
Flex Schedule Fall 2009
Faculty Success Center, Summer Institute on Teaching
Chancellor's 2008 Student Success Award information
Student Handbook
Program Guides, Instructional and Student Services Offices (hard copies)
Book Grant Applications
Registration Information
Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
Administrative Unit Outcomes (AUOs)
Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey
Accreditation Self-Study 2004
127
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Governing Board Policy Manual, Section 2.1, Board Policy 2.1.2 Specific Job Responsibilities
Report to the Community
Chaffey College Educational Master Plan 2001-2010
Carver’s Policy Governance Model in Nonprofit Organizations by John and Miriam Carver
Management/Confidential Retreat Summary Notes
Weekly Instructional Updates to the Governing Board
Basic Skills Transformation
Governing Board Monitoring Report, Alternative Learning Strategies
Chaffey College Educational and Facilities Master Plan 2001
Fontana Center Educational/Facilities Master Plan 2003
Chaffey College Chino Campus Master Plan
Chaffey College Committees
Classified Senate Mission
Chaffey College Website, Outcomes and Assessment (SLOs)
Governing Board Monitoring Reports
CurricUNET
Weekly Updates to the Governing Board
Faculty Success Center Survey 2008
Developing a Community of Practice-A Report of Innovations Inspired by the Chaffey College
Faculty Success Center
Governing Board Policy Manual
Economic Impact Studies
Chaffey College Website
Flex Schedule Fall 2005, Student Learning Outcomes Pilot Program
S.L.O. Down Newsletter
Chaffey College Website, Office of Institutional Research, SLO/AUO Resources
Governing Board Policy Manual, Statements of Philosophy, Shared Governance
Online Analytical Processing (OLAP)
Data Information System at Chaffey (DISC)
Governing Board Monitoring Report, Student Academic Success
Annual Accountability Reporting for Community Colleges (ARCC)
Student Success Center Data-SLO Assessment
Admissions & Records Office Online Transfer Request Survey Spring 2007
Success Centers Spring 2008 Survey
Chaffey College Website, Office of Institutional Research
Research Brief, Summary of Enrollment Research: 2005-2007
Student Success Initiative (SSI) Basic Skills Action Plan 2008-09
The Research and Planning Group of California Community Colleges, Basic Skills as a
Foundation for Student Success in California Community Colleges, July 2007
Early Alert Spring 2008 Survey Results
Chaffey College Website, Distance Education
Chaffey Community College District Building/Facilities Plan
Fontana Center Locus Plan Addendum
Interview, Steve Menzel, May 2009
Governing Board Monitoring Report, Community Outreach
Interview, Inge Pelzer, May 2009
Interview, Sherrie Guerrero, May 2009
College Shared Drive (Z: Drive or dfs)
Chaffey College Website, Measure L
Collge Council Summary Notes; President's Cabinet Summary Notes
Cambridge West Partnership Space Analysis
Governing Board Policy Manual, Section 1.6, Board Policy 1.6.3 Participation in Policy-making
128
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
Governing Board Policy Manual, Section 9.2 Shared Governance-Faculty
Governing Board Policy Manual, Section 9.3, Shared Governance-Classified Staff
Governing Board Monitoring Report, Grants
Report to the Community, STEM Grant
Citizen’s Oversight Committee, Measure L
Research Briefs from Institutional Research, Honors Program, June 2008
Research Brief, Biology and Engineering Survey Spring 2008
Aeronautics Program, Student Demographics and Enrollment Data 2003-04 to 2007-08
Did You Know? Vol. 18, First Semester Performance of Recent High School Graduates 2008
Did You Know? Vol. 17, Student Learning Outcomes and Accreditation Standards and
Requirements
Did You Know? Vol. 12, Primary Non-English Languages Spoken at Home by Students
Did You Know? Vol. 10, Chino Campus and Fontana Center Credit Enrollment Patterns
SLO/AUO Assessment Cycle (Wurtz Wheel)
Economic Contribution of Chaffey College-Analysis of Investment Effectiveness and Economic
Growth
Five Column Nichols Learning Outcomes Model
Student Equity Plan 2005-2007, Annual Updates
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act Perkins Funds Application
129
130
Instructional Programs Subcommittee Chairs
Joy Haerens
Terri Helfand
Teresa Hull
Karen Matejcek
Instructor, Business & Office
Technologies
Instructor, Computer
Information Systems
Dean, Health Sciences
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Student Support Services Subcommittee Chairs
Melissa Moreno
De Creasy Valdez
Lori Waite
Student Services
Counselor
Dean, Counseling &
Matriculation
Library and Learning Support Services Subcommittee Chairs
Kyle Pennett
Frank Pinkerton
Corrie Verhagen
Instructor, English Second
Language
Associate Dean, Library/
Learning Resources
Business & Applied
Technologies
Standard II
Accreditation Standard 2 - Student Learning Programs and Services
Camera Shy
Damon Acosta
Tim Arner
Graciela Arriaga
Catherine Bacus
Cecilia Best
Grounds Maintenance
Attendant
Math Success Center
Program Assistant, EOP&S
Instructor, Gerontology
Chino Reading/Writing Center
Marie Boyd
Sid Burks
Teri Cappuccio
Will Carrick
Jared Ceja
Curriculum Chair
SLO Facilitator
Dean, Business & Applied
Technology
Administrative Assistant I,
Campus Safety
Counselor, Disabled Programs
& Services
Director, Auxiliary Services
Ricardo Diaz
Marcia Dubois
Kathy Dutton
Joann Eisberg
Chris Flores
Counselor
Bookstore Assistant Buyer
Director , Economic
Development/Community Ed
Instructor, Astronomy
Coordinator, EOP&S
Gus Gil
Rose Marie Grace
Sherrie Guerrero
Sheryl Herchenroeder
Chuck Hollenbech
Instructor,
Music
Student Employment
Specialist
Vice President, Instruction &
Student Services
Public Information Specialist
Instructor, Physics
Laura Hope
Denise Johnson
Joe Jondreau
Cathie Keenan
Meng Khou
Interim Dean, Instructional
Support
Adjunct Instructor, Art
Director, Disability Programs
& Services
Instructor, Chemistry
Instructor, Mathematics
Shelley Marcus
Birgit Monks
Nick Nazarian
Joanne Osgood
Charmaine Phipps
Librarian
Director, Child Development
Center
Director, Alumni Relations
Technologies
Instructor, English as a
Second Language
Gary Plunkett
Linda Ruiz
Melissa Sosa
Susan Stewart
Michelle Tardiff
Head Coach, Women’s
Basketball
HOPE Grant Counselor,
Health Sciences
Business & Applied
Technologies
Director, Student Activities
Technologies
Vanessa Thomas
Candice Tinsley
Patti Vaszil
Cindy Walker
Charles Williams
Instructor,
Business Administration
Instructor, Nutrition & Food
Executive Assistant I,
Instructional Specialist
Instructor, English
Sara Zamora
Instructional Assistant IV,
Language Success Center
Standard II Student Learning Programs and Services
The institution offers high-quality instructional programs, student support
services, and library and learning support services that facilitate and demonstrate
the achievement of stated student learning outcomes. The institution provides an
environment that supports learning, enhances student understanding and
appreciation of diversity, and encourages personal and civic responsibility as well
as intellectual, aesthetic, and personal development for all of its students.
Standard II A. Instructional Programs
The institution offers high-quality instructional programs in recognized and
emerging fields of study that culminate in identified student outcomes leading to
degrees, certificates, employment, or transfer to other higher education
institutions or programs consistent with its mission. Instructional programs are
systematically assessed in order to assure currency, improve teaching and
learning strategies, and achieve stated student learning outcomes. The provisions
of this standard are broadly applicable to all instructional activities offered in the
name of the institution.
II.A.1. The institution demonstrates that all instructional programs, regardless of
location or means of delivery, address and meet the mission of the institution and
uphold its integrity.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution is committed to ensuring that all instructional programs are aligned
with the Institutional Mission,1 which states: “Chaffey College improves lives within
the diverse communities it serves through equal access to quality, learning-centered
occupational, transfer, general education, and foundation programs.” To address the
diverse communities served and ensure that the unique needs of student
populations are met, the institution offers instructional programs at three primary
locations throughout the district: the Rancho Campus, the Chino Campus, and the
Fontana Campus (please note, although the facilities in Chino and Fontana are
Centers, the Chaffey constituents and the community, as well as this self-study, refer
to all three sites as campuses). Other locations include The Learning Development
Center in Rancho Cucamonga, the California Institution for Women (CIW) in Chino,
Rancho San Antonio Medical Center and several high schools. Health Science
programs provide training and ensure learning opportunities through classes
offered in Upland, Colton, Chino, Ontario, Pomona, Claremont, Fontana and Loma
Linda. The institution also provides an extensive distance education program. The
institution upholds its integrity by providing programs and services on campuses, at
131
off-campus locations, and through the internet that specifically address and seek
fulfillment of its Institutional Mission. The Chaffey College Policy Manual2 assures
the institution’s character is one of integrity, encoding Chaffey’s commitment to
ethical behavior, respectful collaboration and mutual trust, and intellectual rigor and
evidence-based decision making.
The institution’s instructional programs are made accessible to all students through
a combination of traditional-classroom curriculum, distance education (DE), hybridcourse offerings, a variety of non-credit community education outreach programs
and student support services. The institution is committed to offering a full range of
occupational, transfer, general education, and foundation programs. The Rancho
campus offers the greatest variety of programs. The Chino and Fontana Centers
offer a balance of occupational, basic skills, degree-applicable, and transferable
courses to residents in the Chino and Fontana areas. A facility in the City of Ontario
was closed in 2006 and offerings were absorbed into the Chino Campus and Ontario
High School. With the implementation of Measure L,3 the institution’s bond
measure that was passed by district voters in 2002, the institution has significantly
expanded instructional space and offerings at all three locations.
Chaffey’s instructional programs are initiated by faculty at the discipline level. An
extensive approval process is conducted involving the institution’s Curriculum
Committee, Faculty Senate, and Governing Board. The Program and Services
Review (PSR)4 process is the primary mechanism used to evaluate instructional
programs for currency and efficacy, with a key emphasis on assessment of Student
Learning Outcomes (SLOs)5 to ensure that all institutional programs and services are
of high quality, consistent with the Institutional Mission, and appropriate to an
institution of higher learning. The integrity of the programs are further ensured by
the use of outside sources including professional organizations and advisory groups
to provide continual input in the process of maintaining viable programs that are
consistent with current academic and industry requirements.
The institution’s Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness6 links
all areas of planning to uphold the integrity of the institution. The heart of the
framework is the four-part Institutional Effectiveness Process (IEP),6 which all
programs are required to use as part of the PSR process. As a result, the programs
each:
•
•
•
•
Identify how the program mission and goals relate to the Institutional Mission
and goals;
Identify a method of assessing each goal;
Summarize the relevant evidence resulting from the assessment; and
Document how the results are used for continuous program improvement.
132
Weekly updates provided by the vice president of instruction to the Governing
Board7 are based upon the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional
Effectiveness. Each area highlighted in the weekly board update provides an
overview of program goals/outcome statements linked to the Institutional Mission,
a means of assessment, a summary of the evidence, and a description of the use of
results for future planning that norms to the board-approved planning process.8
SELF-EVALUATION
Maximizing equal access is a key component of the Institutional Mission.1 To
achieve this goal, the institution offers over 4,300 sections annually. The following
table illustrates the diversity of credit section offerings by location, instructional
school, section start time, and accounting method, over the past five years.9
Table 1. Credit Course Offering Patterns, 2004/2005 to 2008/2009
Credit Course Offering Patterns
Location:
Rancho Campus
Chino Campus
Fontana Campus
Ontario Center (closed in 2007)
Internet Courses
Other Locations
Instructional School:
Business & Applied Technology
Counseling & Matriculation
Health Sciences
Language Arts
Library
Math & Sciences
Physical Education
Social & Behavioral Sciences
Visual, Perform., & Comm. Arts
Section Start Time:
Morning (before noon) M-F
Afternoon (noon-4:29p) M-F
Evening (after 4:30p) M-TH
Weekend (SA, SU, or F after 4:30p)
Arranged Hours
Internet
Accounting Method:
Weekly Census Procedure
Daily Census Procedure
Independent Study, Weekly
Independent Study, Daily
Credit Positive Attendance
2004-05
(N=3,820)
2005-06
(N=4,087)
2006-07
(N=4,249)
2007-08
(N=4,327)
2008-09
(N=4,301)
2,835
273
140
135
193
244
3,098
245
141
116
235
252
3,147
305
189
94
283
231
3,158
347
277
n/a
287
258
3,087
448
258
n/a
324
184
614
135
326
557
2
731
213
738
504
645
167
351
650
n/a
780
231
752
511
698
138
382
704
n/a
772
213
823
519
752
1365
374
744
n/a
755
202
804
561
743
138
311
766
n/a
785
205
819
534
1,281
743
920
344
339
193
1,372
852
953
366
309
235
1,523
930
993
278
242
283
1,634
935
1,011
172
208
287
1,582
992
1,025
148
230
324
2,676
557
126
120
341
2,775
634
153
149
376
2,819
734
172
190
334
2,947
695
207
198
280
2,940
683
240
222
216
133
The Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey10 identified a number of findings that indicate
instructional programs address and meet the Institutional Mission and uphold its
integrity. Approximately 94% of informed survey respondents agreed or strongly
agreed that Chaffey represents itself accurately to students and the community it
serves; and 96% agreed or strongly agreed that the institution strives to meet the
varied educational needs of students. Almost all respondents (98%) strongly agreed
that educational programs are of high quality and are consistent with the
Institutional Mission furthermore, 92% agreed or strongly agreed that all
institutional programs, regardless of location or means of delivery, address and
meet the Institutional Mission and uphold its integrity.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for II.A.1
II.A.1.a. The institution identifies and seeks to meet the varied educational needs
of its students through programs consistent with their educational preparation
and the diversity, demographics, and economy of its communities. The
institution relies upon research and analysis to identify student learning needs
and to assess progress toward achieving stated learning outcomes.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The extensive breadth of learning-centered offerings at the institution include
“learning-centered occupational, transfer, general education, and foundation
programs.”11
Many outreach programs bridge these major classifications,
particularly programs that enable students to move from taking foundation-level
courses to general-education and transfer-level ones.
Occupational Programs
All occupational programs (also referred to as vocational programs) are required to
have advisory committees that meet at least annually to review and guide the
program curriculum and direction, assuring currency and relevance. These
committees are made up of instructors and individuals representing local industry,
as well as professional organizations that have a direct stake in the quality of
instruction provided to students. These organizations participate because they want
the institution’s program to qualify students to enter the vocational workforces; the
local industry members of the advisory committees are similarly motivated.
Recommendations from the advisory committees are documented and incorporated
into the program-development process.12
The institution has partnered with appropriate businesses, school districts, and
community groups to provide quality occupational programs, with many giving
134
students work experience. For example, internships are part of the Radiologic
Technology, Nursing, Gateways to Teaching, and Correctional Science programs.
Perkins Act funding13 is based on the outcome of student surveys that are
disseminated each term in all vocational TOP code program sections. Programs
must, in turn, make an application to the Perkins administrator to be considered for
additional Perkins funds. In the application they identify their specific needs,
provide justification, identify learning outcomes, and specify intended program
outcomes that will result from additional funding. This process lends itself to
further scrutiny of the vocational programs that participate.
Transfer and General Education Programs
To meet the educational needs of students who intend to transfer, clearly defined
course patterns are outlined in the form of a General Education Certification (GEC)
Course Pattern for California State University (CSU) transfer and the Intersegmental
General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) for University of California (UC)
transfer. Each pattern delineates all courses that are applicable to each required area
in the transfer process. Additionally, the institution has extensive articulation
agreements14 with all CSU and UC universities, as well as numerous private
institutions both in and out of state. These agreements maximize the students’
potential for being fully prepared for advanced standing upon transfer. In fall 2008,
the institution entered into a Dual Admissions Agreement with CSU San Bernardino
and the University of LaVerne for a period of three years that guarantees qualified
students’ admission to the university after completing two years at Chaffey.15 In
spring 2009, the institution was also awarded a two-year Science, Technology,
Engineering and Math (STEM)16 grant for more than $2.25 million to establish
transfer and articulation agreements for students in engineering, engineering
technology, and biology with California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.17
Articulation agreements have been created with UC Riverside through a Title V
grant, awarded to Hispanic-serving institutions to provide pathways for historically
underrepresented students into the teaching profession.
Foundation Programs
To meet the needs of students who are underprepared for college-level coursework,
the institution has extensive foundation programs in reading, writing, math, and
ESL. Students are assessed in the matriculation process18 and placed at the
appropriate level to maximize their success in achieving the skills needed to
advance.
Outreach Programs
Based on identified educational needs of students, the institution supports an array
of programs that actively promote accessibility to instruction through outreach to
potential student populations who would not traditionally consider pursuing a
135
college education. Maximizing equal access is an important part of the Institutional
Mission1 and is reflected in the outreach efforts of the following programs.
Likewise, Chaffey’s partnership with appropriate businesses, school districts, and
community entities has provided quality learning as well as work experience for
certain programs such as Radiologic Technology, Nursing, Gateway to Teaching,
and Correctional Science.
The institution prides itself in providing several programs that address the diverse
educational needs of the community.
Online to College (OTC) is a community collaboration program designed to
specifically address the needs of students in the city of Montclair. Montclair is one
of the poorest areas of the district where, prior to the program’s inception, very few
high school students opted to enter postsecondary education. Taking into account
the diversity, demographics, and economic status of the Montclair students,
Chaffey’s OTC program educates the community that attending college is a viable
option for their youth and prepares these young students for college. Beginning
with the fifth grade, students from participating Montclair elementary schools are
introduced to college through classroom presentations and Chaffey College campus
tours. In the middle schools, age-appropriate curriculum is introduced to students
and their parents to enhance their knowledge about the institution. As students
enter high school, the program assists them with the transition into college through
workshops, assessment testing, educational and financial planning, after-school
college courses, and weekend programs. Upon entry to the institution, students in
the program are guaranteed free tuition and books for two years, with continued
assistance and support available for additional years through the OTC Office and
the OTC club.
Project Second Chance supports individuals who did not graduate from high
school and want to continue their education at the institution. It provides academic,
career, and personal counseling; guidance courses; and educational planning to
prepare for the GED and subsequent transition to college-level curriculum. In
addition, students are referred to other student service programs to support their
continued college success.
Project Second Chance is now part of the larger Opening Doors to Excellence
Program (Opening Doors). Opening Doors began as a program for probationary
students, called Enhanced Opening Doors. Basically, Project Second Chance and
Opening Doors do the same thing, but for two different student populations.
Another similar program is Smart Start, which examines student assessment data to
identify students who research indicates are likely to experience academic
difficulty.19 The particular student population it serves is at-risk, first-time college
136
students, who are given a comprehensive orientation and transition to the college
experience.
Opening Doors, which includes Project Second Chance, and Smart Start, combines
the collaborative efforts of counseling and instruction. The Opening Doors
instructional component includes two co-requisite guidance courses (GUID 506/511)
designed to orient the students to college and to provide instruction on habits and
skills needed to succeed in college; Smart Start requires only one such guidance
course (GUID 592). These courses require students to complete directed learning
activities (DLAs)20 at the success centers to increase their awareness and utilization
of the habits and skills taught in the class sessions.
Early Alert is another program designed to assist students in academic distress. It is
currently being piloted with a number of instructors who use the institution’s
MyChaffeyVIEW system21 to notify students early in the semester about their
academic problems. The students are asked to go see their instructor and given a
personalized report submitted by the instructor indicating what academic
difficulties they are experiencing and suggest how to remedy them. These students
are also contacted via telephone calls and have the option to get regular telephone
counseling.
The Extended Opportunity Programs and Services (EOPS) is intended to provide
support services to financially and educationally disadvantaged students. Program
participants are eligible for priority registration, academic and personal counseling,
peer advisement, and assistance buying books. Bilingual staff members are
available to assist students with limited English speaking skills. Additional benefits
and services through the Cooperative Agencies Resources for Education (CARE)
Program are available to EOPS students who are single parents with children under
14 years of age and receiving public assistance. In 2003, the last EOPS/CARE site
visit resulted in two recommendations which have since been implemented. At that
time a full-time faculty coordinator position was assigned to the EOPS/CARE
program, and in spring 2004 and fall 2005, services were expanded to include
Fontana and Chino, respectively. EOPS/CARE services are now an integral part of
services available to all students, regardless of location.
The institution offers extensive English as a Second Language (ESL) non-credit
instruction at all three campuses and is dedicated to serving the need of a wide
community. With a high number of non-English speakers in the cities that the
institution serves, student success and matriculation depend on offerings in ESL. In
some cases, ESL courses offer a point of entry to otherwise non-college-bound
students, introducing them to opportunities through content courses at Chaffey that
they may not have been aware of. For example, in ESL 503: Learning to Earn, the
instructor outlines certificate and degree programs at Chaffey and helps students
137
explore possible career options. In other cases, ESL courses offer support to
matriculated students who continue to be challenged by language issues while in
non-ESL courses. At the Fontana Center, ESL courses are becoming increasingly
important as the institution expands its offerings there. The Fontana Center’s
population is predominantly Hispanic, and as the institution has become more
visible in the Fontana community, more community members have become
interested in utilizing resources at the institution. Basic English language skills are
required for all certificate and degree programs, and much of the community in
Fontana is in need of those skills before they enter into courses in their desired field.
Similar to the ESL class, Learning to Earn, the Vocational English as a Second
Language (VESL) Learning to Earn Program is a support program designed to help
ESL students achieve fluency in English while they explore and pursue career paths.
Students in the program are supported through classroom instruction and
mentoring to build their vocabularies, reading ability, writing skills, computer skills,
and English pronunciation in the context of a chosen career path.
Chaffey’s Puente Project, part of the larger statewide program, provides individual
assistance to students interested in transferring to four-year colleges and universities
by providing intensive English instruction, focused personal counseling, personal
mentoring, and introductory tours to UC and CSU campuses. Thirty students are
selected each year based on essays describing their academic and career goals and
how participation in the program would assist in their success. The students take
English 450, Fundamentals of Composition; English 1A, Composition; and a
guidance class, which are team taught by an English faculty member and a
counselor. Each is assigned a mentor from the professional or business community.
The CIW Program was launched in 2004 to promote education as a rehabilitation
measure for the inmates at the California Institute for Women (CIW) by providing
them with college programs and services leading to an associate’s degree.
Instruction is delivered through digital recordings of classes on campus, which is
supported by visits from the classroom instructors. Additional support comes from
Extended Opportunity Program and Services (EOPS) counseling, the Disability
Program and Services (DPS), and a success center within the prison.
Contract Education/Customized Training, Community Education, Continuing
Education, and Workforce Development Training, are aligned with the
Institutional Mission1 and goals to enhance the economic development of the
communities served. Programs provide access to professional development and
skills acquisition to better prepare a workforce to compete in a global economy.
These programs increase access to populations who might not otherwise be exposed
to the community college system and the life-long opportunities for learning and
training. Populations served include incumbent employees accessing training
138
through their employers funded through various grants, limited English learners
accessing vocational ESL training, community residents looking to upgrade skill
through a one-day workshop, seniors looking for opportunities to increase their
quality of life by learning new skills and becoming familiar with an ever-changing
technological age, as well as the unemployed, the under-employed, and welfare
recipients entering short-term intensive training for entry-level positions in a variety
of industries. These programs offer flexible education and training, based on
identified needs through surveys, data, and labor-market information. They are
better suited to adult learners rather than traditional college courses. The simplified
enrollment procedures and flexible schedules, combined with the less intimidating
classroom environments, often at an employer work-site, are appealing to
individuals who cannot commit to the traditional college schedules, lengthy
semesters, or grading policies.
Research and Assessment
All institutional programs and services are required to submit a formal program
assessment report annually through the Program and Services Review (PSR)4
process, which is a key part of the institution’s recently adopted Strategic Planning
Framework for Institutional Effectiveness.6 As previously mentioned, the heart of
this Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness is Institution
Effectiveness Process (IEP),6 which is a four-step cycle of determining goals,
implementing activities to reach goals, assessment of activities, analysis of research
gained by assessment, and using the research to plan future activities and
assessments, as well as to modify the goals or outcome statements. Using the IEP to
conduct PSR self-studies, programs and services evaluate their currency, teaching,
enrollment patterns, and student success. PSR also determines the extent to which
the institution’s programs and services assist in achieving its adopted mission and
goals. Statistical data is provided to programs from the Office of Institutional
Research (OIR). Additionally, historical performance outcome data is readily
accessible to all the institution’s personnel through the OIR website using Online
Analytical Processing (OLAP)22 cubes, a dynamic software interface.
The full-time faculty of each instructional program collaborate together to conduct
PSR. Some programs also collaborate with other programs and services as they
complete their PSR self-studies; for example, they are aided by the OIR, the
Outcomes and Assessment Committee, the Faculty Success Center, particularly via
their Summer Institute, and the PSR Committee. CurricUNET23 facilitates the PSR
process by applying the same principles employed for curriculum management.
CurricUNET templates provide an automated venue for reporting consistency and
encourage a clear presentation by the various programs and services of their
ongoing successes and shortcomings. Oversight is provided by peers on the PSR
Committee who provide feedback to the programs in the form of commendations
and recommendations for improvement that must be addressed in the following
139
year’s presentation.
As the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional
Effectiveness dictates, the PSR Committee then makes recommendations to the
superintendent/president regarding changes in operations and budget allocations.
(Figure 1, p. 84).
Starting in 2008/2009, program-level Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)5 and
administrative unit outcomes (AUOs)24 were embedded within the PSR process. As
a result, 681 SLOs and AUOs have been identified by instructional, Student Services,
and administrative programs and units. In fact, many areas have already collected
evidence and have utilized findings for continuous program improvement,
effectively engaging in a complete learning outcomes assessment cycle.
The institution engages in a wide array of research activities designed to inform
administrators, faculty, staff, students, and the community about the educational
preparation, diversity, demographics, economy, and student learning needs of its
constituent students. The OIR staff serve on a number of committees including the
Student Success Initiative, the Enrollment Management Committee, President’s
Equity Council, Matriculation Advisory Committee, and others. OIR generates
research on student learning needs relevant to, and often at the request of, these
committees. The OIR receives over 400 requests for research support annually. All
research reports, research briefs, and presentations, specifically those that identify
student learning needs and are of interest to the broadest constituency, are
published on the OIR website.25 Currently, there are over 400 research reports,
briefs, and presentations posted on the website that are frequently used by
administrators, faculty, and staff to facilitate informed decision-making. Examples
of some of these reports, briefs, and presentations include, but are not limited to, the
following.
First Census Enrollment Reports are generated shortly after the first census date of
every primary term, First Census Enrollment Reports26 are submitted to the
Governing Board and provide a complete statistical analysis of student enrollment.
Breakdowns are provided that delineate credit versus non-credit enrollment, credit
enrollment by city, and students served by location. The category of location
includes not only centers, distance education, and other community locations, but
also weekend-only classes. Each of these delineations is further analyzed to identify
the residency, ethnicity, gender, and age distributions. Additionally, this report
provides five years of historical data for comparison to identify changes in the
makeup of the student population. This information is readily available for use in
planning the future direction of all constituent programs and is available to
administrators, faculty, and staff through the OIR website.25
Biennial Student Climate Surveys are developed by the President’s Equity Council,
surveys are disseminated to over 1,200 students every other year to identify student
140
perceptions about the institution, as well as to identify the reasons students enroll at
the institution and the goals and expected outcomes. The data is further analyzed to
determine whether demographics, educational background, or other student
characteristics are linked to different responses.27
Annual Accountability Reporting for Community Colleges (ARCC) Report is
presented to the Governing Board every spring semester, the report contains the
institution’s data on the performance indicators of the statewide ARCC program.28
It also examines factors that have an influence on these performance indicators and
informs administrators, faculty, and staff about strategies that might potentially
improve ARCC performance outcomes.29
Career Technical Education (CTE) Program Needs Assessment is conducted by
request by faculty or administrators, the OIR engages in an in-depth needs
assessment of CTE programs. Over fifty program-specific needs assessments have
been generated in the past five years, assisting decision-makers in determining the
viability of programs, employment outlook, requisite education and training
requirements, earning potential, and regional employers.30
Did You Know?: Launched in spring 2008, the OIR disseminates a bi-monthly
research brief to all administrators, faculty (full- and part-time), and staff, covering a
wide range of topics such as Project Information Literacy Survey findings,31 first
semester performance of recent high school graduates,32 and primary non-English
languages spoken at home by students.33
Data and information on behaviors that successful students engage in are also
shared directly with faculty, administrators, and staff through professional
development activities including New Faculty Orientation, the Faculty Success
Center Summer Institute, Student Success Initiative, and other retreats and
workshops.
As students initially access the institution, a comprehensive assessment is conducted
through the matriculation process to identify student skill levels in English, math,
reading, and ESL. In addition to standardized assessment instruments, a wide array
of data elements are collected that identify student educational background
characteristics such as years of math/English in high school, familial support,
competing life factors such as the hours the student plans to work, and self-assessed
reading and writing skill levels.34 This information incorporated as part of the
multiple measures placement recommendation. Data and information is also shared
with and made available to students and counselors. Data collected through the
matriculation process is further analyzed to produce statistical information on
student preparedness and goals to assist the institution in planning to meet student
141
needs. This information is also integrated into future research projects that are
designed to benefit students including Smart Start and Opening Doors to Excellence.
Reflecting the institution’s policy of providing open access to data and information,
the Research Request Form35 is available to all administrators, faculty, and staff on
the OIR website.25 Requests for data and information on the form must be linked to
the Institutional Goals/Ends Policies36 and accreditation standards. The faculty,
staff, and administration constituencies are encouraged to submit research requests
on an as-needed basis.
To conclude, research and the analysis of it are essential to the institution’s
continuous cycle of assessment and improvement embodied in the Strategic
Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness.6 The Institution Effectiveness
Process (IEP)6 requires programs and services to collect and analyze their data, then
modify their plans to fulfill the particular learning outcome desired. Typically the
learning outcome is described in the IEP as a Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)5
statement or administrative unit outcomes (AUOs)24 statement. The Strategic
Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness then links these outcome
statements to the program mission and goals, Institutional Goals/Ends Policies, and
the Institutional Mission,1 the Program and Services Review (PSR)4 process, and
various monitoring reports. What isn’t immediately obvious about the framework is
the very thing this summary has highlighted: how data and information collected by
the matriculation process and the OIR on students’ educational preparation and the
diversity, demographics, and economic status of district members and their
communities are continually incorporated by various programs and services as they
follow the IEP.
SELF-EVALUATION
The Office of Institutional Research (OIR) developed a sophisticated software
interface to deal with its data: Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) cubes.22 OLAP
cubes provide a simple method of viewing basic data and information that is
frequently requested by end users. OLAP cubes allow end users to easily create
multidimensional tables. End users are able to query, browse and summarize data in
an efficient, interactive, and dynamic format. End users can move data between
rows, columns, and layers to create reports that are specific to their unique needs.
Using OLAP cubes on the OIR website,25 members of all constituencies can access
the following information at the institution, location, instructional school,
department, and course level. The following data and information is readily
available to end users:
•
•
Course Offering Data (number of sections offered)
Average Section Size, Section Capacity, and Fill Rate
142
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Enrollment Data (number of successful grades — A, B, C, or CR; non-successful
grades — D, F, NC, or I; withdrawals — W grades; total grades earned on record;
and number of students actively enrolled as of first census date)
Grade Distribution Reports (number and percentage)
Success and Retention Rates
Success and Retention Rates by Student Demographic Characteristics
Degrees and Certificates Awarded
FTES Data (mean and sum)
Unduplicated Student Demographic Characteristics (annual and semester)
For the majority of these aforementioned measures, users have the ability to further
examine data by any combination of academic year or semester, teaching
arrangement, accounting method, or meeting time and day. Data for the most recent
five-year period is readily accessible to all employees, while earlier data can be
requested from the OIR.
This earlier data is available in the OIR’s longitudinal database, referred to as the
Management Information System (MIS)37 referential files. Going back to the fall 1999
semester, data for each individual student enrollment — 1,471,192 records through
spring 2009 — is available. Utilizing this information, the OIR is able to routinely
provide and update data and information on the number of enrollments, as well as
on success and retention rates in transfer, basic skills, and occupational courses (see
Tables 2-4 below).
Tables 2-4. Enrollment Data, Success Rates, and Retention Rates, 2004/2005 to
2008/200922
Enrollment Data
Transfer Status:
Transferable to CSU/UC
Transferable to CSU Only
Not Transferable
Basic Skills Status:
Basic Skills Section
Not a Basic Skills Section
Occupational Status:
Occupational Section
Non-Occupational
Section
2004-05
(N=114,369)
2005-06
(N=113,694)
2006-07
(N=115,911)
2007-08
(N=122,738)
2008-09
(130,479)
68,853
18,659
26,857
66,217
17,681
29,796
68,542
19,226
28,143
74,214
19,678
28,846
78,706
20,761
31,012
8,303
106,066
9,419
104,275
8,305
107,606
8,541
114,197
9,632
120,847
32,765
81,604
32,107
81,587
34,157
81,754
36,286
86,452
37,093
93,386
143
Success Rates
Transfer Status:
Not Transferable
Non-Occupational
Section
Retention Rates
Transfer Status:
Not Transferable
Non-Occupational
Section
2004-05
(N=114,369)
2005-06
(N=113,694)
2006-07
(N=115,911)
2007-08
(N=122,738)
2008-09
(130,479)
64.0%
70.0%
63.8%
63.8%
69.6%
62.4%
65.0%
69.5%
63.8%
64.1%
69.4%
65.4%
65.8%
69.7%
65.6%
62.4%
65.2%
59.3%
64.8%
61.7%
65.7%
61.3%
65.5%
63.7%
66.6%
71.4%
62.3%
71.7%
61.4%
72.1%
62.7%
71.2%
62.7%
71.1%
64.5%
2004-05
(N=114,369)
2005-06
(N=113,694)
2006-07
(N=115,911)
2007-08
(N=122,738)
2008-09
(130,479)
84.6%
88.3%
84.8%
84.4%
88.9%
86.0%
85.7%
89.5%
86.5%
84.1%
88.8%
86.5%
85.5%
88.6%
86.8%
85.5%
85.2%
87.8%
85.3%
86.5%
86.5%
85.4%
85.4%
87.2%
86.2%
88.7%
83.8%
89.2%
84.0%
90.2%
85.0%
88.8%
84.0%
89.2%
85.1%
The General Education Certification (GEC) Course Pattern for California State
University (CSU) transfer and the Intersegmental General Education Transfer
Curriculum (IGETC) for University of California (UC) transfer have had a significant
impact on the numbers of students who successfully transfer from the institution to
four-year institutions. As Table 5 below indicates, through the 2006/2007 academic
year, the institution experienced triple-digit increases in the annual number of
students who transferred to four-year institutions. While increases were still
observed at the majority of postsecondary educational systems in 2007/2008, the
economy and concomitant enrollment caps within the CSU system resulted in a
decline in transfers to this segment and a slight overall reduction in the total number
of transfers. To mitigate this impact in the future, in the 2007/2008 and 2008/2009
academic years the institution signed transfer agreements with a number of regional
four-year institutions, most notably CSU San Bernardino and the University of
LaVerne. As tracked through the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC), the top
transfer destinations for Chaffey College students are also identified in Table 6 on
page 144.28
144
Table 5. Transfer Rates, 2002/2003 to 2007/2008
Postsecondary
System
CSU
UC
II (CA Only)
Out-of-State
Total
02-03
N
650
309
309
669
1,937
2003 – 2004
%
N
Increase
898
334
365
874
2,471
38.2
8.1
18.1
30.6
27.6
2004 – 2005
%
N
Increase
908
300
411
1,007
2,626
1.1
-10.2
12.6
15.2
6.3
2005 – 2006
%
N
Increase
1,128
389
493
1,073
3,083
24.2
29.7
20.0
6.6
17.4
2006-2007
%
N
Increase
1,420
376
478
1,151
3,425
25.9
-3.3
-3.0
7.3
11.1
2007-2008
%
N
Increase
1,305
396
522
1,190
3,413
-8.1
5.3
9.2
3.4
-0.4
Table 6. Top Transfer Destinations of Chaffey Students, 2004/2005 to 2007/2008
Four-Year Institution
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
455
280
218
134
144
51
89
62
31
20
430
369
272
202
163
68
81
57
47
34
587
510
330
224
152
73
70
78
47
34
629
502
313
211
144
85
81
59
52
50
University of Phoenix
CSU, San Bernardino
Cal Poly, Pomona
CSU, Fullerton
UC Riverside
Azusa Pacific University
Devry University - Pomona
CSU, Long Beach
UC Irvine
UCLA
Note: Sorted in descending order for the 2007-08 academic year.
As identified in Chaffey’s annual Accountability Reporting for Community Colleges
(ARCC)28 report, the institution’s annual successful course completion rate in
occupational courses is approximately 75%, routinely exceeding the average annual
success rate by 10 %.
Recent ARCC data also identifies consistent, ongoing improvement in student
performance in basic skills and ESL courses. Table 7 below depicts the consistent
pre-collegiate improvement rates that the institution has observed over the past four
years.
Table 7. Selected Performance Indicators, ARCC Data, 2004/2005 to 2007/2008
ESL Improvement Rate
Basic Skills Improvement Rate
Annual Successful Course Completion
Rate for Credit Basic Skills Courses
2004-05
30.8%
46.7%
2005-06
36.9%
52.3%
2006-07
36.7%
50.5%
2007-08
39.8%
53.8%
61.9%
58.7%
60.2%
61.0%
Data exists to substantiate the efficacy of many of the instructional programs
designed to serve the needs of unique student populations:
145
Online to College (OTC)
Over 3,100 students participate annually. When the first cohort eligible to attend
college came to the institution, the college going rate from Montclair High School
increased by 43.5%. In 2006-07 high school performance outcomes for OTC student
found that they have higher attendance rates, exhibit higher standardized California
High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) test scores; were more likely to enroll in the
institution’s college prep courses, and were more likely to enroll in and successfully
complete courses that meet UC/CSU A-G admission requirements. In order to be
eligible to attend any school in the CSU or UC system as a freshman, students must
take certain classes in high school, known as “A-G subjects.” A=History/Social
Sciences; B=English; C=Mathematics; D=Laboratory Science; E=Foreign Language;
F=Visual & Performing Arts; and G=College Prep Electives.
Additionally,
performance outcomes for Chaffey College OTC students found that they are far
more likely to do the following:
•
•
•
•
be enrolled full-time
exhibit higher course retention rates
exhibit higher fall-to-spring semester persistence rates
engage in behaviors typical of successful students such as, following placement
recommendations, seeing a counselor, and visiting success centers38
Project Second Chance
Developed and implemented with grant funding, this program to help students who
did not graduate from high school was designed during the fall 2007 semester and
piloted in spring 2008. Of the 44 students enrolled in the pilot program, 36
completed the semester earning a grade without withdrawing.
Extended Opportunity Programs and Services (EOPS)
A few recent studies are indicative of the successful outcomes experienced by EOPS
students. An examination of the EOPS Summer 2008 Readiness Program indicates
that students who participated in the program experienced statistically significant
improvements in self-reported self-esteem and perception of social support.39
Furthermore, an examination of fall 2008 semester EOPS Program Student Learning
Outcomes (SLOs) indicated that EOPS students experienced gains in self-reported
independence and responsibility from the beginning to the end of the semester.40
California Institute for Women (CIW Program)
The program has grown from 26 initial students to approximately 50 as of fall 2008.
March 2008 saw the first graduating class of 13 students, 11 with honors. Another 10
students graduated and earned their associate degrees on October 3, 2009.41
146
Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Administrative Unit Outcomes (AUOs)
Through the institution’s Program and Services Review (PSR)4 process and aligned
with the Institution Effectiveness Process (IEP),6 all programs identify three to five
SLOs5 or AUOs.24 Furthermore, many instructional programs identify where
learning outcomes are embedded at the course level. All programs are required to
engage in assessment of at least one learning outcome, with learning outcomes
assessment expanding on an annual basis. The learning outcomes assessment cycle
follows the IEP where learning outcomes, means of assessment, criteria, evidence,
and use of results are identified and documented. The institution has also
established an Outcomes and Assessment Committee, which has undergone several
name changes and deals with both SLOs and AUOs. The new Outcomes and
Assessment Committee oversees the AUO Sub-Committee, Outcomes and
Assessment Steering Committee, and SLO Sub-Committee. The Outcomes and
Assessment Committee provides quality control and feedback about learning
outcomes. While the PSR process serves as the vehicle through which this action
occurs, review of learning outcomes and use of results for continuous improvement
also occurs independently of the PSR process, ensuring that learning outcomes
feedback is used for program and student learning improvement and is not merely
tied to the staffing and budgeting requests historically associated with PSR. To date,
359 programmatic SLOs and 322 AUOs have been developed by instructional,
Student Services, and administrative programs. All 15 Student Services programs
and the vast majority of instructional programs have commenced assessment of
stated programmatic learning outcomes. To date, 38 programs have completed an
entire learning outcomes assessment cycle for one or more learning outcomes.
In examining findings from the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey Results,10 evidence
exists that the institution is successful in meeting the varied education needs of its
students and utilizing research and analysis to identify the efficacy of SLOs. Over 95
% of survey respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the institution strives
to meet the varied educational needs of students and incorporates research into
planning and evaluation. Results from the Spring 2009 Student Campus Climate
Survey27 confirm these findings. Regardless of the educational goals identified by
students, the vast majority of students are either satisfied or very satisfied with the
progress they have made toward meeting their educational goals while at the
institution.
Table 8. Student Satisfaction Data, Spring 2009 Student Campus Climate Survey
Satisfied or Very Satisfied with Progress Toward:
Getting a Degree
Getting an Occupational Certificate
Gaining Knowledge to Pursue a Bachelor’s Degree
Learning Job Market Skills
Increasing My Earning Potential
147
Percentage
83.1%
87.1%
85.0%
84.3%
88.0%
Table 8. (cont’d.)
Satisfied or Very Satisfied with Progress Toward:
Furthering My Career Prospects
Pursuing Personal Enrichment
Developing a Better Understanding of the Global Community
Developing Social Skills
Percentage
91.4%
91.4%
89.0%
91.1%
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for II.A.1.a
II.A.1.b. The institution utilizes delivery systems and modes of instruction
compatible with the objectives of the curriculum and appropriate to the current
and future needs of its students.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Current technology has enabled the institution to continue to meet the needs of its
students by expanding its alternate delivery systems to reach those students who are
logistically challenged. Online and hybrid instruction began in spring 2001 with 16
sections and expanded to 143 sections by spring 2009.26 There is an extremely high
demand for online instruction and the sections are filled to capacity within the first
week of registration. Hybrid classes serve students by introducing them to the
online delivery system while maintaining a face-to-face delivery component. In
addition, enhanced classes are traditional face-to-face classes that use the online
delivery system, Blackboard, as an instructional modality.
One of the more innovative distance education applications is utilized by the
California Institute for Women (CIW) program, where instruction in the tightly
controlled environment of the prison presents unique challenges. In CIW courses,
students view pre-recorded lectures and submit questions to in-class tutors. The
assignments are sent to the facility from the instructor, and the students send their
assignments in the same manner. This allows for inmates to complete degrees when
they are precluded from attending traditional classes or even traditional online
classes. The video instruction is also available to a limited number of general
population students through the success centers. This program was recently
honored by the chancellor’s Student Success Award in 2008 for effectively
addressing the educational needs of a traditionally underserved student population.
The institution uses a wide variety of delivery systems, which are selected and
evaluated on a course-by-course basis for appropriateness of course content,
accessibility, and course outcomes. Traditional lecture and lecture/lab combination
courses account for 86% of delivery, yet such “traditional” courses commonly
incorporate Web presentations or computer-based activities. Thus, non-traditional
148
delivery styles are abundant as both alternatives and supplements to the traditional
methods. These include distance education, self-paced labs, open-entry/open-exit
labs, supplemental instruction in STEM,17 service learning, cooperative work
experience education, and an extensive network of success centers.
These various delivery systems allow for the use of an assortment of diverse
instructional modes that enhance the learning experience. These range from
standard and advanced support for students with disabilities, classroom technology
aids, specialized services to accommodate special needs, and an array of learning
environments including study groups, tutoring, workshops, directed learning
activities (DLAs), and study abroad experiences.
Several faculty regularly incorporate service learning as a teaching methodology in
multiple disciplines, combining community service with classroom instruction and
focusing on critical, reflective thinking, as well as personal and civic responsibility.
Title V funding provides a tutor for students engaged in these activities, which
develop academic skills and civic commitment to the local needs of the district’s
communities.
Students learn and develop through active participation in
thoughtfully organized service that is conducted in and meets the needs of a specific
community.
Student involvement in service activities increases motivation,
underscores learning from classroom subjects, and enhances understanding of realworld complexity.
As part of the Basic Skills Transformation,42 the institution has developed a network
of student success centers at the Rancho, Chino and Fontana campuses. The success
centers offer tutorials, workshops, directed learning activities (DLAs), study groups,
instructional software, and computer access to assist students in their academic
development and success. Discipline-specific centers are designed to help students
with particular subject area courses and skills. Multi-disciplinary Centers are set up
to serve students in all subject disciplines. Existing centers include the Math Success
Center, Language Success Center, the Multidisciplinary/Reading Success Center,
and Writing Success Center at the Rancho campus; the multidisciplinary Chino
Success Center and the Chino Reading/Writing Center at the Chino campus; and
the multidisciplinary Fontana Success Center at the Fontana Campus.
The success centers provide several distinct classes of support, categories defined by
the Chancellor’s Office:
•
•
•
Supplemental instruction, in which an entire cohort or class of students is
instructed together
Supplemental learning, in which individual students participate in independent
and group activities, workshops, study groups, or DLAs
group or one-on-one tutoring
149
The supplemental instruction, supplemental learning, and tutoring are done by
faculty, paraprofessionals with B.A. or B.S. degrees, and advanced students — all of
whom are given specialized training.
Traditional study groups are offered by the success centers. Supplemental
Instruction (SI), supported by the STEM grant,17 is taught by advanced students.
Other study groups, such as those offered in the Writing Center, for example are
taught by paraprofessionals. Workshops, taught by faculty, are also conducted on a
regular basis by the success centers and address college-wide issues such as writing
research papers, test-taking strategies, math workshops, career exploration, using
positive language in speech and writing, study skills, using visual aids and revising
papers. Specific writing workshop are available on all campuses; topics based on
current needs within the classroom, including learning styles, avoiding plagiarism,
evaluating online resources, using commas, drafting the research paper,
summarizing and paraphrasing, MLA documentation, using apostrophes, word
choice, frequently confused words, essays, and exams. Students either self-elect to
attend workshops as needed, or are referred by instructors.
Directed learning activities (DLAs)20 are specific exercises and activities that consist
of an independent portion and a follow-up session with a tutor. DLAs are created to
reinforce specific concepts and are constructed using a model that clearly connects to
common course assignments, objectives, and/or SLOs.5 Structurally, they use
various learning modalities and diverse delivery methods to accommodate the
different learning styles of students: the Web, cd-rom, video, DVDs, traditional
textbooks and guides, and even magnetized visual aids and a magnetic whiteboard,
independent practice, and review with a subject specific tutor. The success centers
offer a wide variety of DLAs on topics that are primarily focused on writing skills
that can be applied in all academic areas. Examples include the following.
•
•
•
Diagnostic Exercise—Find out how well you understand essay structure and
development, punctuation, and grammar.
Summary Skills for Academic Writing—Summarizing without plagiarizing is
an important skill in research paper writing.
Evaluating Online Resources—Learn how to select credible sources for your
research paper.
One-to-one tutoring is another mode of instruction that, like DLAs, benefits those
students who require more intense instructional support. Tutoring is provided by
faculty, paraprofessionals, instructional specialists and graduate students, and peer
tutors (students) who are trained to work with students who are at different class
levels, from different disciplines, and in various stages of learning. Most of the
success centers are certified by the College Reading and Learning Association
150
(CRLA)43 and provide tutor training for two levels of expertise. Additional CRLA
certification training, endorsed by the National Association for Developmental
Education, Commission XVI of the American College Personnel Association, the
American Council of Developmental Education Associations, Association for the
Tutoring Professional and the National Tutoring Association, provides necessary
background in tutoring strategies, ethics, learning styles, as well as more specialized
content-level techniques.
The institution is committed to funding technology that will meet demonstrated
needs, and in 2006 it began a proactive effort to equip all classrooms with state-ofthe-art technology to enhance the learning environment. The institution also
launched an Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) system. Through the institution’s
library website, instructors can access on demand videos (DVD and VHS) that have
been digitally archived for direct streaming into the classroom. Instructors also have
ready access to an E-Reserve system, also through the library website where they
can electronically post documents for student retrieval 24/7.
Utilization of various delivery systems addressing current and future needs of
students are clearly evidenced by Disability Programs and Services (DPS), which
offers instructional accommodations for students with physical, learning, and
emotional disabilities. Students who self-identify their disabilities, with appropriate
medical documentation, are first given academic/vocational counseling to provide
disability appropriate suggestions for class and career choices. DPS administers
educational evaluations, such as tests, in order to address specific needs like
extended time for students with learning disabilities.
Similarly, other programs addressing the needs of special populations have
identified modes of instruction that cater to each group and are compatible with
curriculum objectives. For example, the Health Sciences student population uses
high tech simulation mannequins that are programmable to simulate a wide variety
of health scenarios to provide virtual patient demonstrations and experiences.
These students also use state-of-the-art hospital equipment for practical experience
prior to being sent into the field.
In addition, science laboratories are equipped with both standard and specialized
equipment that is required for students to experience concepts versus simply being
taught about them. For example, practical use of a colorimeter to measure chemical
concentrations in a substance demonstrates how quantitative measurements can be
analyzed to draw conclusions or make estimates regarding unknown substances.
Most of the programs in the school of Visual, Performing and Communication Arts
are heavily reliant on specialized equipment that is required to demonstrate key
concepts, as well as to develop skills with practical application. This includes
151
equipment such as sewing machines, pottery wheels, television cameras, musical
instruments, recording/mixer boards, and full production lighting equipment. Even
video cameras are used regularly in communication studies for students to analyze
their own public speaking performance.
The Study Abroad (previously Study Far and Near) program provides another
mode of instruction dedicated to helping students experience life as members of the
Global Community. Studying abroad exposes participants to different cultures,
languages, and people. Students who study abroad gain a perspective of the world
that cannot be realized through domestic study alone. Studying abroad provides
students a unique vantage point to learn about the history, politics, economies, arts,
and languages of other nations. Whether participants study abroad as a means of
attaining an enriched academic experience, or to simply enjoy a more sophisticated
experiential travel environment, these studies will necessarily contribute to personal
growth and understanding. In addition, as study abroad is typically looked upon
favorably by universities, graduate schools, and employers, participation in the
institution’s program can further individual academic and employment
opportunities.
To address objectives of the curriculum, a Title V STEM grant17 allowed for the
development of the aforementioned Supplemental Instruction (SI), as part of a
research-based program that trains student leaders to facilitate small group
discussion. SI is an interactive, alternative teaching strategy that involves the
facilitation of learning though the dynamics of group interaction. Faculty identify
prospective leaders from students who have exhibited competence in the subject
matter and have the ability to model good student behavior by teaching study skills
and linking course content to sound study habits. These leaders are given in-service
training on the SI model, as well as training related to diversity, learning styles and
personality types. Student leaders are paid to attend the class as a student to take
notes and do homework and lead the SI study groups outside of class. This program
is very successful in meeting instructional needs compatible with objectives of the
STEM curriculum, particularly in the School of Mathematics and Science.
Cooperative Work Experience Education (Co-op Ed), is an academic program that is
designed to accelerate the career growth of students by combining classroom
learning with work experience — employment, internship, service learning
activities, or volunteer work. An agreement is established between the institution,
the employer, and the student to jointly develop work-based learning objectives and
to use various mechanisms to evaluate learning outcomes and facilitate the exchange
of relevant professional information between all three parties. Co-op students do
not attend weekly classes. However, some programs such as Child Development
and Education, offer co-requisite work experience components that are augmented
with classroom instruction. In addition to undertaking new learning objectives at
152
work, Co-op Ed students complete personally relevant, self-directed, career
development assignments according to their individual needs and schedules. They
also use the institution’s career resources and attend seminars as outlined on their
learning agreement.
Delivery methods are evaluated as curriculum is reviewed through the curriculum
approval process. The faculty, dean, and committee members scrutinize the
delivery methods based on the course objectives. Evaluation methods are discussed
and sample assignments are required; both steps ensure that the course objectives
are best met through the delivery methods listed.
SELF-EVALUATION
Several of the institution’s studies assess the outcomes of various delivery systems
and modes of instruction. For example, a 2005 study, Comparison of Student
Performance in Internet and Lecture Courses,44 found just slightly lower success
rates for students in distance education classes than for those in traditional face-toface classes. This same study found both student populations had virtually identical
retention rates. Additionally, a 2007 student survey of students enrolled in distance
education classes found that the majority of survey respondents rated accessibility,
technical support, instruction, and assignment and grading practices in online
courses very highly. A comparison of data collected in spring 2003 to spring 2009
reveals dramatic growth in the number of distance education sections offered (48 in
Spring 2003 and 143 in spring 2009, a 198% increase) and the number of students
enrolled in distance education courses (876 in Spring 2003 and 3,200 in Spring 2009,
a 265% increase).45
As previously mentioned, the success centers are a key part of institutional efforts to
utilize various delivery systems and modes of instruction that are compatible with
the objectives of the curriculum. The centers’ diverse systems and modes of
instruction are assessed for compatibility and success by the Office of Institutional
Research (OIR). The OIR’s software interface, Online Analytical Processing
(OLAP)22 cubes, enables those outside the OIR to readily access, comprehend, and
incorporate the data results into future planning. Significant research outlined in the
tables below, points to the scope and magnitude of success center service and
underscores the efficacy of Success Center support. Tables 9 to 11 below were
generated by OLAP cubes. Table 10 suggests that the success centers had a positive
impact on student success, while Table 11 shows that this positive impact on course
performance occurred for all students populations, regardless of gender or ethnicity.
153
Table 9. Success Center Access, Fall Semesters, 2004-2008
Number of Students Accessing
Success Centers
Fall 2004
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
8,201
8,520
7,648
8,230
9,547
Table 10. Success Rates, Broken Down by Success Center Access, 2004/2005 to
2007/2008
Success Rate of Students Who
Access Success Centers
Success Rate of Students Who
Do Not Access Success Centers
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
71%
73%
72%
73%
74%
60%
57%
59%
58%
61%
Table 11. Success Rates, Broken Down by Gender and Ethnicity, 2004-2008
Group
First-Time
Students
Gender:
Male
Female
Ethnicity:
African
American
Asian
Caucasian
Filipino
Hispanic
Native
American
Pacific
Islander
Total
Did Not Access Success
Center
#
N
%
Accessed Success Center
#
N
%
Effect Size & 95% CI
Lower & Upper ES
ES
Lower Upper
PValue
3,210
6,553
49.0
1,705
2,414
70.6
.44
.40
.49
< .001
15,622
24,556
27,731
40,997
56.3
59.9
6,384
12,437
8,898
16,844
71.7
73.8
.32
.29
.29
.28
.34
.31
< .001
< .001
3,740
8,009
46.7
2,028
3,128
64.8
.37
.33
.41
< .001
2,785
12,415
1,527
15,755
4,188
19,362
2,352
28,472
67.6
64.1
64.9
55.3
1,684
4,171
625
8,627
2,066
5,429
783
12,097
81.5
76.8
79.8
71.3
.31
.27
.32
.33
.26
.24
.24
.31
.37
.30
.41
.35
< .001
< .001
< .001
< .001
260
468
55.6
97
146
66.4
.22
.04
.41
= .020
219
399
54.9
118
161
73.3
.38
.20
.57
< .001
40,696
69,621
58.5
19,112
26,146
73.1
.30
.28
.31
< .001
Most instruction, however, does not happen in the institution’s various success
centers, but in the classrooms. Approximately 90-95% of all classrooms are now
equipped with a computer, multimedia projector, document camera, DVD/VCR
player and audio equipment. As new technologies become available, they are
evaluated for practical application. Where campus-wide installation is impractical,
connectivity solutions are employed to accommodate limited resources. Nonequipped classrooms are either retrofitted as needed or will be replaced with new
building construction. By November 2008, three large lecture halls on the Rancho
campus and one in Chino were completely equipped as controlled (smart)
classrooms wherein all functions of the equipment are easily interchangeable with
154
the use of a single control board. In summer 2009, revisions of the classrooms in the
Social Science and Language Arts buildings, installed similar single-board systems.
It is the objective of the institution to continue upgrading the new facilities in Chino
and Fontana to the same level of sophistication by the end of spring 2009.
Additionally, the Information Technology Services (ITS) has demonstrated
extraordinary success in reducing the response time for classroom technology
technical difficulties from days or hours to 10-15 minutes in most cases. This
commitment has a profound affect on the ability of the instructors to maintain a
smooth flow in their chosen instructional modality.
Chaffey’s Institutional Effectiveness Process (IEP),6 is an integral part of both
periodic curriculum review and the annual Program and Service Review (PSR)4
process, thereby insuring that pedagogical innovations is not merely done for the
sake of change. The OIR aids in needs assessment and designing assessment
methods and measures to test the efficacy and appropriateness of the various
delivery systems and instructional modes.
Upon enrollment in the appropriate instructional programs, DPS provides an array
of instructional support services to facilitate the student’s learning experience.
These services include alternate media-e text, assistive technology, video captioning,
American sign language interpreter services, note taking services, reader/writer
services, lecture recording (with instructor permission), providing special
chair/desk requirements in the classroom, and proctoring test accommodations for
qualified students requiring alternate test formats, such as Braille, extended time
requirements, and reading or writing assistance. As the following table indicates,
over the past few years DPS has provided service to a larger number of students and
has increased the amount of contact with the students served by the program.22
Table 12. DPS Program: Number of Students Served and Number of Contacts
Students Served
Number of Contacts
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
573
5,175
621
5,571
980
10,353
881
10,478
963
10,717
Supplemental Instruction (SI) has served 1,478 students from fall 2005 to summer
2007 in biology, chemistry, earth science, geology, math, physical science, and
physics courses at the institution. Research indicates that 17% of students have
utilized SI for two or more sections. The percent of students utilizing SI in the
sections where it is offered has consistently increased since fall 2005. As an
illustration, the percent of students using SI increased from 32% in fall 2005 to 50%
in summer 2007, an 18% increase. A study of success rates show that students who
utilized SI two or more times had a statistically significantly higher success rate
(77%) than students in the same section who did not utilize SI (50%).46
155
In examining feedback from the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey,10 it is clear that the
institution is successful in its goal to utilize delivery systems and modes of
instruction compatible with the objectives of the curriculum. Over 85% of survey
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that course and program quality is ensured
regardless of location or instructional delivery method; almost 95% agreed or
strongly agreed that the institution utilizes instructional delivery systems and
modes of instruction compatible with the objectives of the curriculum and
appropriate to the current and future needs of its students; and over 92% agreed or
strongly agreed that the institution uses delivery methods and teaching
methodologies that reflect the diverse needs and learning styles of students.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for II.A.1.b
II.A.1.c. The institution identifies student learning outcomes for courses,
programs, certificates, and degrees; assesses student achievement of those
outcomes; and uses assessment results to make improvements.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
In spring 2004, the Student Learning Outcome (SLO)5 Taskforce was formed to begin
preliminary, investigative dialogue about SLOs at the institution. The taskforce
started by exploring the models, definitions, and issues in relation to SLOs that were
already taking place on campus. The faculty SLO facilitators and the director of the
Office of Institutional Research (OIR) then drafted a plan to begin assessment at the
program level. Five pilot projects in Economics, Communication Studies, Business
and Office Management, English, and Chemistry were initiated to develop and
assess SLOs. Information gathered from the pilot project was used to expand the
development and assessment of SLOs to over 90 programs by the end of 2007.
In spring 2008, the SLO Taskforce began drafting the institutional-level SLOs while
continuing to expand the development and assessment of program-level SLOs. At
the beginning of the fall 2008 semester, two new SLO facilitators were selected from
the faculty; one also serves as the curriculum chair, which provided a unique
opportunity to integrate SLOs into course outlines of record. In addition, two more
faculty members and an OIR staff member also joined the newly formed Outcomes
and Assessment Committee. This newly formed committee spearheaded the
development of Chaffey’s institutional SLOs (Core Competencies),47 which, after
going through the shared governance process, were approved by the Governing
Board in January of 2009. The four Core Competencies are the following.
156
Communication. Students
comprehension skills.
will
demonstrate
effective
communication
and
Critical Thinking and Information Competency. Students will demonstrate critical
thinking skills in problem solving across the disciplines and in daily life.
Community/Global Awareness and Responsibility. Students will demonstrate
knowledge of significant social, cultural, environmental and aesthetic perspectives.
Personal Academic and Career Development. Students will assess their own
knowledge, skills and abilities; set personal, educational, and career goals; work
independently and in group settings; identify lifestyle choices that promote self
reliance, financial literacy and physical, mental and social health.
These Core Competencies play an important role in the institution’s self-assessment.
As charted in the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness,6 an
essential aspect of this self-assessment is the Program and Services Review (PSR)4
process, overseen by the PSR committee. Committee members are drawn from the
institution’s key constituencies: administrators, staff, and faculty. Each PSR selfstudy involves a discussion of SLOs5 and/or administrative unit outcomes
(AUOs),24 as well as linking program goals to Institutional Goals/Ends Policies.36 In
addition, more direct assessment of the Core Competencies began in spring 2009, led
by the SLO Committee and OIR.
Program faculty collegially identify the knowledge, skills, and abilities students
should take away from participation in that program. One common way this was
done was with a grid on the SLO chart that labels the program’s learning outcomes
with “I,” the student should have an introductory knowledge of this; “P,” the
student should be able to practice or be proficient in this; or “M,” the student should
have mastered this enough to be able to teach it to someone else. A sample is shown
below in Table 13.
Table 13. Section of the Program-Level SLO Chart for the Literature Program
Literature
(English Department)
Course:
Eng 1C
Intro. To
Literature
Course:
Eng 30
Intro. To
Short Story
Course:
Eng 32
Intro. To
Novel
Course:
Eng 33
Intro. To
Poetry
Course:
Eng 68
Mythology
I, P
I, P
I, P
I, P
M
Outcomes
2. Identify the characteristics of
literary works from diverse authors,
places, and times.
157
Programs thus crafted outcomes statements and benchmarks, followed by designing
methods of assessment to test these SLOs. The faculty were, and continue to be,
assisted by the SLO Committee and the OIR as needed. Programs then carried out
their assessments, summarized the results, and incorporated these results into future
planning, completing a cycle of the Wurtz Wheel48 an adaptation of the Institutional
Effectiveness Process (IEP).6 Essentially the Wurtz Wheel breaks down one of the
steps of the IEP into two parts, making the process a five-part procedure rather than
a four-part one. Programs compile their evidence regarding SLO activity at all
levels in a three-ring binder, a recognizable container for SLO evidence campuswide. The institution is in the process of moving to an online tracking system for
SLO activity and evidence via addenda to the Course Outlines of Record (CORs)49
on CurricUNET.23
During the spring 2009 semester, the first campus-wide assessment of the critical
thinking institutional-level outcome took place. Results from this assessment were
presented to faculty, staff, and administrators at a fall 2009 flex (professional
development) session.
In spring 2009, both the institutional-level and program-level SLOs are well
integrated into the process of learning outcomes assessment at the institution. The
institution also addressed the quality of the SLOs being assessed at the institution in
the spring 2009 semester by requiring all programs to provide assessment
information in their PSR self-study for 3 to 5 outcomes. After receiving training, the
Outcomes and Assessment Committee members evaluated and provided feedback
on over 600 AUOs and SLOs. The OIR developed an assessment tool allowing SLO
Committee members to evaluate each learning outcome and the programs received
a PDF attachment of that feedback. The feedback was very well received, and
programs were given the opportunity to seek support from the committee to
improve their learning outcomes.
Major curriculum modifications were also discussed in spring 2009. Specifically, the
committee began to explore using CurricUNET to produce syllabi that includes both
SLOs and course objectives. At the same time course-level SLOs were developed,
primarily targeted toward the general education pattern of courses.
Over the course of the last four years, training has been offered continuously
through flex50 (professional development activities), as well as through meetings
held with both student services and instructional departments. For instance, the fall
2009 flex training offered the following SLO training sessions: “SLOs:
Deconstructing Fact and Myth,”51 “A Method to the Madness: A Review of the
Chaffey College Assessment Cycle,”52 “I Got the Data, Now What: How to Close the
SLO Assessment Loop,”53 “Pre- and Post-Test: An Introduction to a Basic No
Nonsense Assessment Tool,”54 and “Debriefing the Critical Thinking Assessment.”55
158
Training and support materials are also available online from both the SLO56 and
OIR25 webpages. In addition, the OIR and the SLO facilitators regularly attend
department meetings to help with SLOs. Equally important, the SLO facilitators and
OIR staff regularly attend learning outcomes professional development workshops
throughout the state. A Learning Outcomes Handbook is in the first stages of
development. The handbook will include a narrative of the institution’s SLO
journey, a timeline of SLO activity, a glossary of terms, as well as copies of
PowerPoint presentations that have been offered to faculty since 2004, reviewing
issues such as SLO myths and best practices regarding assessments and other topics.
A newsletter, The S.L.O. Down,57 devoted to campus-wide learning outcomes issues,
has also been established and is electronically distributed, campus-wide on a
monthly basis.
Tracking of learning outcomes at the institution is currently occurring on two
systems, and both are continuously being revised to improve the tracking of SLOs.
First, as was mentioned previously, all of the program-level SLOs are currently
identified in PSR,4 which uses CurricUNET. CurricUNET was recently revised by
the SLO Committee to connect the Institutional Effectiveness Process (IEP), via the
Wurtz Wheel adaptation of it, to PSR, planning, and allocation of resources. Equally
important, the Wurtz Wheel itself, initially created as a teaching tool is also being
used to track course-level learning outcomes by the new website. The Wurtz Wheel
online form uses Cardiff Verity Teleform and Microsoft Access software, which
allows the user to complete the form online. When completed, it provides a visual
representation of the components of the learning outcomes process.
The
information is stored in a database available on the shared drive where users can
update their information as it becomes available, including a summary of evidence
and use of results. Each time an update is submitted, the writer receives a PDF
copy.
Currently, there is widespread dialogue about the SLO assessment process, as well
as widespread use. Numerous programs have completed the “Use of Results” step
in the assessment process and are using the assessment process to make
improvements. Comprehensive assessment reports exist on the Chaffey College
Institutional Research website25 and programs and departments are collaboratively
engaging in dialogue around making informed decisions to improve student
learning.
Course level SLOs assessment is currently at the WASC rubric developmental level.
Faculty collegially identify the knowledge skills and abilities most important for a
student to take away from participating in a particular class. These course level
SLOs are aligned with the program SLOs and the institutional Core Competencies.47
Curriculum maps are used to track course activity to program level and institutional
level Core Competencies.
159
Materials to aid faculty and staff with the institution’s SLO process can be found in
several locations. Program and course-level SLOs are being attached to the Course
Outlines of Record (CORs)49 in CurricUNET. In addition, there are links to SLO
material, including assessment rubrics, instruments, and briefs, on the OIR website.
Links are also provided on the OIR website to the CCC Network Student Learning
Outcomes website.58
SELF-EVALUATION
SLO and AUO assessments are occurring at the program level, institutional level,
and course level. As was mentioned in the description section, the institution
decided to begin the development of assessing learning outcomes at the program
level and then move down to the course level and up to the institutional level. This
has helped to encourage dialog within individual departments and to connect the
development of learning outcomes on a global level through the Institutional
Effectiveness Process (IEP)6 in program review and resource allocation. This is
evident in that 92% of the respondents to the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey10 agreed
or strongly agreed that the institution maintains an ongoing, collegial, self-reflective
Equally important, the process of evaluating each learning outcome submitted by
each program as part of their program review also demonstrates how the institution
has met this standard. One hundred and twenty-three programs participated in this
process and had their learning outcomes reviewed by the Student Learning
Outcomes Committee. The purpose of the review was to first, help to motivate the
institution to engage in the learning outcomes process, and next to help educate the
institution about the learning outcomes process. This is demonstrated in one of the
comments written by a reviewer of one of the programs below. It is apparent in the
comments that the institution’s goals of motivation, education, and engaging in
learning outcomes assessment to “…build a process for ongoing reflection and
improvement” are emphasized in the feedback provided to staff and faculty.
Overall, excellent first effort! For the most part, you have clear outcome
statements and you have been thoughtful about your means of assessment.
Since you have not actually assessed anything yet, you do not need to
complete the summary of evidence and the use of results for planning
sections. We thought it would be helpful to walk you through the AUOs and
provide some specific feedback. Here we go!
Goal # 1, AUO # 1—Clear outcome statement and you are clear about how
you will assess (merge what you have for means of assessment and summary
of evidence under means of assessment). The only thing missing is
160
establishing a benchmark for determining whether or not you are successful.
In your line of work, that benchmark sometimes is “all” or 100%. So, in this
case, the question would be: Is your goal to have 100% of fixed assets in
Datatel? Or, is it 80%?
Goal # 1, AUO # 2—Same as above. Is “all” truly the benchmark? And, in this
one, you have two methods of assessment listed.
Goal # 1, AUO # 3—Clear outcome statement. Your means of assessment
would be more like: “Run reports of outstanding, back-ordered, and
accepted purchase orders to determine the number of vendors who were paid
on time. By the end of the year, no more than ___% will have been paid late.”
Then, after you run the reports at year’s end, you’ll have the actual numbers
to report in summary of evidence and discuss efforts to address the results in
use of results for planning.
Goal # 1, AUO # 4—On this one, your outcome is really stated under means of
assessment. The outcome statement is: “Students are disbursed their
financial aid within the appropriate time frame. Excess funds are returned
timely.” Your assessment statement is listed under summary of evidence
section—it just needs to be moved over. You also need to establish your
benchmark (90% of students will receive their payments).
The Outcomes and Assessment Committee also completed the evaluation of 355
SLOs59 from 80 programs, and 321 AUOs60 from 52 programs. In total, SLOs and/or
AUOs were evaluated for 113 of the institution’s 123 programs (92%) by the
Outcomes and Assessment Committee in March of 2009, demonstrating the link
between learning outcomes and program review.
Examining the results of the evaluations show that the assessments are being used
for improvement and further alignment of institution-wide practices; for example,
95% of the AUOs and 89% of the SLOs are linked to the Core Competencies47 and/or
Institutional Goals/Ends Policies.36
The results of the evaluations also show that dialogue about student learning is
ongoing and pervasive:
•
•
•
dialogue centering around the results of the assessment of a learning outcome
dialogue that has generated strategies for using the results to improve planning
centering around the results of the assessment of a learning outcome
161
•
that has generated strategies for using the results to improve learning
Learning assessment is occurring at several levels; the dialogue about learning
outcomes is widespread. For instance, an assessment schedule has been established
for Core Competencies for the next five years. Every spring, a different Core
Competency will be assessed campus wide. The first campus-wide assessment, for
the Critical Thinking (CT) Core Competency occurred during the spring 2009
semester. Twenty-two faculty administered the critical thinking assessment to 1,609
students in 44 courses and 87 sections. Reflective dialogue occurred during the Fall
2009 Flex where faculty discussed what CT looks like in their class, and how to
improve student learning in this area. The discussion centered on the challenge of
identifying a clear definition of CT and how CT was not clearly captured across
disciplines because CT is reflected differently in each program of study.
Each program has been asked to identify program-level SLOs using the guidelines
provided by the Faculty Senate SLO task force. Program faculty collegially identify
the knowledge, skills and abilities students should take away from participation in
each program. Outcomes statements are then crafted and documented through the
PSR process. For each program SLO/AUO, corresponding means of assessment and
criteria are also documented. As program-level SLOs/AUOs are assessed, evidence
is collected and programs use findings to engage in collegial dialogue about
program improvement. Assessment cycles are documented through the PSR
process4 and through the Wurtz Wheel48; both processes are based upon the Nichols
Model.61
In 2009, faculty were asked to come up with course-level SLOs, which are or will be
listed in the Course Outlines of Record (COR).49 Again, faculty were collegially
identifying the knowledge, skills, and abilities most important for a student to take
away from participating in a particular class. Course-level SLOs are aligned with
the program SLOs and the institutional Core Competencies. Curriculum maps are
used to track course activity to program-level SLOs/AUOs and institutional-level
Core Competencies.
SLO/AUO resources are housed on the Student Learning Outcomes and OIR web
sites. Information to assist the institution community in developing SLOs and AUOs
is available at these web sites, as well as examples of SLO and AUO assessment
rubrics, instruments, and briefs. Links are also provided to the CCC Network for
the Student Learning Outcomes Assessment website, as well as cross-references to
each office’s website. The OIR has also created an SLO Diagram (titled the Wurtz
Wheel by constituents) that is modeled after and intended to provide a visual
representation of the Institutional Effectiveness Process. The Wurtz wheel is
available online and when completed provides a visual representation of the
162
components of the learning outcomes process. The information is stored in a
database that is available on the institution’s shared drive where users can update
their information as it becomes available, including the summary of evidence and
use of results. The SLO website houses a number of additional resources, including
“help materials” to assist faculty with creating SLOs. At this web site, faculty and
staff can view the institution’s standards and see course and program SLO
examples.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific Plan for II.A.1.c
II.A.2. The institution assures the quality and improvement of all instructional
courses and programs offered in the name of the institution, including collegiate,
developmental, and pre-collegiate courses and programs, continuing and
community education, study abroad, short-term training courses and programs,
programs for international students, and contract or other special programs
regardless of type of credit awarded, delivery mode, or location.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
As stated in the Institutional Mission1 the institution is committed to providing
educational opportunities that improve the lives of the diverse students it serves
through equal access to quality, learning-centered occupational, transfer, general
education, and foundation programs. The institution offers collegiate,
developmental, and pre-collegiate courses and programs as well as continuing and
community education, study abroad, short-term training, and contract education.
Except for continuing education and contract education, faculty utilize the same
course outlines of record, course objectives, student learning outcomes, and course
expectations regardless of the method of instruction and type of credit awarded.
All curricula are reviewed on a six-year cycle by faculty within the discipline.
Modifications to Course Outlines of Record (CORs)49 are submitted for a rigorous
review by the Curriculum Committee, which is comprised of faculty, staff and
administrators. This review process also solicits input from peers within the
program, librarians for support materials, and the appropriate school dean.
Integration of Core Competencies47 (institutional level SLOs) is also included with
each course modification so that the appropriate emphasis and rigor are included for
each COR. As an example of this, beginning in fall 2008 an added emphasis was
placed institutionally in all CORs for critical thinking. As an example, all CORs must
now include a sample assignment demonstrating critical thinking. This has led to
very rich discussion among faculty regarding pedagogy, rigor, Bloom’s Taxonomy,
163
and different ways of framing current practices. Other sample assignments must be
from the areas of reading and writing, with a fourth, “miscellaneous” category
available. Other elements of the CORs, which are evidence of quality curriculum,
include an appropriate description of the course, course objectives (which have been
shown to differ from course outcomes), sample teaching methodologies, and sample
instructional methodologies. Units and contact hours are identified, as well as any
prerequisites, co-requisites or course advisories. A detailed list of course content is
included. As previously stated, the curriculum office is in the process of including
an addendum for each Course Outline of Record, which will include the program
and course-level SLOs.5 Progress through the SLO process is currently tracked using
the Wurtz Wheel,48 an in-house tracking device for programs and courses to track
their progress through the Nichols Model,61 which includes:
•
•
•
•
•
creating an outcome statement that measures knowledge, skills or abilities;
creating a means of assessment to measure the acquisition of knowledge, skill or
abilities;
establishing a criteria for success, otherwise referred to as a benchmark;
collecting and reviewing the summary of evidence or data from the assessment
tool;
using these results to increase student learning and continuous improvement.
PLANNING AGENDA
II.A.2.a. The institution uses established procedures to design, identify learning
outcomes for, approve, administer, deliver, and evaluate courses and programs.
The institution recognizes the central role of faculty for establishing quality and
improving instructional courses and programs.
The recently adopted Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness6
describes how institutional goals drive program goals. In order to achieve
programmatic goals, specific activities are designed, expressed as outcome
statements. Reflecting the nature of each individual program, outcome statements
are reported as either Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)5 or Administrative Unit
Outcomes (AUOs).24 Outcomes statements represent the first step at the heart of the
framework, the Institutional Effectiveness Process (IEP).6 Through the new Strategic
Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness, specifically the IEP, inherent in
all institutional functions is the expectation that a means of assessment, criteria,
summary of evidence, and use of results for planning will be identified and
addressed. The institution’s revised PSR4 process, administrative unit and student
learning outcomes assessment cycles, instructional program reports, and governing
board monitoring reports embrace this model and provide the vehicles through
164
which assessment, evidence, and continuous improvement of programs and courses
are demonstrated and reported.
To facilitate understanding and use of the Strategic Planning Framework for
Institutional Effectiveness, specifically the IEP, the SLO co-facilitators have provided
many training sessions, workshops and Flex activities, as well as one-on-one
discussions and tutorials, regarding the design, identification, administration,
delivery and evaluation of learning outcomes. A calendar of this activity has been
established using Google docs. Through the shared governance process, the
Outcomes and Assessment Committee, the Curriculum Committee, the PSR
committee, the Datatel steering Committee and the Faculty Senate support and
promote the development of program and course-level SLOs and AUOs. Facilitated
through training provided by the SLO co-facilitators, program and course-level
SLOs and AUOs are linked to Core Competencies47, including institutional learning
outcomes in both the Program and Services Review (PSR) process and through the
curriculum approval process.
PLANNING AGENDA
II.A.2.b. The institution relies on faculty expertise and the assistance of advisory
committees when appropriate to identify competency levels and measurable
student learning outcomes for courses, certificates, programs including general
and vocational education, and degrees. The institution regularly assesses student
progress towards achieving those outcomes.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
All instructional program changes are scrutinized by the curriculum committee. The
committee consists of faculty from a variety of disciplines along with administrators
and staff who work in supporting disciplines and areas such as scheduling and
counseling. Because of the diverse set of experience represented on the committee,
changes to programs are viewed from many different perspectives. They are
evaluated based on the offerings of classes (access), transfer issues, and the
alignment to the Institutional Mission.1
Credit/non-credit courses and programs at the institution, regardless of delivery
mode or location, are designed, approved, and evaluated in accordance with Title 5
guidelines, Chancellor’s Office standards, and the Curriculum Committee
Handbook. Curriculum is faculty-driven from inception to completion. Curriculum
is reviewed at least every six years and new course proposals undergo a systematic
and thorough approval process through the CurricUNET23 system. All courses and
165
programs are initiated by faculty based on student, community, and occupational
needs and demands. Before new programs are submitted to the Curriculum
Committee, a labor market analysis for the program is conducted by the Office of
Institutional Research (OIR) and eventually sent to the Chancellor’s Office as part of
the application process. By design, the curriculum process encourages faculty in the
discipline to review proposed courses and programs. Using established procedures,
the coordinator, a faculty member, and the dean of the school are required to review
all proposed courses and programs submitted to the Curriculum Committee
through CurricUNET. Finally, to ensure a thorough approval process, representative
faculty members from each school in the institution, the catalog scheduler,
articulation officer, two academic deans as well as representatives from the Library,
and Instructional Support serve as members of the curriculum committee and are
reviewers in the curriculum process.
At this time, fee-based, community education, courses are not approved through the
regular curriculum process; however, a customized training curriculum is
developed in collaboration with business, industry experts, and faculty. Focus
groups with management and supervisors as well as front-line employees are held
as part of the analysis of company operations and needs assessment. Training
effectiveness and efficiency are evaluated by employers and employees at the
completion of each training session using evaluation tools rating the trainer, content,
effectiveness and practicality of the training. Employees are also monitored to
insure classroom instruction is transferred to the daily operations and tasks of the
employee. Curriculum is modified as indicated through the results of the evaluative
process. Industry Councils, including governmental agencies (workforce
investment boards, city economic development managers, utility companies)
involved in economic and workforce development are in place and meet bi-monthly
to update curriculum and determine future workforce development needs. In
addition, monthly Economic Development Meetings, including members from
faculty, administration, staff and management are convened to review training
offerings ensuring that training is meeting the need of business/industry and not
negatively impacting credit course offerings. Commencing in fall 2009, the vice
president and chief administrative officer of the Chino Campus whose
responsibilities include the Department of Economic Development, will submit a list
of classes offered through Community Education and Professional Development to
the Governing Board on a semi-annual basis.
Faculty also playing a key role in identifying the need for prerequisites when
students consistently lack the skill for the class in question as identified in the
Course Outline of Record (COR).49 If the suggested prerequisite course is within the
discipline and follows a linear progression of learning, discipline faculty engage in a
content review process and objectives from the prerequisite course are matched to
the target course to show how the prerequisite course teaches the skills needed for
166
the target course. If the prerequisite course is interdisciplinary or is a
communication or computational skills course, the department enlists the assistance
of the OIR. In addition to the content review conduct by faculty, the OIR analyzes
data to determine whether a student who has not met the proposed prerequisite (or
co-requisite) is highly unlikely to succeed in the target course. The OIR has
developed a five-step process that includes an examination of disproportionate
impact and differential prediction to ensure that the proposed prerequisite does not
adversely affect student groups by gender, age, ethnicity, or disability. Prerequisites
are closely monitored within the Curriculum Committee when new and modified
courses are processed.
The Curriculum Committee also scrutinizes all courses that come through for correct
discipline placement. If there is a discrepancy or argument about where a course
should be placed, the two disciplines are invited to meet with the Discipline
Placement Subcommittee of the Curriculum Committee to resolve the issue. The
subcommittee then reports its recommendation back to the Curriculum Committee.
Quality of the institution’s instructional programs is also linked to established
procedures for faculty evaluations. Each faculty member is evaluated by his/her
peers and dean every three years using an evaluation checklist that addresses
teacher/student interaction, class preparation, feedback and integrity. Student
evaluations of faculty are important in the evaluation process. Non-tenured full
time faculty are evaluated every semester and adjunct faculty are evaluated every
year and a half. Strengths and weaknesses are discussed in evaluation meetings to
assist with improvement as necessary.
Developing and maintaining quality instructional programs is integral to ensuring
student success at the institution. Faculty from each school develop the instructional
programs by assessing the current curriculum, writing new courses, modifying
existing courses, and deleting or inactivating courses that are either no longer viable
or in need of extensive updating. In 2006 the institution implemented the use of
CurricUNET,23 an internet-based software application designed to automate and
enhance the development and approval of curriculum by employing an electronic,
automated workflow process. The curriculum management capability of this
system facilitates more accurate and expedient data entry, processing, review and
approval by:
•
•
•
•
Providing a level of uniformity and quality to all proposed classes; regardless of
location.
Allowing peer oversight from the initiating department/school and the
curriculum committee;
Monitoring the progress of proposals;
Assuring that external compliance requirements are accounted for;
167
•
•
•
Accounting for changes in demographics according to observed enrollment
patterns
Designating courses that satisfy transfer, vocational and general education needs;
and
Assuring appropriateness to the Institutional Mission.1
CurricUNET also serves as the warehouse and source for active, historical and
proposed course curriculum and program information. It contains the current and
correct Course Outlines of Record (COR),49 which faculty can easily access online to
aid in developing their syllabi and course materials.
All courses and programs submitted to the Curriculum Committee are required to
meet the criteria and standards set by the Chancellor’s Office. Before curriculum
reaches the committee, the coordinator, dean, and discipline faculty have engaged in
dialog to determine the appropriateness of the new course/program. Courses and
programs are reviewed thoroughly by the Technical Review Subcommittee of the
Curriculum Committee which conducts an initial review, makes comments and/or
suggestions, and returns the proposals to the originating faculty member for
appropriate action. After the Curriculum Office receives the proposal, it must be
approved by at least 12 members of the Curriculum Committee before being
submitted to the Governing Board for approval. Once the Governing Board has
approved courses and programs, they are submitted to the Chancellor’s Office for
final approval. Reports to the Governing Board are scheduled for the year and
follow the Strategic Planning framework for Institutional Effectiveness.6
Courses are evaluated through the curriculum lens in a variety of ways. The
Curriculum Committee and discipline representatives assess each course proposal
for critical thinking throughout the course, clarity of the course description,
appropriate rigor of objectives, effective and appropriate methods of instruction and
assessment, current textbooks and materials, comparable courses, concrete and
concise out-of-class assignments, and appropriate course content. If any of these
areas fail to meet standards, the originator and their curriculum representative
discuss options for revision to meet the standards. The SLO co-facilitators (one who
is also the Curriculum Chair) have developed a CurricUNET component to assist
faculty in the development of course level outcomes as they relate to program and
institutional outcomes. This model has already been used by at least ten
departments, and they are using it for the implementation of course SLOs. More
departments will begin implementing the same tool in the fall of 2009.
The Outcomes and Assessment Committee established a priority of identifying
learning outcomes for all general education courses beginning during the fall 2009
semester. Each program has been instructed to create an assessment schedule of
168
when they plan on assessing the general education courses within their program
over the next 3-5 years.
As a result of the incorporation of student learning outcomes in the 2002
accreditation standards, the institution began a college-wide discussion of Student
Learning Outcomes (SLOs). Many of the institution’s vocational programs such as
Nursing had already begun implementation of SLOs in response to industry and/or
regulatory feedback. In the 2005-2006 academic year, two faculty facilitators were
identified and given FOSA's (faculty on special assignment) to begin shepherding
the SLO dialogue. These two faculty members spearheaded a Student Learning
Outcomes Task Force, which was lead by faculty and included representatives from
both the classified and management units as well as appropriate school
representation. It was important to the institution that the SLO process not be
prescriptive, but instead be indicative of ongoing reflection about quality instruction
and effective pedagogy. Consequently, the institution made the decision to begin
the SLO dialogue at the programmatic level and gave faculty the latitude to define
their respective programs.
In 2005, five SLO pilot projects were developed, which were demonstrated and
shared with the campus community at large. The departments participating in this
initial pilot were: English, Business and Office Technologies, Communication
Studies, Economics, and Chemistry. The initial SLOs created from this pilot can be
found at the institution’s website.62 As a result of this pilot project, a comprehensive
array of workshops were conducted by the faculty facilitators with the assistance of
representatives from the OIR and various departments throughout the following
two years, with schools working together to develop outcomes and assessments of
program-level SLOs.5 During these workshops, faculty collaborated on the
definition of “program”, developed a “long list” of learning outcomes that
represented values, developed a “short list” of outcomes that reflected common
program objectives, identified a means and timelines of assessment, gathered data
from such assessment, and responded to collected data to promote program
improvement. Rubrics, templates, and informational handouts were also
disseminated to faculty and coordinators creating SLOs. Consequently, each
department has created SLOs for their programs.
From 2005-2007, over 60 instructional programs identified program level outcomes,
and some began the assessment process. In 2008, the institution incorporated
student learning outcomes as an optional item in the Program and Services Review
(PSR)4 process. During this period, the institutional community continued the
dialogue about outcomes based education, and these activities were supported by
flex workshops and conference attendance.
169
The next step was for respective programs to connect their courses to their
programmatic SLOs. One member of the original SLO Task Force used SLOs from
the psychology department to develop a rubric that connected the courses within a
discipline. During the 2007 – 2008 academic year, the dean of instructional support
worked with the SLO Taskforce to meet with all school representatives to discuss
the rubric. Faculty accepted the challenge to use the rubric to demonstrate how
their courses connected with their program level SLOs5. These rubrics were due
during flex week in August 2008 and have also been incorporated as a requirement
in Program and Services Review (PSR). Many departments have begun assessing
and reassessing specific outcomes. The OIR has assisted departments in creating
appropriate assessment tools and has designated one full-time researcher to the SLO
initiative. To facilitate discussion and provide concrete examples, the OIR has
dedicated a section of its website to SLO63/AUO64 resources. Rubrics, assessment
tools, SLO65/AUO66 research briefs, and links to other helpful SLO/AUO resources
are posted on a routine basis.
In 2008-2009, the two faculty SLO facilitators began having dialog with the
Curriculum Committee and Faculty Senate with regard to institutional level SLOs or
Core Competencies.47 The Core Competencies were routed through the shared
governance process, that creating much dialogue and connecting the Core
Competencies to the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness.6
Core Competencies were approved by the board January 22, 2009 and are now
integrated into the Institutional Goals/Ends Policies36 that govern the institution.
Core Competencies were first published in the Fall 2009 Schedule of Classes67 and
will be in the College Catalog 2009-2010.68 In addition, during fall 2009 flex a
number of workshops were offered via the faculty success center with respect to
development and assessment of integration of Core Competencies with course and
program level SLOs.
Communication
Students will
demonstrate effective
communication and
CORE COMPETENCIES
Critical Thinking &
Community/Global
Information
Awareness &
Competency
Responsibility
Students will
Students will
demonstrate critical
demonstrate knowledge
thinking skills in
of significant social,
problem solving
cultural, environmental,
across the disciplines
and aesthetic
and in daily life.
perspectives.
170
Personal, Academic &
Career Development
Students will assess
their own knowledge,
skills and abilities; set
personal, educational,
and career goals; work
independently and in
group settings; identify
lifestyle choices that
promote self-reliance,
financial literacy and
physical, mental and
social health.
In the fall of 2008, the institution devoted additional resources to the SLO
development process assigning two new SLO facilitators and the equivalent of 1 FTE
(100%).
Additionally, a research analyst was assigned to assist with the
development of assessment tools and plans. The primary goals were to finalize the
Core Competencies, assist in the full integration of SLOs into Program and Services
Review (PSR), and continue to work with departments to develop course level SLOs
that are in line with program and institutional SLOs.
In addition to faculty leadership in the SLO process, the institution also relies on
advisory committees to identify competency levels and measurable student learning
outcomes in vocational education programs. Advisory committees are critical in
cultivating industry ownership of programs. Industry input allows for course work
consistent with the needs of businesses. Vocational education programs such as
Automotive Technology, Health Sciences, and Photography are required under
Title V17 to appoint vocational education advisory committees to develop
recommendations on the program and provide a liaison between the institution and
potential employers. These committees work with faculty and administrators in
determining community/regional need for programs; curriculum/course
advisement; student placement (job opportunities, internships); public
relations/student recruitment; equipment/facilities (additions/modifications);
staffing (recommendations); as well as program evaluation. All vocational
programs work closely with advisory committees, meeting at least once a year to
review course pathways, content and expected learning outcomes. Some advisory
committees meet as often as three times a year.13 Competencies for occupational
education programs are determined by a number of avenues, including licensing
and certification examinations for programs such as Aeronautics and Nursing, and
core indicators for Perkins-funded programs.13
SELF-EVALUATION
As is evident from the self-study, the institution has worked to integrate SLOs and
AUOs into all facets of operations. Since the institution began that effort at the
programmatic level, that particular aspect is more developed, as evidenced by the
peer review processes incorporated into the Program and Services Review (PSR)4
process.
The next step was the development of the institution’s Core Competencies,47 which
have been adopted by the governing board and incorporated into both Program and
Services Review (PSR) and the curriculum processes.
The Outcomes and
Assessment Committee, working in conjunction with the Curriculum Committee,
selects one core competency annually and develops campus-wide assessment
instruments and plans to effective measure whether or not students are meeting
171
these core competencies. During the 2008-2009 academic year, critical thinking was
the identified competency that was measured.
The final step has been the extensive efforts of the SLO facilitators to work with
programs to develop course-level SLOs and meet with various department faculty to
create an understanding of the development of course-level SLOs. They also
facilitated development of assessments that work to measure all three levels —
course, programmatic, and institutional (Core Competencies) – as appropriate.
Additionally, they taught departments how to document their efforts, and worked
with the CurricUNET23 programmers to enable the curriculum software to “house”
course-level SLOs on official college documents such as course outlines of record.
The institution assesses student progress toward achieving competency levels on a
regular basis.
Student achievement is documented through grades, course
completion rates, certificates and degrees obtained and transfer rates. All of these
measures are readily accessible to all employees through the Online Analytical
Processing (OLAP)22 cubes on the Office of Institutional Research (OIR) website.25
As needed or requested, additional program-specific studies are generated by the
OIR. To date, over 400 research reports, briefs, and presentations are posted to the
OIR website. As a web-based repository, reports, briefs, and presentations are
readily accessible to the institution’s employees and community members. In
addition to previously cited performance outcomes, additional statistics include:
•
•
In 2008-2009, the institution awarded approximately 2,311 degrees and
certificates to students, the highest of awards in the institution’s history.69
Approximately 41.6% of 2007-08 degree earners successfully completed at least
one pre-collegiate skills course prior to earning a degree. Among certificate
earners, the percentage is 31.1%. In total, among all 2007-08 award earners,
38.3% successfully completed one or more pre-collegiate skills courses prior to
receiving an award. This is proof that the institution is upholding its promise to
foundation skills students and providing meaningful pathways to success.
Examining Accountability Reporting for the Community Colleges (ARCC)28
indicators provide the following results:
•
•
Indicator 2 (Percent of Students Who Earn at Least 30 Units), the institution has
demonstrated consistent improvement (65.3% among the 2000-01 cohort; 66.9%
among the 2001-02 cohort; 68.1% among the 2002-03 cohort) the past three years.
Indicator 3 (Fall-to-Fall Persistence Rate), an examination of the most recent
available data indicates that the institution experienced a significant
improvement (65.3%, Fall 2004-to-Fall 2005; 65.0%, Fall 2005-to-Fall 2006; 67.5%,
Fall 2006-to-Fall 2007).
172
•
•
•
•
Indicator 5 (Annual Successful Course Completion Rate for Basic Skills), the
institution has experienced steady improvement over the past three years (58.7%
in 2005-06; 60.2% in 2006-07; 61.0% in 2007-08).
Indicator 6 (ESL Improvement Rate) and 7 (Basic Skills Improvement Rate), the
institution experienced its highest improvement rates ever in both these areas.
Examining National Student Clearinghouse data, through August 2008 showed
that 55,226 students who successfully completed at least one course at the
institution subsequently transferred to a public or private four-year institution.
The institution’s performance on the six Perkins Core Indicators (skill attainment,
completions, employment placement, employment retention, non-traditional
completion, and non-traditional participation) provide evidence that the
institution exceeds (core indicators 1P1 through 4P1) or is within the 90%
threshold (core indicators 5P1 and 5P2) mandated by the California Community
College Chancellor’s Office.
The institution’s curriculum process is organized, well established, and clearly
defined. Curriculum committee members are trained annually relative to their
duties and responsibilities in the curriculum process. Each member of the
committee is also given a handbook containing the guidelines for each aspect of
courses and programs. Additionally, faculty who need help in developing,
updating, or modifying curriculum meet with the faculty Curriculum Chair.
Often entire programs or course sequences are modified in response to changes in
student needs, analysis of success and retention data, market analyses, and changes
to the discipline. In the 1999-2000 academic year, the Math, English, and Reading
departments decided to change their entire curriculum in order to better align their
courses and incorporate foundation-level skills courses in a seamless curriculum.
The ESL department developed a new non-credit course sequence and entirely
rewrote their credit-based program going from more than 25 courses in the sequence
down to 16 to better meet the needs of ESL students at the institution.
In order to assess the progress of SLOs across campus, the Outcomes and
Assessment Committee houses all of the identified SLOs5 for each department on the
institution’s shared drive.70 In addition, the Office of Institutional Research (OIR)
created an online form based on the Institutional Effectiveness Process for programs
to use in documenting the SLO/AUO assessment cycle. The model incorporates
each step in the planning process as it relates to learning outcomes.
In order for each program to assess SLOs on a frequent basis, Program Review has
incorporated SLOs in the yearly self-study. Each program identifies and updates
SLOs and evaluates their assessment data. Programs are required to connect goals,
plans, and requests to their SLOs during the Program Review (PSR)4 process.
173
Through the PSR process and the feedback provided to programs by the SLO
Committee, 359 program-level SLOs and 322 program-level AUOs have been
created by programs/units and are documented in PSR. Through the Outcomes and
Assessment Committee sub-committee structure, assistance is provided to programs
in reviewing SLOs/AUOs and designing, implementing, and analyzing
corresponding means of assessment and criteria. Faculty evaluate the evidence
generated from assessment and use the information for curricular modifications and
planning.
The institution will continue to develop, analyze, assess, evaluate, and summarize
Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) and use those results for future planning. The
institution will include learning outcomes and objectives in course outlines of record
as well as in course syllabi.
As part of the six year review cycle of curriculum, programs of study are also
reviewed for relevancy. Market trends, employment data, transfer data, student
interest, and the demands for 21st century employment skills drive discussion and
decision regarding the relevancy and appropriateness of the institution’s inventory
of programs of study. For example, the annual Program and Services Review (PSR)4
contributes input regarding the feasibility and relevancy of programs of study.
The institution maintains an ongoing, collegial, self-reflective dialogue about the
continuous improvement of learning and institutional processes. This is borne out
directly in findings from the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey;10 over 92% of survey
respondents agreed or strongly agreed with this statement.
PLANNING AGENDA
The institution will continue the process of SLO/AUO development to become
integrated throughout the institution. Standardization and quality control will be
sought for the progress through Program and Services Review (PSR).4 Materials and
faculty guides have been prepared to take the process forward under the leadership
of the SLO facilitators and the SLO researcher. The institution will ensure that all
three levels of outcomes work together to improve student learning.
II.A.2.c. High-quality instruction and appropriate breadth, depth, rigor,
sequencing, time to completion, and synthesis of learning characterize all
programs.
174
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution is committed to ensuring diverse offerings of courses that facilitate
matriculation and program completion and helping students acquire Core
Competencies.47
Faculty, in consultation with the Curriculum Committee, regularly address the
breadth, depth and rigor of individual courses and programs. Discipline faculty in
each program of study review degree/certificate required and recommended
courses to ensure appropriate breadth, depth and rigor. In addition, some programs
have additional accrediting bodies that set standards, evaluate, and ensure that
integration and synthesis of learning is achieved. Course sequencing is initiated by
faculty in consultation with academic deans and approved by the Curriculum
Committee.
Appropriate sequencing is addressed through the process of creating a course
schedule. Coordinators and deans first have dialogue concerning student needs
with regard to appropriate numbers of sections of foundation, occupational, general
education, and transfer courses with emphasis on appropriate sequencing of courses
to ensure that students can matriculate through the institution within appropriate
time to completion. Faculty members have considerable influence in the offering of
courses. For example, during the shorter summer sessions, certain disciplines have
chosen not to offer specific courses or programs due to concerns that the shorter
timeframe would not be pedagogically effective or responsible.
While faculty and coordinators make preliminary determination of the schedule
with sensitivity to breadth and depth, the vice president of instruction and the deans
work to ensure that resources are budgeted appropriately at all three campuses.
This process ensures that full-time faculty are given appropriate teaching loads and
that budgets for part-time faculty are allocated in accordance with the needed
schedule. Sometimes, this means transferring resources from one school to another
to ensure that student demand for courses is accommodated. Breadth is assured
through the graduation requirements as identified in the College Catalog 20082009.11
Representatives in the Counseling Department, the Transfer Center, Disability
Programs and Services (DPS) and Extended Opportunity Programs and Services
(EOPS) assist students with course sequencing through detailed educational plans.
Through the transfer center, the institution effectively works with public and private
universities across the nation in establishing transfer opportunities and to ensure
that course offerings at the institution are transferable and current.
175
The Professional Development Committee and Faculty Success Center work
together to provide faculty with opportunities to ensure high quality instruction and
enhance the breadth and depth of their understanding of their discipline as well as a
wide variety of teaching pedagogies. During the past six years, a large number of
Flex workshops and other informational presentations have been devoted to quality
of instruction and alternate learning strategies.
During the 2006-07 academic year, the institution received approximately $380,000
as a first installment of on-going basic skills funding from the system office. In order
to ensure that these funds directly supported student learning, a large representative
committee was established as the oversight body for initiatives funded through
these resources. After conducting a comprehensive self-evaluation, the Student
Success Initiative (SSI) Steering Committee determined that significant efforts
needed to be made so that faculty professional development was more clearly linked
with student learning. The findings of the self-evaluation were consistent with the
recommendations of the 2004 accrediting team. Consequently, the SSI Steering
Committee understood whatever efforts undertaken had to be directly linked to
student learning. The Faculty Success Center was established to coordinate these
efforts and assure appropriate learning linkages.
Beginning in 2008-09, the vice president of instruction prepared an annual
comprehensive Instructional Monitoring Report71 for the Governing Board which
details the institution’s progress towards Institutional Goals/Ends Policies36 8.1.1,
8.1.2, 8.1.4, 8.1.5. This annual monitoring report serves to document the high quality
instruction and learning which characterizes all programs and showcases the status
of instruction in the areas of student learning outcomes, student support, enrollment
management, partnership with student services, responsiveness to the community
and commitment to inclusion and respect for the shared governance process.
Combined, these measures ensure that the institution offers high quality lower
division course offerings with suitable breadth, depth, rigor, sequencing, time to
completion and synthesis congruent with the Institutional Mission.1
SELF-EVALUATION
Faculty, coordinators and deans regularly review information from the Office of
Institutional Research (OIR) regarding student course-taking needs and behaviors.
Every year, sufficient numbers of courses and sections are offered to meet student
certificate or degree goals. In addition, many academic programs participate in state
and national organizations which keep them current on curricular changes. The
vocational programs at the institution meet or exceed the accreditation requirements
of external entities.
Recommendations received from vocational advisory
committees are used to make programmatic improvements.
176
Examining Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey10 results, almost 97% of survey
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that degree and certificate programs are of
appropriate length, breadth, and depth. Additionally, almost 98% of survey
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that degree and certificate programs provide
students with a significant introduction to broad areas of knowledge.
Through regular department meetings, academic programs routinely revisit the
breadth, depth and rigor of their offerings and the Faculty Senate assigns the
Curriculum Committee the institutional lead to ensure that all courses demonstrate
breadth appropriate topic coverage, methods of instruction, infusion of critical
thinking and currency of educational materials. A strong productive partnership
between instruction and Student Services helps ensure high quality instruction,
successful matriculation, and transfer.
To support high quality instruction, the institution’s Faculty Success Center
sponsors a Summer Institute on Teaching and Learning. Each participant in the
Faculty Success Center Summer Institute is required to incorporate a new teaching
strategy into his/her classroom and conduct a research study to determine the
degree to which that strategy was effective. This study is then shared with the
membership of the Summer Institute and shared with the faculty at large through
the annual publication of the handbook entitled Developing a Community of
Practice: A Report of Innovations Inspired by the Chaffey College Faculty Success
Center.72
Prior to 2008-09, there was no formalized monitoring report from instruction to the
Governing Board. This new annual monitoring report contextualizes all of the
efforts occurring within instruction and expands the dialog between the Governing
Board and the academic community. As with all monitoring reports, the
instructional Monitoring Report71 adheres to the Institutional Effectiveness Process
(IEP).6 As such, the report identifies activities, a means of assessment and criteria to
identify the efficacy of stated activities, evidence regarding effectiveness of activities,
and plans on how to meaningfully use results for continuous improvement.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for II.A.2.c
II.A.2.d. The institution uses delivery modes and teaching methodologies that
reflect the diverse needs and learning styles of its students.
177
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution utilizes instructional delivery systems and modes of instruction
compatible with the objectives of the curriculum and appropriate to the current and
future needs of its students. Faculty are provided with many opportunities to
evaluate the effectiveness of delivery modes and their own methodologies on a
regular basis. The Office of Institutional Research (OIR) collects valuable evidence
that can be used by departments, deans, coordinators and faculty to appraise the
effectiveness of delivery modes. As discussed in II.A.2.c, the Faculty Success Center
provides in depth training to faculty on students’ learning modalities and shows
faculty how to incorporate effective methodologies in their classrooms.
Instructors utilize, and are encouraged by the institution to utilize, a wide variety of
traditional and alternative instructional methodologies such as: lecture, lab, class
discussion, individual and group projects, in- and out-of-class research assignments,
fieldwork, volunteer work, independent study, service learning, learning
communities, supplemental instruction, and hands-on learning, all of which address
differing learning styles. In addition, the institution’s Student Success Centers
provide extensive delivery modes for a variety of learning needs. In particular,
classroom faculty work closely with faculty in the success centers to develop
directed learning activities, study groups, and workshops centered on different
learning styles.
Reflecting diverse needs of students, the institution’s Counseling Department,
Disability Programs and Services (DPS) other student services provide vital links
between students’ needs and appropriate related delivery modes and instructional
methodologies. Counselors meet often with individual faculty members,
coordinators and deans to assess the appropriateness of courses for students
and devise educational plans for students that address their particular needs. The
DPS office makes information available to faculty for accommodating and meeting
the needs of students with learning disabilities.
Faculty also diagnose students’ learning styles by working closely with the Success
Centers. In particular, “True Color” workshops are presented both within the
classroom and within the Success Centers to help students identify and understand
their unique learning styles. Each term, the Multidisciplinary Success Center
provide more than thirty workshops on personality assessment and study skills, as
well as numerous small group or individual conferences based on referrals from the
Counseling Department.
Addressing the diverse needs of students, faculty can access information concerning
online pedagogy, methodologies and techniques at the Distance Education
website73. Participating faculty are required to complete an online training program
178
(Online to Excellence) prior to teaching an online course for the first time. The
institution offers several online certificates through Distance Education. During the
fall 2009 flex activities, a new “academy” format will be used for faculty
development. One academy will feature multiple workshops at varying levels for
faculty interested in or already teaching distance education.
An example of the institutional commitment to innovation and progressive
instructional programming is its unique collaboration with the California Institution
for Women in Chino, CA. The Extended Opportunities Programs and Services,
Disabled Programs and Services, Language Arts, and Distance Education programs
have worked closely with the Prison Warden at CIW since 2005 to enroll inmates
into courses and instructional programs and provide quality instruction via videotaped course instruction. At least 12 units are offered each semester for the students
who are pursuing an Associate of Arts in Communication Studies. Students take
approximately 2.5 years to matriculate to degree completion.
Another example of the institution’s commitment using delivery modes that reflect
diverse needs of students comes through progressive instructional programming
from the institution’s art museum. The Wignall Museum of Contemporary Art
provides faculty with a unique teaching laboratory providing visual resources to
further classroom and community discourse across disciplines. The professionallevel exhibitions, workshops, artist talks and special events held at the Wignall
showcase the pedagogical possibilities of museums within the institution teaching
environment. Furthermore, they highlight the benefits of teaching from material
culture and seamlessly integrating objects into text-based curriculum, providing
learning experiences that are attractive to students with a wide range of learning
styles.
SELF-EVALUATION
Evidence from the Office of Institutional Research (OIR) suggests that the diverse
needs of students are being met. As previously cited in II.A.1.b, research studies
consistently indicate the statistically significant effectiveness of the success centers
on all students, first-time college students, Hispanic students, African American
students, English limited proficient students, and female students.
On-going and extensive research is taking place at the institution to provide faculty
with the most current information on students with respect to delivery modes and
teaching methodologies. Two examples include research reports on the Puente
Program and Distance Education. The Puente Program research study examined
fall semester cohorts from 2002 through 2007 and tracked English course
performance. The Distance Education research study examined educational
background variables and their relationships to subsequent student success in
179
distance education courses. In both instances, faculty followed the IEP6 to use
evidence to inform future planning. The Puente Program was provided with
feedback about the efficacy of their current instructional practices and the Distance
Education Committee was able to engage in informed discussion and develop
specific recommendations and practices to promote student success in distance
education courses.
Evidence is also used on a routine basis to improve teaching methodologies. A
typical example is how the results from a spring 2008 faculty survey were used to
guide the focus of the Faculty Success Center. As the Faculty Success Center concept
evolved from the student success initiative, full-time and adjunct faculty were
surveyed to determine:
•
•
•
their perceived teaching methodology training needs;
the importance and value of incorporating various teaching methodologies into
instruction;
incentives that would increase likelihood of faculty participation in the Faculty
Success Center.
Reflecting on and engaging in significant dialogue regarding findings from the
survey, the institution used results to guide Faculty Success Center development,
training activities, and modes of delivery.
The information gleaned from various institutional research studies is used to help
faculty understand the effectiveness of their chosen delivery modes and
instructional methodologies. As mentioned previously in II.A.2.c. (p. 174), the FSC
and the sponsored Faculty Summer Institute provide professional development to
help faculty connect these delivery modes to student success. Within the last 12
months, over 80 full and part-time faculty have completed the Faculty Summer
Institute. By spring 2010, each of these individuals will have completed a classroom
teaching/learning research project that focuses on the effectiveness of a particular
delivery mode or teaching methodology. The first compendium has been published
and disseminated.
The success of delivery modes in the CIW program is generally evaluated through
overall GPAs and the number of degrees conferred. In March 2008, the program
celebrated its first commencement with 13 students receiving their Associate
degrees. Eleven of the 13 women graduated with honors. The second graduation is
scheduled for October 2009. The program is extensively and regularly evaluated by
CIW staff and administrators according to their own established policies and
evaluation methods. Deans and coordinators work to assure that faculty discipline
expertise is used for ensuring quality instruction. Contrary to initial faculty
concerns regarding this environment, faculty members have volunteered to
180
participate in the program and have consistently asked to continue teaching at CIW
because of the transformational nature of this unique teaching/learning experience.
For students in the CIW Program methodologies used specifically address the
learning styles of these students who are given extensive support from the broader
campus community. This support includes instructor visits three times throughout
the semester, counseling three times per term, DPS services, and two tutors per
course. In addition, the institution has also established a fully functional Success
Center with 30 computers that mirrors the campus-based Success Centers. The CIW
Success Center, like its counterparts on the institution’s other campuses, offers
academic and emotional support. The tutors on-site are highly experienced,
rigorously trained inmates who have earned college degrees or who have had
college experience before or while incarcerated. They have earned a Tutor 1
Certificate from the College Reading and Learning Association and several have
completed Level 2 certification. They create and prepare practice and study
materials, they offer study groups, one-on-one writing assistance; facilitate
collaborative learning experiences; and ultimately, they offer the inmate students
advocacy, encouragement and structure. Further, they serve as the primary
communication conduit between the students and faculty.
The concerted institutional effort to use delivery modes and teaching methodologies
that reflect the diverse needs and learning styles of students is reflected in feedback
obtained from the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey.10 Almost 95% of survey
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the institution utilizes instructional
delivery systems and modes of instruction compatible with the objectives of the
curriculum and appropriate to the current and future needs of students. Similarly,
92% of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the institution uses
delivery modes and teaching methodologies that reflect the diverse needs and
learning styles of students.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for II.A.2.d
II.A.2.e. The institution evaluates all courses and programs through an on-going
systematic review of their relevance, appropriateness, achievement of learning
outcomes, currency, and future needs and plans.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution has many different modalities by which it conducts ongoing
systematic review of courses and programs. Program faculty regularly review the
relevance, appropriateness, and currency of their courses. The Curriculum
181
Committee also reviews all courses and programs with respect to these topics on a 6year cycle. Examples of other modalities used by the institution include responding
to national, state and external licensing agencies, advisory committees, performance
studies performed by the Office of Institutional Research (OIR), employer surveys,
and articulation/matriculation/transfer requirements.
Additionally, the Program and Services Review (PSR)4 has been a review tool for all
of the institution’s programs and departments since the early 1990s. Since its
inception, the PSR process has been co-chaired by an administrator and a faculty
member. The institution has integrated research and evaluation into institutional
effectiveness planning and tied it to Program and Services Review to promote
improved student learning outcomes. Under the leadership of the previous
superintendent/president, the PSR process was computerized. Since that time
annual changes to the PSR process have focused on program improvement and
budgetary requests.
While PSR technology changed in the 2005 – 2009 academic years, the
content/format stayed very much the same. Program reviews address the activities
of the past year, status of the current year and requests for personnel and operating
budget for the future year. A PSR committee comprised of faculty members,
classified staff, and administrators read each review and make budget
recommendations based on the requests from each program. Initially there were no
limitations on pages and format was loosely comprised. An access database was
used until fall of 2006 for the program narrative.
In the 2006 – 2007 academic year CurricUNET23 (a web-based program) was
introduced as the framework for the PSR4 process. CurricUNET is the curriculum
management system currently used by the institution. Institutional personnel
worked with CurricUNET programmers to develop this first national use of the
software for PSR. CurricUNET is web-based and allows for separation of work
responsibilities, is accessible on a number of different platforms (for example, PCs
and Macs), is very intuitive and accessible to PSR contributors, and generates
presentation-ready reports. Additionally the software allows for multiple writers,
(increasing faculty participation in the process), and provides all employees with the
ability to log-in and view progress. During the first year of CurricUNET usage, the
reports were shorter, had less data, and Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) were
not a part of the PSR. Annual program activities and outcomes were introduced to
the process and program faculty were asked to respond to these sections.
The 2007 – 2008 PSR process was modified in an attempt to incorporate SLOs into
the review process. Writers had the choice of relating program activities to either
Institutional Goals/Ends Policies36 or SLOs. What was lacking, however, was a clear
182
connection between program SLOs, Institutional Goals/Ends Policies, and a broader
planning framework.
During the 2008-2009 academic year, three significant changes were made in the
PSRprocess to incorporate clearer institutional planning. The first change was the
incorporation of the board approved Institutional Effectiveness Process (IEP)6 that
connects all of the institution's planning activities to the mission of the institution
and Institutional Goals/Ends Policies. Programs now identify program outcomes
and connect those to the Institutional Goals/Ends Policies.36 For each program goal,
programs add specific learning and/or administrative outcomes statements, means
of assessment, benchmark criteria, summary of evidence, and use of results for
planning to address future needs. The result is the integration of PSR, learning
outcomes, and institutional planning.
The second change was a clarification of the faculty hiring requests and subsequent
process. Writers were asked to relate data to a pre-defined hiring criteria in their
PSR documents relate faculty hiring requests to institutional goals. In 2008-2009,
data was standardized so that the PSR Committee and President's Cabinet were
utilizing the same data.
The third change was the systematic review of SLOs and AUOs in the PSR process
and the feedback from the Outcomes and Assessment Committee on relevance
(related to Institutional Goals/Ends Policies36) and appropriateness. As a result, in
the 2008-2009 academic year the institution made significant strides in writing
program-level SLOs and AUOs.
SELF-EVALUATION
By the end of the 2008-09 academic year, all programs participated in an initial
Program and Services Review (PSR) cycle that included the institutional
effectiveness process. Organizationally, this is a huge improvement over the past in
that the interdependence of PSR, SLOs and strategic planning was formalized.
Through the PSR process, all program goals were linked to Institutional Goals/Ends
Policies. Faculty, administrators, and staff within departments/units were required
to design activities that specifically address program goals. Each activity had an
identified means of assessment, as well as corresponding criteria to determine
whether the activity objectives were being met. The summative step of this process,
evidence, will be used to drive future planning and assist departments and units in
determining whether the goals of the program are being accomplished and where
further evaluation and assessment needs to occur. With all activities now phrased
as an SLO or AUO, programs possess concrete evidence that assessment and
thoughtful reflection of learning outcomes is taking place. Furthermore, the PSR
process now provides an institutional “house” for all institutional and
183
programmatic SLOs and AUOs. As a result, the institution now possesses the
capability to determine that in 2008-09 359 SLOs and 322 AUOs were created by
programs. To ensure that the submitted SLOs and AUOs are of high quality,
relevant, and appropriate, as previously documented the Outcomes and Assessment
Committee reviews all SLOs5 and AUOs24 and provides meaningful reflective
feedback. After the 2008-09 appeals process for PSR was completed and feedback on
SLOs/AUOs was provided by the Outcomes and Assessment Committee, programs
were asked to revisit their SLOs and AUOs to ensure they were worded
appropriately and assessment statements were clear and lent themselves to effective
measurement and planning for the future. Through this iterative process,
relationships between institutional and program-level goals and objectives, SLOs
and AUOs, and strategic planning are made clear and are re-evaluated on an annual
basis. Administrators, faculty, and staff have expressed appreciation for this clear,
transparent and systematic process. On the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey,10 75% of
survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the Program and Services Review
(PSR) process provides an effective mechanism for review of programs and services,
86% agreed or strongly agreed that the institution uses systemic planning and
evaluation to improve programs and services, and 92% agreed or strongly agreed
that the institution maintains an ongoing, collegial, and self-reflective dialogue
about the continuous improvement of learning and institutional processes.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for II.A.2.e.
II.A.2.f. The institution engages in ongoing, systematic evaluation and integrated
planning to assure currency and measure achievement of its stated student
learning outcomes for courses, certificates, programs including general and
vocational education, and degrees. The institution systematically strives to
improve those outcomes and makes the results available to appropriate
constituencies.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution embraces a shared governance paradigm and engages in integrated
planning for institutional effectiveness.
The Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness6 was newly
developed in the 2008-2009 academic year and is based on the Nichols Model61 that
is used to assess student learning outcomes (SLO)5 and administrative unit
outcomes (AUO).24 It provides a systematic manner for evaluating how programs'
missions connect with Institutional Goals/Ends Policies,36 means of assessment,
summary of evidence, and use of results for planning. A concerted effort with much
184
dialogue was made to ensure that this process was adopted as the overarching
model for evaluating all the institution’s programs and activities. Evaluations of
SLOs, AUOs and monitoring reports are linked into the framework. As mentioned
earlier (II.A.2.e., p. 181), this model has been integrated into the Program and
Services Review (PSR)4 and Governing Board Monitoring Report71 processes. Noninstructional managers link to the model through both of these processes. Following
the Governing Board adopted monitoring report template, monitoring reports are
scheduled throughout the year and re-evaluated on a reoccurring, regular basis. In
August 2009, a monitoring report addressing the status of learning outcomes was
presented to the board. The vice president of instruction has faculty and deans
using the model to showcase instructional programs throughout the year for the
board.
The ongoing systematic evaluation of learning outcomes for programs is faculty
driven and occurs primarily through the Program and Services Review (PSR)
process which includes a review of SLOs by the Outcomes and Assessment
Committee and the Curriculum Committee. Course level SLOs will be evaluated in
the next PSR cycle. Aligning the course level, the program level, and Core
Competencies47 assures that one assessment will demonstrate competency upward
through the three levels. Curriculum maps and other matrices stored on the
institution’s shared drive70 (contained in this year’s PSR), demonstrate this
alignment. The preferred assessment tool of choice is the pre/ post test, with input
from OIR to assure appropriate assessment design and valid sample size.
Assessments are then scanned by OIR and a synopsis of the results is provided to
the program or the instructor. PSR provides faculty the opportunity to review
several aspects of their program including a review of student learning outcomes,
program growth or decline, and program improvement. The Office of Institutional
Research has also created a web-based instrument that enables faculty and staff to
populate and track program progress through the various steps of the SLO
assessment cycle such as the development of SLO statements, means of assessment,
criteria, evidence, and reflection and use of results for future planning. Faculty have
the ability to update the form as changes occur. For example, as evidence becomes
available they can populate this step of the SLO assessment cycle. In addition to all
data and information populating into an Access file on the institution’s shared drive,
faculty also receive an e-mail containing a PDF copy of recent updates within
minutes of submitting updates online.
Another process used to evaluate instructional programs is the Carl D. Perkins
Vocational and Technical Education Act Perkins Funds Application.13 The School of
Business & Applied Technology has developed this application and uses it to
determine allocation of Perkins funds.13 To access Perkins funds, departments must
submit proposals that clearly identify how the department/program intends to use
Perkins funds to improve student success and learning outcomes. In addition to
185
addressing the criteria established under state and federal legislation, programs
requesting Perkins funding must provided:
•
•
•
•
•
Course/program data, including census enrollments, success and retention rates,
and number of degrees and certificates awarded in the most recent three year
period
Information and documentation on program advisory committees
A detailed proposal outlining the proposed project(s)
How the proposed project supports SLOs (mandatory for any program receiving
funding)
Evidence that the advisory committee is involved in the proposed project
The OIR works with the vice-president of instruction, dean of business and applied
technology and program faculty to establish a research plan to ensure that the goals
and objectives of funded proposals are being met, especially as they relate to student
learning outcomes.
In addition to these established processes, ongoing systematic reports from the
Office of Institutional Research document student achievement and program quality
and are made available to the entire institution. All of the reports completed by the
Office of Institutional Research are available on the office website.25 Examples of
these reports include the Accountability Reporting for Community Colleges
(ARCC)28 which measures student performance on statewide metrics, transition
rates from basic skills to degree-applicable courses, transfers and transfer rates.
Many other reports are developed addressing student characteristics, student skill
levels, student satisfaction/opinion surveys, outcome data, profiles of incoming
students, and teaching methodologies and student performance/preference.
SELF-EVALUATION
Embedded in all formal structures like the Governing Board Monitoring Reports,71
the Program and Services Review (PSR)4 process, and assessment of student and
administrative unit learning outcomes, the institution has a long and significant
history of engaging in ongoing, systemic evaluation and integrated planning to
assure currency and measure achievement of its stated learning outcomes for
courses, certificates, and programs.
All planning documents are used as the basis for long-term planning and are
reviewed on a periodic basis to assure currency and responsiveness. Many planning
documents (for example, the Student Equity Plan,74 the Basic Skills Initiative Action
Plan,75 and the Inventory and Capacity Summary76) are reviewed on an annual or
biennial basis to ensure that they continue to address the needs of a rapidly
changing student constituency. Plan development employs the institution’s shared
186
governance process to include input from all relevant constituencies. Additionally,
the services of external experts are sometimes enlisted to provide highly technical
support or difficult to obtain data that is crucial to the institution’s systemic
evaluation and integrated planning process.
As cited extensively throughout standard II.A, the institution emphasizes informed
decision-making and supports the Office of Institutional Research (OIR). Perkins,13
Matriculation,77 Title V,78 and Basic Skills Initiative75 funds are used to augment the
institution‘s resources and ensure the OIR is staffed with highly qualified
professionals. In turn, OIR staff dialogue and communicate openly with all
administrators, faculty, staff, and students. In addition to the reports and data
referenced throughout standard II.A (beginning on p. 130) the OIR staff maintains a
robust web presence, updating the OIR website25 on a regular basis. To date, over
400 documents are housed on the OIR website, including the majority of the
institution’s planning documents (27 to date) and SLO5/AUO79 resources (63 to
date). Research reports, briefs, and presentations are arranged into major categories
to facilitate access and ease of use by all constituents.
Results from the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey,10 showed that 85% of respondents
agreed or strongly agreed that the development of institutional plans involved
appropriate constituencies; 94% agreed or strongly agreed that the institution
seriously evaluates itself as part of the self-study process; 97% agreed or strongly
agreed that degree and certificate programs are of appropriate length, breadth, and
depth; and 98% agreed or strongly agreed that college degrees, certificates, and
programs, wherever or however offered, support the Institutional Mission.1
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for II.A.2.f
II.A.2.g. If an institution uses departmental course and/or program examinations,
it validates their effectiveness in measuring student learning and minimizes test
biases.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The Reading Department uses the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test as a pre/post
diagnostic instrument. It is a reliable and valid instrument that has been
standardized on college populations. It is used to show students their strengths and
weaknesses in reading and to help students identify areas where they have
improved or need to improve their reading skills. There are several levels to the test
and the Reading Department has equated each level to the appropriate level of
Reading class.
187
The physics department has one standardized test entitled “Force Concepts
Inventory” that it uses to evaluate student understanding of Newtonian mechanics
that is given to Physics 20A/30A and Physics 44 students. Newtonian mechanics is
one of the major topics covered in the physics courses. It has been developed and
used extensively by the physics education community at universities around the
world during the last 15 years.
SELF-EVALUATION
The Reading department receives an itemized print out for both the pre and post
tests that tells the student those areas in which he/she is successful and those areas
where he/she still need to improve. The department has also incorporated SLOs80 in
Reading with the Stanford Reading Diagnostic test, along with an attitudinal survey
about how the students feel about their progress in Reading. The department has
used this test for years because it is the best at measuring both student learning and
improvement in reading. As a standardized instrument, the test publisher has
provided evidence that test bias is minimal or non-existent.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for II.A.2g.
II.A.2.h. The institution awards credit based on student achievement of the
course’s stated learning outcomes. Units of credit awarded are consistent with
institutional policies that reflect generally accepted norms or equivalencies in
higher education.
II.A.2.i. The institution awards degrees and certificates based on student
achievement of a program’s stated learning outcomes.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Criteria for evaluating student learning for credit are clearly stated in the College
Catalog (2008-2009)11 and are consistent with board policy and Title 581 regulations.
The institution awards credit for student achievement based on faculty-established
student learning objectives and the Course Outline of Record (COR).49 Methods of
evaluation for each course are included in the COR. For each course, faculty
develop a syllabus based on the COR which describes in detail the course
description, purpose, approach to the material, learning objectives, and grading
components. Grades and successful completion of courses are awarded by faculty
based on student demonstration and performance of having achieved the objectives
of the course and stated criteria in the syllabus.
188
Prior to the introduction of formalized student learning outcomes, the institution
operated on the basis of clearly articulated learning objectives which are published
in each course outline of record. Faculty evaluation is based in part on whether the
course syllabus adheres to the COR and that credit is awarded based on the criteria
set forth in the COR.
Beginning in 2005 the institution embraced the process of SLO development.
Currently, the institution has developed program level SLOs and has assessed a
majority of these SLOs.5 In addition, in fall 2008 the institution established four
institutional SLOs82 (broad and overarching skills all students should be able to
demonstrate upon completion of their academic program) which are referred to as
Core Competencies.47 The institution is currently in the process of developing
course level SLOs with emphasis in 2009-2010 on courses in the general education
pattern. When these course level SLOs have been established, they will be
integrated with both programmatic SLOs and institutional Core Competencies and
published in all CORs. Faculty will be encouraged to include SLOs83 in course
syllabi.
The College Catalog 2008-200911 outlines the institution’s practice of granting credit
for transfer work including nontraditional credit. The Counseling Department
evaluates (upon request) official transcripts from students wishing to obtain a
degree or certificate from the institution with completed coursework at other
institutions. The institution currently employs two transcript evaluators who work
closely with counseling and discipline-specific faculty in evaluating transcripts. A
database was established consolidating course evaluations to ensure the process of
transcript evaluation remains accurate and efficient.
The institution has a substantial number of articulation agreements. Articulation
agreements with the CSU and UC systems are available for review on ASSIST,14 the
statewide database repository. Numerous articulation agreements exist for private
institutions and can often be found at the private institutions’ website. The Chaffey
College Transfer Center maintains a website for access to many of these
agreements.84 California Articulation Number (CAN)85 designations are listed in the
College Catalog 2008 – 2009,11 but are in the process of being phased out by the CSU
and there is no plan to post them in the College Catalog 2009-2010.68 CSUGE and
IGETC patterns are available on ASSIST,14 the College Catalog 2008-200911 and
“major sheets”.
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution clearly defines the criteria for awarding credit for degrees,
certificates, and courses in the catalog. Additionally, the Curriculum Committee, a
189
sub-committee of Faculty Senate, and the Governing Board determine credits based
on criteria defined in Title 581 and the System Office guidelines. All degrees and
certificate programs are submitted to the Curriculum Committee, the Governing
Board, and the System Office for approval. Degree and certificate requirements are
clearly outlined in the College Catalog 2008-2009.11 All students have access to
counselors in order to receive individualized plans for receiving degrees, certificates,
or transfer status.
In order to create consistency of instruction and awarding of credits to students, the
institution requires instructors to align their syllabi to the COR.49 All instructors are
required to submit their syllabi to their dean by the end of the first week of the
semester.
The institution started integration of SLOs at the program level, and is working on
course level SLOs. Several programs have developed course level SLOs that connect
through program SLOs to Core Competencies.47 The institution’s philosophy is to
thoroughly integrate program SLOs into our planning efforts before moving to the
course level SLOs. The process is underway and has institutional “buy-in.”
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for II.A.2.h and II.A.2.i.
II.A.3. The institution requires of all academic and vocational degree programs a
component of general education based on a carefully considered philosophy that
is clearly stated in its catalog. The institution, relying on the expertise of its
faculty, determines the appropriateness of each course for inclusion in the general
education curriculum by examining the stated learning outcomes for the course.
General education has comprehensive learning outcomes for the students who
complete it, including the following:
II.A.3.a. An understanding of the basic content and methodology of the major
areas of knowledge: areas include the humanities and fine arts, the natural
sciences, and the social sciences.
II.A.3.b. A capability to be a productive individual and life long learner: skills
include oral and written communication, information competency, computer
literacy, scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical analysis/logical thinking,
and the ability to acquire knowledge through a variety of means.
II.A.3.c. A recognition of what it means to be an ethical human being and
effective citizen: qualities include an appreciation of ethical principles; civility
and interpersonal skills; respect for cultural diversity; historical and aesthetic
190
sensitivity; and the willingness to assume civic, political, and social
responsibilities locally, nationally, and globally.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The College Catalog 2008-2009,11 available to the community in printed and
electronic formats, clearly states the Institutional Mission1 and the philosophy and
criteria for associate degree and general education. Philosophy and criteria
statements are developed by the Chaffey College Faculty Senate. As stated in the
Philosophy and Criteria for Associate Degree and General Education,86 “the
programs of the institution are consistent with the Institutional Mission, purposes,
demographics and economics of its community.”
The process of course development, modification and deletion for general education
programs is overseen by the Curriculum Committee which functions under the
authority of the Faculty Senate. The introduction and appropriateness of each new
or updated course must be discussed with the dean, the coordinator, and discipline
faculty, before it is submitted to the Curriculum Committee, for final approval. This
process is initiated by faculty members, who design and develop the course
proposal, complete a Course Outline of Record (COR),49 offer a catalog description,
provide course objectives, create course learning outcomes, methods of instruction,
course assignments, methods of evaluation, content review, and suggested texts and
resources. The Curriculum Committee Chair, along with nineteen faculty, classified
staff, and administrators representing all areas of vocational, academic and student
services throughout the institution, review all course content on a regular basis as
spelled out by the institution’s policies. Before being approved by the Curriculum
Committee, each new course must meet four criteria mandated by the Chancellor’s
Office: mission, need, feasibility, and compliance. Once the Curriculum Committee
reviews the new or updated courses and approves the proposals, the curriculum
chair informs the board about the additions or revisions, and the courses are
incorporated into the College Catalog 2008-200911 and become part of the general
education curriculum.
Relying on the expertise of the faculty, the general education/graduation
requirements subcommittee of the Curriculum Committee determines the
appropriateness of each course for inclusion in the general education curriculum.
Formal approval by the Faculty Senate and the Governing Board is also required.
The General Education/Graduation Requirements subcommittee of the Curriculum
Committee reviews the general education requirements; the last such review was
completed in 2009. This subcommittee is made up of academic and vocational
faculty and the decisions of the subcommittee are based in the Philosophy and
Criteria for Associate Degrees and General Education as stated in the College’s
191
Catalog 2008-2009, as well as in the institution’s newly adopted Core
Competencies.47
The institution’s general education patterns meet transfer breadth and depth as
required by articulation agreements. The institution recognizes the importance of
educating students to become productive individuals. For example, students
earning Associate in Arts or Associate in Science are required (as described in the
2008-2009 College Catalog) to complete basic general education in the following
major areas of knowledge: Language and Rationality, Natural Sciences, Humanities,
and Social and Behavioral Sciences. Students completing the CSU General
Education or IGETC General Education must also complete courses from
Multicultural/ Gender Studies, Physical Education, Recreation, and Wellness.
Students earning an Associate in Arts or an Associate in Science degree must also
demonstrate basic skills competencies for graduation in writing, reading,
mathematics, and computer literacy.
The Institutional Mission1 articulates a clear commitment to “life-long learning”
with an emphasis on improving student lives. As stated in II.A.3.a, as part of a
comprehensive, holistic education students must successfully complete courses in
multi-cultural/gender studies; physical education, recreation, and wellness;
demonstrate basic skill competencies in writing, reading, mathematics, and
computer literacy; and complete general education courses in language and
rationality, natural sciences, humanities, and social and behavioral sciences.
The institution officially adopted four Core Competencies,47 with Board approval in
January, 2009. These Core Competencies serve as institutional learning outcomes,
based on the general education pattern. These Core Competencies were developed
through the shared governance process on campus, with input from students,
faculty, classified staff, administration and the Board of Trustees. The Faculty
Senate, the Outcomes and Assessment Committee, and the Curriculum Committee
played major roles in developing the four Core Competencies, garnering feedback
and input from critical constituencies and shepherding the Core Competencies
through the ends policy approval process. The institution’s Core Competencies
address the commitment to students to become ethical human beings and effective
well-rounded citizens as follows:
•
•
Communication – Students will demonstrate effective communication and
Critical Thinking and Information Literacy – Students will demonstrate critical
thinking skills, information competency, and problem solving across the
disciplines and in daily life.
192
•
•
Community/Global Awareness and Responsibility – Students will demonstrate
knowledge of significant social, cultural, environmental and aesthetic
perspectives.
Personal, Academic, and Career Development – Students will asses their own
knowledge, skills and ability; set personal ,educational and career goals; work
independently and in group settings, identify lifestyle choices that promote selfreliance, financial literacy and physical, mental and social health.
Opportunities for students to learn and develop core competencies are embedded at
all course levels throughout the institution. The ongoing focus on Basic Skills
education and the many services that support student learning (the Success Centers,
Supplemental Instruction (SI) program, AMAN/AWOMAN Program) are evidence
of the institution’s commitment to providing courses, services, and resources that
assist students in developing their oral and written communication, information
competency, computer literacy, scientific and quantitative reasoning, and critical
analysis/logical thinking skills. Students are assessed upon entry to the institution
and course recommendations are generated that are commensurate to the student’s
assessed skill levels. In addition to course placement recommendations, educational
background data is used to direct students to support services such as Smart Start,
Early Alert, Opening Doors to Excellence, that enhance their educational
experiences.
The Chaffey College Student Employment Office includes student employment and
Cooperative Education/Work Experience. Through this office, students are
provided with opportunities to engage in career exploration, preparation and
enhancement in a wide variety of vocational offerings, ranging from nursing to
aircraft maintenance.
The Student Employment program provides job and
internship referrals for current and former students. The office maintains a listing of
jobs and internships available both on and off campus. The Cooperative
Education/Work experience program provides students with the opportunity to use
their part-time, full-time work-study or internship position to earn elective credit
units. Cooperative Education can also assist students in making effective career
choices, and in developing lifetime career development plans. The Workforce
Preparation program is designed to aid individuals in acquiring marketable skills
for the workforce and includes a network of programs focusing on office
occupations and manufacturing training. The newly created Global Career Center
assists students in finding a job; taking an assessment; finding an institution,
university or training program; choosing a major; learning about an occupation;
resume writing; and career tips and career networking. Information about these
programs can be found on the institution’s website.62
Transfer level courses prepare students for the rigor and exploration of upper level
courses offer at four year institutions. The Core Competencies,47 under which all
193
courses must align, include communication, critical thinking and information
competency, global and community awareness and responsibility, and personal
academic and career development. All students who graduate from or interface
with the institution will take coursework in oral and written communication,
scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical analysis and logic thinking, and will
acquire knowledge through a variety of means. Assessments at the course, level
measures this activity.
The development of SLOs and core competencies regarding ethical thinking and
effective citizenship are two of several striking examples of institutional dialog that
occurs during the SLO process. Development began early in the accreditation cycle
at the program level by asking faculty in individual disciplines to formulate SLOs5
that expressed their deepest and most enduring goals for students. These program
SLOs were matched to SLOs actually embodied in courses. When programs were
brought together to discuss and develop statements that reflected intended
institutional outcomes, it was found that ethics and citizenship were important
across the campus. College-wide engagement in issues of ethics and effective
citizenship has been effectively promoted by the Ethics across the Curriculum
Committee (EAC),87 which was formed by the Chaffey College Faculty Senate in
2006. This committee has sponsored workshops, panel discussions, and other events
on both current and timeless issues including “The Ethics of War” (March 28, 2007),
“The Study of Ethics” (April 13, 2007), “The Ethics of Stem Cell Research” (April 18,
2007), “Race and the Inland Empire”(November 14, 2007), and “Science and
Religion” (April 1, 2008). These have been widely attended by both faculty and
students. In addition, the EAC has sponsored presentations on best practices for
faculty: a flex workshop (August 24, 2007), an orientation workshop for new faculty
on “Ethics and Professionalism,” (November 9, 2007), a panel discussion for jobseekers and potential members of hiring committees on “Ethical Issues Associated
with Hiring Committees,” (March 12, 2008), and a presentation from a member of
the executive board of the “Society for Ethics Across the Curriculum” (April 14,
2008). In the fall 2008 semester the Ethics Across the Curriculum Committee also
enlisted the assistance of the Office of Institutional Research to survey faculty about
issues related to ethics, including perceived importance of including ethics within
faculty members’ specific disciplines and the willingness of faculty to share
examples of how ethical content is incorporated into their classes. The Ethics Across
the Curriculum Committee has also created a Faculty Ethics Statement and has
consulted with the Committee on Corrections and Consequences on implementation
of the Student Code of Academic Integrity.88
The institution offers many avenues for students to purposefully explore what it
means to be a civically responsible member of society. The institution is committed
to exploring new ways to renew and strengthen the commitment of students to civic
life through elements of each of the four Core Competencies,47 reflected in general
194
education requirements. In addition to appropriate and authentic academic rigor,
the Core Competencies call for an examination of the professional and ethical
responsibilities of the individual; with the social and ethical responsibilities of the
individual in society; a commitment to active citizenship by recognizing and
evaluating important social, ecological, economical, and political issues; an
understanding and appreciation for individual, social, and cultural diversity;
identifying personal, academic, psychological, and social needs; and to develop,
implement, and evaluate progress towards achieving personal goals, academic
goals, career goals, and career resilience.
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution has a clearly stated philosophy and criteria for Associate Degree and
general education. This philosophy is consistent with the Institutional Mission,1 as
well as with the institutional learning outcomes, which are referred to as the Core
Competencies. The philosophy and Institutional Mission are listed in the College
Catalog 2008-2009;11 Core Competencies are in the Schedule of Classes67 starting Fall
2009 and will be added to future College Catalogs starting in 2009-10. The annual
College Catalog 2008-200911 and the semester Schedule of Classes67 both serve as
repositories for all general education and vocational program information. The
College Catalog 2008-2009, as well as the institution’s website,62 describe every A.A.
and A.S. degree offered by the institution and the courses required to earn each
degree or certificate. The Schedule of Classes also lists all courses that meet general
education requirements and the number of units required by each. Information
regarding student learning outcomes is also available for public viewing on the
SLO/AUO website.89
The Curriculum Committee is developing an SLO toolkit for use by instructors
when they do their periodic updates of course outlines. The toolkit will refer to the
institutional Core Competencies regarding: communication, critical thinking and
information competency, community/global awareness and responsibility, and
personal, academic and career development.
As courses are updated, course outlines of record will address these SLOs.
General education areas have extensive learning outcomes for students who
complete coursework, including the values reflected in standard statements IIA.3.ac, p. 190). These statements are reflected in the Institution’s Core Competencies, and
are woven throughout learning outcomes at the course and program level within the
general education area. The status and progress of the various learning outcomes is
a required component of the institution’s annual program review process.
195
Faculty with an understanding of basic content and methodology in the major areas
of knowledge, including humanities, fine arts, natural sciences and the social
sciences, participate on both the Curriculum Committee, where decisions regarding
curriculum content are made, and on the Outcomes and Assessment Committee,
where decisions regarding student learning outcome processes and procedures are
made. Faculty expertise is reflected in the decisions from these two committees. The
Outcomes and Assessment Committee, like the Curriculum Committee, is made up
of faculty co-coordinators, as well as 24 representatives from faculty (adjunct and
contract), staff, administration, and Office of Institutional Research. Summary notes
from the Outcomes and Assessment Committee are available on the institution’s
SLO/AUO website,89 which is available for public viewing, as well as on the
institution’s shared drive.
All transfer, general education, basic skills, and vocational programs have
established program level outcome statements, means of assessment and assessment
criteria, and are currently working toward collecting evidence to engage in reflective
dialogue that promotes continuous improvement. Embracing the Institutional
Effectiveness Process that was adopted by the institution, work is well underway to
develop outcome statements, assessment and reflective dialogue at the general
education course level. Documentation of this work can be found in the institution’s
Program and Services Review (PSR).4 General education programs have established
their individual assessment cycles to track individual general education course
assessments. To date, 359 program-level SLOs and 322 AUOs have been
documented through the PSR process. In addition, the campus has a spring
semester campus-wide assessment focused on one of the Core Competencies.47
During spring 2009, faculty administered a campus-wide assessment tool dealing
with critical thinking. A follow-up Flex activity for reflective dialogue regarding the
results was held.
Results from the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey10 indicate that approximately 98% of
informed survey respondents agree or strongly agree that degree and certificate
programs provide students with a significant introduction to broad areas of
knowledge; 92% believed that the institution maintains an ongoing, collegial, selfreflective dialogue about the continuous improvement of learning and institutional
processes; approximately 91% believed that the institution provides an environment
that encourages personal and civic responsibility, as well as intellectual, aesthetic,
and personal development of students, faculty and staff.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for II.A.3.a, II.A.3.b and II.A.3.c
196
II.A.4. All degree programs include focused study in at least one area of inquiry
or in an established interdisciplinary core.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution offers 207 degree and certificate programs of study, including:
•
•
•
89 Associate of Arts or Associate of Science degree programs
68 state approved certificate programs
50 locally-approved (non-transcripted) certificate programs
Examining the 89 Associated Degree programs, 39 degrees are offered in nonoccupational programs, 50 in occupational programs. All 118 certificate programs
are in occupational programs.
Each degree or program of study focuses on at least one area of inquiry or has at it’s
core an interdisciplinary required study (University Studies – Social and Behavioral
Sciences emphasis; Mathematics and Science emphasis; and other areas.). A
description of each degree and certificate granting programs, the major course
requirements for the degree or certificate, elective course requirements, and unit
requirements for each degree/certificate program are available to students in the
College Catalog 2008-2009,11 Schedule of Classes,67 the institution’s website,62 and
through the Counseling Department.
Regardless of the nature of the program, each program is regularly reviewed and
analyzed by appropriate faculty, the Curriculum Committee, and the Faculty Senate
before being recognized by the Governing Board. This process is consistent with the
institution’s shared governance and decision-making process. Consistent with State
Education Code and Chancellor’s Office requirements, the Curriculum Committee
requires all courses and programs to undergo a regular review every six years.
SELF-EVALUATION
The table below identifies the total number of degrees and certificates awarded in all
programs, occupational and non-occupational, over the past five years:
Degrees and Certificates
Awarded in All Programs
Degrees
Certificates
TOTAL
2003-04
1,191
853
2,044
2004-05
1,153
697
1,850
2005-06
1,175
518
1,693
2006-07
1,381
642
2,023
2007-08
1,394
738
2,132
2008-09
1,521
790
2311
The table below identifies the number of degrees and certificates awarded in
occupational programs over the past five years.
197
Awarded in Occupational
Programs
Degrees
Certificates:
Locally Approved:
State Approved:
TOTAL
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
282
853
(478)
(375)
1,135
247
697
(279)
(418)
944
241
518
(318)
(200)
759
286
642
(366)
(276)
928
249
738
(374)
(364)
987
2008-09
335
790
(372)
(418)
1125
Examining results from the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey,10 administrators, faculty,
and staff uniformly believe that the institution effectively addresses this standard.
Approximately 96% of informed survey respondents – including 97% of full- and
part-time faculty – agreed or strongly agreed that degree and certificate programs
are of appropriate length, breadth, and depth. Additionally, 98% believed that
degrees, certificates, and programs wherever and however offered, support the
Institutional Mission.1
PLANNING AGENDA
II.A.5. Students completing vocational and occupational certificates and degrees
demonstrate technical and professional competencies that meet employment and
other applicable standards and are prepared for external licensure and
certification.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Students completing vocational and occupational certificates and degrees
demonstrate technical and professional competencies that meet employment and
other applicable standards for the state, the region and the community. The
institution’s occupational programs meet state negotiated levels of performance for
employment and exceed the performance levels for technical skills attainment.
Chaffey’s performance in these areas is monitored by the Chancellor’s Office and
compared to performance levels negotiated with the state and the U.S. Department
of Education.
Vocational and occupational curricula are reviewed and revised to reflect the
changing employment needs of the region. Job market information is obtained from
several sources including the Center for Excellence that provides regional “scans”
for the Inland Empire. The Office of Institutional Research also provides labor
market information on request. A recently hired professional expert Researcher,
198
Career Technical Education (CTE) is creating and/or updating needs assessments
for all occupational programs. Needs assessment reports include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Background information on the occupational program
Projected regional job outlook (estimated jobs, projected growth, new job
openings and replacements)
Hourly wage estimates by relevant job titles within the occupation
Identification of largest and fastest growing employers within the occupation
Occupation-specific education and training requirements
Regional program completers (degrees and certificates awarded by public and
private institutions in the region)
Core indicators performance within the occupational area
Topographical mapping of regional employers and competitor institutions
All programs are examined by the Taxonomy of Program (TOP) code in order to
crosswalk educational programs to Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) and
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) data sources. North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) and Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data
System (IPEDS) data sources are examined, along with California Employment
Development Department Labor Market Information Division Data. As reports are
generated they are made available to the institution’s decision-makers and are
posted to the OIR website.25
All new occupational programs must be reviewed by a consortium of occupational
deans from community colleges within the region in order to obtain approval from
the state. Programs are evaluated by the consortia for how they relate to the local
labor market, and to avoid unnecessary duplication of programs in the region.
Input from Program Advisory Committees is used to identify local labor needs, and
keep occupational curricula up to date. Program advisory committees meet at least
once each year. Minutes are kept on file in the Business and Applied Technology
office. All occupational programs subject to external licensing or certification exceed
state and national norms for students passing licensing or certification exams. The
institution’s pass rates are available from the licensing or certifying organization.
SELF-EVALUATION
Perkins (VTEA) “Core Indicators,” are produced annually for occupational
programs. The institution regularly exceeds state and/or locally negotiated Perkins
Core Indicators measures.90 The table below illustrates the most recent Core
Indicator thresholds and the institution’s performance relative to state- and locallynegotiated levels of performance.
199
Perkins Core Indicator Targets
State
Targets
Chaffey
Performance
Skill
Attainment
(Core 1P1)
Degrees &
Certificates
(Core 2P1)
Persistence or
Transfer
(Core 3P1)
Student
Placement
(Core 4P1)
Non-Trad.
Participation
(Core 5P1)*
Non-Trad.
Completion
(Core 5P2)*
87.93%
78.95%
83.62%
80.33%
17.76%
17.72%
90.79%
79.42%
84.65%
82.85%
18.07%
18.07%
* Locally-negotiated level
In addition to exceeding state and locally-negotiated thresholds, the institution has
demonstrated consistent improvement on the majority of core indicators over the
past five years. In 2008-2009, the institution exhibited its highest performance yet on
technical skill attainment, degrees and certificates, persistence and transfer, and
employment.
Core Indicator
Technical Skill Attainment
Persistence and Transfer
Employment
Non-Trad. Participation
Non-Trad. Completions
2004-05
90.69%
71.89%
82.36%
78.12%
18.15%
19.04%
2005-06
89.57%
76.23%
83.19%
79.55%
17.18%
17.89%
2006-07
89.51%
75.53%
82.89%
79.90%
18.19%
18.62%
2007-08
89.89%
76.95%
83.51%
80.32%
18.11%
19.63%
2008-09
90.79%
79.42%
84.65%
82.85%
18.07%
18.07%
PLANNING AGENDA
To improve Non-traditional Participation and Completion rates in occupational
areas of study, the institution will emphasize recruitment and retention of
nontraditional students in future Perkins act planning and implementation.
Examples of nontraditional students are females in Automotive Technology courses
and males in Nursing courses. As the President’s Equity Council develops a future
Student Equity Plan,74 activities will be created to address non-traditional
participation and completions in occupational programs.
II.A.6. The institution assures that students and prospective students receive clear
and accurate information about educational courses and programs and transfer
policies. The institution describes its degrees and certificates in terms of their
purpose, content, course requirements, and expected student learning outcomes.
In every class section students receive a course syllabus that specifies learning
objectives consistent with those in the institution’s officially approved course
outline.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The College Catalog 2008-200911 assures that students and prospective students
receive clear and accurate information about educational programs, courses of
200
study, and transfer programs. The College Catalog 2008-2009 outlines very specific
and accurate information with respect to all degrees and certificates including a
description of the major or certificate, required courses, prerequisites and corequisites, elective courses of study, required number of unit credits, as well as
transferability to UC and CSU campuses and IGETC or CAN satisfaction. In
addition, the institutional catalog includes a description of every course offered by
the institution, as well as transfer requirements of the institution’s two major
university systems to which our students transfer: UC and CSU. This transfer
information is also available in each semester’s Schedule of Classes. The College
Catalog11 is reviewed and updated annually to ensure its accuracy. It is available to
students and prospective students in printed form at the institution’s bookstore and
in the counseling center as well as on the institution’s website.62 Additional campusspecific transfer information is available at the institution’s counseling center and
transfer center.
Course learning objectives are detailed in each officially approved Course Outline of
Record (COR).49 SLO training for faculty in 2008-09 featured the difference between
a course objective in the COR and an SLO. As curriculum is modified and updated,
the difference between these two concepts will be discussed by originating faculty,
as well as by the Curriculum Committee. The institution has initiated a process to
add course-level SLOs as an addendum attached to the COR on CurricUNET.23
Faculty provide all students in each section of every course of study with a syllabus.
These syllabi routinely make reference to course learning objectives, expectations
regarding academic rigor, specific assignments, and grading/evaluation standards.
The process of including SLOs in syllabi has begun during the 2009-2010 year after
much faculty discussion was heard during spring 2009. A component of the faculty
evaluation process is an evaluation of the clarity and the comprehensiveness of the
course syllabus. As the institution completes the process of developing course level
student learning outcomes, these will be included in every course syllabus. The
Faculty Success Center has offered workshops, most recently in March 2009 to assist
faculty in developing clear and comprehensive syllabi for all courses of study.
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution provides clear and accurate information to students and prospective
students in a variety of communication media, and regularly reviews and revises the
College Catalog in order to ensure the accuracy of this information. The faculty
evaluation process works to ensure that faculty adheres to the learning objectives
outlined in the officially approved course outlines of record. As new faculty are
hired, course syllabi, course outline of record, and learning outcomes are discussed
and training is provided as part of the new faculty orientation process. As the
201
institution completes the process of developing course level student learning
outcomes, these will be integrated into the COR and into faculty syllabi.
PLANNING AGENDA
II.A.6.a. The institution makes available to its students clearly stated transfer-ofcredit policies in order to facilitate the mobility of students without penalty. In
accepting transfer credits to fulfill degree requirements, the institution certifies
that the expected learning outcomes for transferred courses are comparable to the
learning outcomes of its own courses. Where patterns of student enrollment
between institutions are identified, the institution develops articulation
agreements as appropriate to its mission.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution clearly states its transfer policies and information to all students both
in its College Catalog 2008-200911 and semester Schedules of Classes,67 both of which
are available in print form and on the institution’s website.62 The College Catalog is
reviewed and revised annually to ensure its accuracy and clarity. Additional
information is available to students via the institution’s counseling center, and
students are required to meet with a counselor to establish a matriculation plan for
transfer to a four-year institution should this be their stated educational goal. The
institution’s commitment to supporting the transfer student is demonstrated by the
Transfer Center, where students have access to university specific guidance and
counseling. The Chaffey College Honors Program has very specifically articulated
transfer agreements to a great many universities, which guarantee transfer if the
student fulfills very specific course requirements.
The institution has an Articulation Officer who works to maintain and strengthen
articulation agreements between the institution and four-year universities, and to
ensure questions of equivalency. These articulation agreements are established and
published in ASSIST14 and students are counseled to consult these agreements via
this online site, and are counseled by the Transfer Center counselors and staff. This
information is available to counselors, students, and faculty. Counseling takes place
at the Counseling Center, the Transfer Center, and in consultation with faculty.
SELF-EVALUATION
Information regarding transferable credits is readily available to students via the
College Catalog 2008-2009, semester schedule of classes, the college website, and
counseling center. In addition, the college maintains a vital and informative
202
Transfer Center that serves to support, counsel, and address the specific needs of
transfer students. The Honors Program of study augments and supports the
institution’s commitment to the needs and concerns of transfer students, and, like
the Transfer Center, serves to assist transfer students upon their path in achieving
student educational goals. As the table below illustrates, through the collective
efforts of instructional and student support services, almost 18,000 former Chaffey
College students were identified through National Student Clearinghouse (NSC)
data as actively enrolled at four-year institutions in the 2008-09 academic year.
2004-05
15,112
2005-06
15,653
2006-07
16,133
2007-08
17,967
2008-09
17,928
PLANNING AGENDA
II.A.6.b. When programs are eliminated or program requirements are
significantly changed, the institution makes appropriate arrangements so that
enrolled students may complete their education in a timely manner with a
minimum of disruption.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution has not eliminated any program of study since the last accreditation
process. In fact, the college has instituted new programs of study: Fire Science and
American Sign Language are examples of programs that respond to community
needs and student interest. However, some programs of study have instituted
significant changes in curriculum: ESL and Spanish are examples.
When programs of study are eliminated, or significant changes take place in the
program of study, the institution follows the chancellor’s office guidelines as listed
in the program and course approval handbook.
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution’s curriculum handbook describes the approval process for
deactivations and deletions of courses and/or programs. Such proposals are
submitted and reviewed by discipline faculty, the involved dean, the articulation
officer, and the full Curriculum Committee before being sent to the Office of
Instruction for implementation.
If a program of study is eliminated or significantly changed, the institution has
processes that ensure that enrolled students may complete their education with
203
minimal disruption. Two examples include the recent extensive revisions to the ESL
and dental curriculum. In both instances, significant changes were made. The
involved deans and faculty thoughtfully planned the implementation so that
students were able to continue making progress in these programs. This meant
continuing to offer sections of the old curriculum at times and realigning assessment
processes to match the new curriculum.
No programs have been eliminated or discontinued in recent memory. This has
become more apparent as the institution has worked to mitigate the budget
challenges resulting from the state’s poor fiscal health. The institution needs to
more accurately address program discontinuance. First, the Program and Services
Review (PSR)4 process is being re-evaluated to make recommendations on program
health in connection with the Educational Master Plan.91 Through this process,
determinations about which programs should grow, maintain, or decline will be
made, and appropriate actions need to be determined depending upon the health
assessment. For example, if a program is declining, what direction should they be
given about how to return the program to optimum performance? What latitude
should the program be given, and how much time should the program have to
address possible deficiencies? All of these aspects need to be developed, vetted
through the shared governance process, and implemented.
PLANNING AGENDA
The institution will develop clearer curriculum guidelines for closing or removing
declining programs from institutional offerings. To date, modest guidelines are in
place, and faculty and staff work to ensure students are appropriately
accommodated. However, more prescriptive actions need to be documented and
incorporated so all programs are treated consistently and equitably.
II.A.6.c. The institution represents itself clearly, accurately, and consistently to
prospective and current students, the public, and its personnel through its
catalogs, statements, and publications, including those presented in electronic
formats. It regularly reviews institutional policies, procedures, and publications
to assure integrity in all representations about its mission, programs, and services.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The College Catalog 2008-200911 and Schedule of Classes67 are clear, accurate,
consistent, and very informative. This information is available to students,
prospective students, and our community at-large both in print and on the
institution’s website.62 The College Catalog 2008-2009 is reviewed annually by the
Chaffey College Curriculum Committee, dean of instructional support, and Catalog
Production Staff and revised to ensure its accuracy. The institution’s Schedule of
204
Classes is reviewed every semester to ensure its accuracy and clarity. These
informative documents are available to all community constituents both in print and
on the institution’s website.
The Office of Marketing and Public Relations is the primary source of publications
and information with respect to the institution’s relationship with our larger shared
community.
This office, which reports to the superintendent/president, is
responsible for all the institution’s publications, programs of study, brochures,
community events, and community service. In addition to being available to current
and prospective students and community members in hardcopy format, all
brochures are made available electronically in a PDF format on the Marketing and
Public Relations website. Working closely with discipline faculty, administration,
and staff, brochures have been created for academic and occupational programs
(Administration of Justice; Dietetic Technician; Health Sciences Career Ladder),
Student Services programs (EOPS Program; Project Second Chance;
AMAN/AWOMAN), instructional support programs (Distance Education; Honors
Program; Language Success Center), and community outreach programs (Fontana
Leadership Awareness Program; Leadership Connection). To date, over 50
brochures are available in PDF format on the Marketing and Public Relations
website.
In consultation with the superintendent/president, Faculty Senate, Classified
Senate, Student Services and the entire faculty, the Office of Marketing and Public
Relations serves as a conduit for intra-college communication, and communication
with the institution’s larger community. This office has instituted “In the News,”92 a
bi-monthly, electronic newsletter that provides information regarding the
Institutional Mission,1 programs of study, institutional events in support of
programs of study, counseling and transfer information, new institutional
initiatives, and other information. The institution’s newsletter is sent to all students
and staff by email.
In addition to electronic media, Marketing and Public Relations promotes the
institution’s services, programs, and events through a wide variety of media,
including but not limited to:
•
•
•
•
Newspapers, including the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, the Los Angeles Times,
the Chino Champion, the Fontana Herald, the San Bernardino Sun, and the Press
Enterprise
Local radio stations, including WILD 96.1, KCAL 96.7, KGGI 99.1, KOLA 99.9,
and KCXX 103.9
Cable television
Local movie theatre advertisements
205
All advertisements are produced and must be approved by the director of marketing
and public relations who takes responsibility to assure that every advertisement is
consistent with the institution’s graphic standards and policy, ensuring consistent
representation of the institution.
In addition, the institution hosts an annual Report to the Community.93 At this
event, the institution reports back to the community achievements and
accomplishments of the previous year and the challenges presented in the next year
as they relate to the Institutional Mission1 and its service to the community. Student
success is documented by the Office of Institutional Research; over 400 research
reports, briefs, and presentations are available in PDF format and are readily
accessible to students, faculty, staff, and the community. This openness and
transparency is a hallmark of the institution.
Internally, the superintendent/president, vice presidents (VPs), deans, faculty and
classified leadership strive for transparency and open dialogue by making minutes
of meetings readily available. Within 24 hours of every board meeting, the
superintendent/president sends an institution-wide update to all employees,
communicating action that occurred at the preceding day’s governing board
meeting. The superintendent/president also communicates minutes of the VPs
meeting, which is in turn shared by VPs with administrators, faculty, and staff who
report to them. The protocol is followed by the VPs (the vice president of
instruction documents and disseminates minutes of the Deans Meeting), Faculty and
Classified Senates (meeting minutes are disseminated via e-mail and/or posted to
the respective institution websites), and various institutional committees that
provide minutes of meetings and either disseminate information electronic, post to
institutional websites, or archive on the institution’s shared drive70 in public folders
that are accessible to all personnel. The institution regularly reviews policies and
procedures in the Office of Institutional Services to assure accuracy and integrity of
use in various publications. Any updates that are made are dialogued in President’s
Cabinet and input is provided through the shared governance process.
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution represents itself clearly, accurately, and consistently to prospective
and current students, the public, and its personnel through its catalogs, statements,
and publications, including those presented in electronic formats. The Marketing
Committee provides oversight for coordination and direction of the institution's
marketing and public relations programs and activities. The Director of Marketing
and Public Relations chairs the committee which consists of faculty, staff and
administrators. The committee meets monthly to provide input and direction on
marketing, advertising, and public relations as it relates to the institution. The
marketing committee discusses strategies, vehicles, and measurement tools used to
206
achieve goals identified by the institution and superintendent/president. The
Marketing Committee, as well as other decision-making bodies, regularly reviews
institutional policies, procedures, and publications to assure integrity in all
representations about the Institutional Mission, programs, and services.
The
College Catalog 2008-200911 is reviewed annually and the Schedule of Classes67 is
reviewed every semester. The superintendent/president works in concert with the
Office of Marketing and Public Relations, the Faculty Senate, the Classified Senate,
and the community based upon the institution’s shared governance process to
ensure that the integrity of the institution and the integrity of the programs of study
are consistent with the Institutional Mission of the institution. On the Fall 2008
Accreditation Survey,10 approximately 94% of survey respondents agreed or
strongly agreed that the institution represents itself accurately to students and the
community.
PLANNING AGENDA
II.A.7. In order to assure the academic integrity of the teaching-learning process,
the institution uses and makes public governing board-adopted policies on
academic freedom and responsibility, student academic honesty, and specific
institutional beliefs or worldviews. These policies make clear the institution’s
commitment to the free pursuit and dissemination of knowledge.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution has a board-adopted policy statement of academic freedom and the
inherent responsibilities that come with this freedom.94 In addition, the Faculty
Senate has board approved statements of academic freedom and professional ethics.
Both are available on the institution’s web site. The senate’s statements of academic
freedom and professional ethics, available on the institution’s Z drive and in the
Faculty Handbook,95 play a vital role in the year long new faculty orientation
process. The institution has board-adopted codes of student academic integrity96
and student behavior. 97
The institution does not promote any specific beliefs or worldviews.
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution has, uses, and makes public Board-adopted policies of academic
freedom and responsibility, and student academic integrity. These commitments are
well documented and available both in print and electronically in a variety of
institution publications.
207
PLANNING AGENDA
II.A.7.a. Faculty distinguish between personal conviction and professionally
accepted views in a discipline. They present data and information fairly and
objectively.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The Faculty Ethics Statement,98 which was approved by the Faculty Senate on
September 23, 2008, provides guidelines and examples for the ethical responsibilities
of faculty to their discipline, their students, their colleagues, and the institution and
community as a whole. To select only a few examples from this much longer
document, faculty are urged to:
•
•
•
•
•
Protect and advance academic freedom.
Value students as individuals.
Promote cultural and gender sensitivity.
Avoid exploitation, harassment and discriminatory treatment.
Acknowledge and balance duties as both private citizens and members of this
institution.
The institution’s board adopted policy of academic freedom, which was revised and
reviewed in the spring of 2005, clearly establishes that academic freedom is intended
to foster critical thinking among students and colleagues alike in asking difficult and
meaningful questions in the objective pursuit of truth, encouraging student
problem-solving abilities, and to accept or reject ideas based on critical thinking. It
is clear that these inquiries are to be based on research and emerging theory in one’s
discipline of study. Recently adopted Core Competencies (institutional SLOs)
reiterate these institutional values. Among the four core competencies that were
developed by the institution’s faculty and staff, two - critical thinking and
information competency and community/global awareness and responsibility,
speak directly to the critical role faculty play in assisting students to develop these
life-long skills.
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution meets the requirements of Standard II.A.7a. The institution clearly
articulates its philosophy and expectations regarding academic freedom,
professional ethics, and the responsibilities attendant to academic freedom both in
board-adopted policy and in board approved faculty senate developed statements.
208
These policies and statements are available to the institution’s community and the
public community both in print and electronically. In addition, the new faculty
orientation process works to ensure that new faculty are very aware of the
institution’s philosophy and expectations regarding academic freedom and the
objective pursuit of truth. When recently surveyed, approximately 92% of the
institution’s employees including 94% of full- and part-time faculty agreed or
strongly agreed that faculty distinguish between personal conviction and
professionally accepted views in a discipline and present data and information fairly
and objectively.
PLANNING AGENDA
II.A.7.b. The institution establishes and publishes clear expectations concerning
student academic honesty and the consequences for dishonesty.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
In the spring of 2007, after an extensive dialogue through the shared governance
process, the board approved and the institution adopted a newly revised Student
Code of Behavior and Student Code of Academic Integrity. Both of these codes
were developed with the Faculty Senate and Student Services working in concert.
Both codes clearly delineate the meaning of academic integrity, the various forms of
academic dishonesty, and unacceptable behavior, as well as the consequences for
having demonstrated academic dishonesty or unacceptable behavior. These two
codes were separated because the institution believes that these are two different
concepts/issues: academic integrity and student behavior.
These codes are available to students in the Student Handbook,97 which serves as a
guide to students about their rights and responsibilities as a student, as well as on
the institution’s website.62 In addition, abbreviated forms of these codes are
published in the College Catalog and each semester’s Schedule of Classes with a
citation to consult the Student Handbook and/or institution’s website for further
information.
Faculty are instructed to make clear to their students, in each course syllabi, the
course requirements, grading procedures, expectations for classroom behavior, and
to make reference to the institution’s code of student academic integrity.
209
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution has clearly articulated codes of student behavior and student
academic integrity, and academic integrity occupies a prominent space in the
institution’s publications, its website, and in course syllabi. These codes are very
specific in terms of what constitutes academic dishonesty and unacceptable student
behavior, and the consequences for both. Yet, there is still some concern regarding
student awareness of these issues. Faculty Senate, Student Services, and individual
faculty are working hard to ensure that students pay close attention to both their
individual rights and their individual responsibilities as a college student. Among
recently surveyed employees at the institution, approximately 73% indicated that
they routinely inform students of the institution’s academic honesty policy and
standards, including 88% of contract and adjunct faculty.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for II.A.7.b
II.A.7.c. Institutions that require conformity to specific codes of conduct of staff,
faculty, administrators, or students, or that seek to instill specific beliefs or
worldviews, give clear prior notice of such policies, including statements in the
catalog and/or appropriate faculty or student handbooks.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution is a public, open access community college and there are no
additional codes of conduct beyond those discussed previously and common to all
public institutions dedicated to academic integrity and the pursuit and
dissemination of knowledge and life-long learning.
SELF-EVALUATION
No evaluation needed for II.A.7.c
PLANNING AGENDA
II.A.8. Institutions offering curricula in foreign locations to students other than
U.S. nationals operate in conformity with standards and applicable Commission
policies.
210
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
While the institution does offer a study abroad program, it is only offered to
students enrolled in the institution. Therefore, this standard is not applicable to the
institution.
SELF-EVALUATION
No evaluation needed for II.A.8.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for II.A.8.
References – Standard II A. Instructional Programs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Measure L
Weekly Updates to the Governing Board, Instruction
Official Proceedings of the Governing Board October 23, 2008, Board Document Planning
Schedule
Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) Cubes, Credit Course Offering Data, March 2009
Advisory Committee Minutes
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act Perkins Funds Application
Articulation System Stimulating Interinstitutional Student Transfer (ASSIST)
Dual Admissions Agreement, CSU San Bernardino; Transfer Agreement Program, University of
LaVerne
Report to the Community 2008, Articulation Agreements, page 7
Chaffey College Website, STEM Grant
Matriculation Process Assessment, ESL
Smart Start Assessment Data
Success Centers, Directed Learning Activities
MyChaffey VIEW
CurricUNET
Semester First Census Enrollment Report (Spring 2009)
Student Campus Climate Survey (Spring 2009)
Annual Accountability Reporting for Community Colleges (ARCC)
211
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
Research Brief, Focus Areas to Increase the Accountability Reporting for Community College
(ARCC) Outcomes for 2008
Career Technical Education (CTE) Research Reports
Did You Know? Vol. 20, Project Information Literacy (PIL) Survey Findings
Did You Know? Vol. 18, First Semester Performance of Recent High School Graduates 2008
Did You Know? Vol. 12, Primary Non-English Languages Spoken at Home by Students
Matriculation Process Assessment
Research Request Form
MIS Referential File Database (1999-2008)
Did You Know? Vol. 5, Chaffey College “Online to College (OTC)” Program
Examining the Impact on Perceived Well-Being: EOPS Summer Readiness Program (2008)
Examining Student Learning Outcomes in EOPS: Independence and Responsibility, February
2009
Governing Board Updates, CIW program
Basic Skills Transformation
College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA)
Research Brief, Comparison of Student Performance in Internet and Lecture Courses, November
2005
Distance Education Student Survey, spring 2007
Did You Know? Vol. 6, Chaffey College Title V Funded Supplemental Instruction Program
SLO/AUO Assessment Cycle (Wurtz Wheel)
Course Outlines of Record (COR)
Flex Schedule 2005-2009, Student Learning Outcomes
Flex Schedule Fall 2009, SLOs: Deconstructing Fact and Myth
Flex Schedule Fall 2009, A Method to the Madness: A Review of the Chaffey College Assessment
Cycle
Flex Schedule Fall 2009, I Got the Data, Now What: How to Close the SLO Assessment Loop
Flex Schedule Fall 2009, Pre- and Post-Test: An Introduction to a Basic No Nonsense Assessment
Tool
Flex Schedule Fall 2009, Debriefing the Critical Thinking Assessment
Student Learning Outcomes (SLO)
S.L.O. Down Newsletter
Chaffey College Website, Student Learning Outcomes SLO Assessment
Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) Committee Data
Administrative Unit Outcomes (AUO) Committee Data
Nichols, J.O., Nichols, K.W. (2001). General Education Assessment for Improvement of Student
Academic Achievement: Guidance for Academic Departments and Committees. Agathon Press:
New York.
Chaffey College Website
Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) Resources
Administrative Unit Outcomes (AUO) Resources
Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) Briefs
Administrative Unit Outcomes (AUO) Briefs
Degree and Certificate Database
College Shared Drive (Z: Drive or dfs)
Governing Board Monitoring Reports
Developing a Community of Practice, A Report of Innovations Inspired by the Chaffey College
212
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
Chaffey College Website, Distance Education
Student Success Initiative (SSI) Basic Skills Action Plan 2008-09
Inventory and Capacity Summary
Matriculation Funding
Title V Grant
Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) Reading
California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Education
Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) Institutional
Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) Syllabus
Chaffey College Website, Transfer Center
California Articulation Number (CAN)
College Catalog 2008-2009, page 35
Ethics Across the Curriculum Faculty Survey Results
Student Code of Academic Integrity
Chaffey College Website, Outcomes and Assessment (SLOs)
Perkins Core Indicator Measure
In the News, electronic newsletter
Annual Report to the Community
Governing Board Policy Manual, Section 9.1, Academic Freedom
Faculty Handbook
Student Handbook
Faculty Ethics Statement
213
Standard II B. Student Support Services
The institution recruits and admits diverse students who are able to benefit from
its programs, consistent with its mission. Student support services address the
identified needs of students and enhance a supportive learning environment. The
entire student pathway through the institutional experience is characterized by a
concern for student access, progress, learning, and success. The institution
systematically assesses student support services using student learning outcomes,
faculty and staff input, and other appropriate measures in order to improve the
effectiveness of these services.
II.B.1. The institution assures the quality of student support services and
demonstrates that these services, regardless of location or means of delivery,
support student learning and enhance achievement of the mission of the
institution.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Chaffey College, a Hispanic Serving Institution, services the residents of western San
Bernardino County and is committed to the provision of services that are accessible,
inclusive, and sensitive to the needs of its diverse student body at all locations. To
address the diverse communities served and ensure that the unique needs of student
populations are met, the institution offers instructional programs at three primary
locations— the Rancho campus, the Chino campus, the Fontana campus (please
note, although the facilities in Chino and Fontana are centers, the institution’s
constituents and the community, as well as this self-study, refer to all three sites as
campuses). Other locations include the Learning Development Center (LDC) in
Rancho Cucamonga, the California Institution for Women (CIW) in Chino, Rancho
San Antonio Medical Center, and several high schools. Health Science programs
provide training and ensure learning opportunities through classes offered in
Upland, Colton, Chino, Ontario, Pomona, Claremont, Fontana and Loma Linda. The
institution also provides an extensive distance education program. A vast range of
214
programs and services seeks to increase student access, retention, satisfaction,
opportunity, and achievement.
The Institutional Mission,1 adopted by the Governing Board in 2004 and revised in
2009, serves as a value and vision statement. The Institutional Mission is the
keystone for establishing the institution’s Institutional Goals/Ends Policies2 that
guide the institution’s decision making. It provides parameters under which the
institution offers transfer, occupational programs, basic skills, and student services
to a diverse student population.
The institution is committed to student learning, progress, and success and, in April
2007, was able to realize its Institutional Mission through the opening of the Marie
Kane Center for Student Services/Administration, a one-stop student service center.
The new building unites Admissions & Records, Cashiers, Financial Aid, Transfer
Center, Honors Program, Assessment Center and the Counseling Department and
offers students seamless access to the institution’s services. By linking vital student
service offices in close proximity to one another, the Marie Kane Center offers
students improved access to a host of Student Support Services. For instance, the
institution’s Counseling Department offers an assortment of programs and services,
including New Student Orientation,3 AMAN/AWOMAN (African American
student support), Puente Project (Latino student transfer support), Tech Prep,
Matriculation, Veteran’s Services, Project Second Chance, Opening Doors to
Excellence, (designed to improve outcomes among students on probation), Transfer
Center, and International Students.
Counseling services are also offered in other areas such as Extended Opportunity
Program & Services (EOPS), Cooperative Agencies Resources for Education (CARE),
Disability Programs & Services (DPS), Student Employment Office and Cooperative
Education. Additional Student Support Services not located in the Marie Kane
Center include Student Activities, Student Government and Clubs, Student Health
Services, Student Employment Office, Learning & Educational Development (LED),
Athletics, CARE, and Child Development Center services. While the Rancho
Cucamonga campus offers the most comprehensive array of services, the institution
has successfully created student success pathways at all three locations. The
Rancho, Fontana, and Chino campuses offer students access to Admissions &
Records, Counseling, Transfer Center, EOPS, Cashier, Financial Aid, Student Health
Services and Student Activities. In addition, given that Hispanic students make up
45% of the institution’s student population,4 all three locations offer Student Support
Services in both English and Spanish. The institution also provides Student Support
Services information on the internet for each program and department. Students
may register and pay fees online via MyChaffeyVIEW,5 make assessment and
orientation appointments through the institution’s Online Appointment Booking
215
System (also known as E-SARS),6 and apply for special programs such as Puente
and AMAN/AWOMAN.
Consistent with our Institutional Mission1 of serving diverse student populations,
2006 marked the year during which the institution instituted a partnership program
with the CIW in Chino. The CIW program makes it possible for inmates to earn an
Associates Degree while serving their sentences. Students within the program are
identified, processed, and served by the institution’s EOPS program. The program
has the ability to serve up to 50 students at one time. The first graduating class of
the CIW program received their degrees in 2008. Fifteen students graduated, 85%
graduated with Honors, and there were two valedictorians. In fact, the program
was recently honored at the Community College League for Innovation,7 where it
was one of only two recipients of the coveted student success awards recognized by
the systems office.
SELF-EVALUATION
The Office of Institutional Research (OIR) conducts ongoing inquiries into the
effectiveness of student services programs in relation to the Institutional Mission
and the quality of support provided. In the fall 2008 Accreditation Survey,8 90% of
surveyed faculty and staff agree or strongly agree that the institution “uses research
results to identify priorities for improvement.” Of surveyed faculty and staff, 86%
agree or strongly agree that the institution “uses systemic planning and evaluation
to improve programs and services”. An extensive Student Satisfaction Survey9 is
used by the institution to measure student satisfaction with Student Support
Services, including EOPS, Admissions, Financial Aid, Counseling and Matriculation,
Assessment Department, and DPS. In all three years of its implementation, the
survey was disseminated to a randomly selected sample of sections across all three
locations (Rancho, Chino, and Fontana) and examined students’ perception of
programs via scaled-items and open-ended questions.
Findings across all three years of implementation indicate overall student
satisfaction with the collection of Student Support Services in all three locations. In
addition, findings indicate that there are no ethnic differences in students’
perceptions of student services programs. This supports the view that the
institution meets the academic needs of its diverse student body and supports
learning at all three locations. Findings stemming from the 2007 Student Satisfaction
Survey implementation of the survey also indicated a need to further inquire about
student perceptions of online Student Support Services. In response to such
findings, the 2008 Student Satisfaction Survey10 implementation of the survey
included additional question items inquiring about student perceptions of various
aspects of the online services provided by student services. Meanwhile, findings
stemming from the 2008 implementation highlight the two aspects of Student
216
Support Services that students value most: (a) staff helpfulness and competence, and
(b) online materials and services. Such findings serve to bolster the institution’s
commitment to regular student services staff development sessions and to the
improvement of online services. Student feedback was also generated for each of
twelve Student Support Services: Admissions & Records, Athletics, Student
Employment Office, Cashier’s, Counseling, DPS, EOPS, Financial Aid, Health
Services, International Students, Student Activities, and the Transfer Center. As was
the case with the institutional-level findings, program-specific findings generally
point to student satisfaction with all aspects students responded to (for example,
Program Resources and Accessibility, Online Services and Materials, and Program
Staffing).
In addition to the Student Services Satisfaction Survey, the institution recently
conducted surveys of the MyChaffeyVIEW registration system5 (fall 2005 – summer
2007) and the online transcript request process (spring 2006 – summer 2007) to
determine the effectiveness of each system and identify areas in need of
improvement. Findings stemming from the MyChaffeyVIEW survey11 indicate that
over 72% of students agreed or strongly agreed with such statements as, “The
registration process using ChaffeyView was easy”, and “Registering for courses
using ChaffeyView was a positive experience”. Likewise, findings stemming from
the Online Transcript Survey indicate that over 93% of students agreed or strongly
agreed with all survey items, including statements such as, “The online transcript
request process was convenient”, and “I would recommend ordering transcripts
online to other students”. In addition, findings stemming from open-ended
responses to the transcript survey indicated that students were less than satisfied
with having to fax or mail an additional verification/authorization form to complete
the ordering process. In response to such findings, the Admissions and Records
Office worked towards eliminating the signature page requirement, at least for those
students providing both their student identification and social security number. As
of spring 2008, the survey has been re-implemented to examine whether (a) there is
a decrease in the proportion of responses citing discontent with the signature page,
and (b) whether other pressing issues need to be addressed. To ensure equitable
access to survey results, reports were made available throughout the campus
community in print as well as online on the institution’s 508 compliant website.
Evidence supporting quality of Student Support Services can be found also in the
Student Learning Outcomes development. The Office of Institutional Research has
been integral in the implementation of the assessment of Student Learning
Outcomes (SLOs) and Administrative Unit Outcomes (AUOs) developed in
collaboration with each student services program. The implementation of the
institution’s SLOs and AUOs norm to the institution’s adopted Strategic Planning
Framework for Institutional Effectiveness,12 which focuses on the use of results for
planning. Programs such as Financial Aid, Admissions and Records, International
217
Students, and the Cashier’s Office have all completed the first SLOs/AUOs and
developed and assessed at least one single learning outcome; in addition, these
programs have all developed and/or implemented a plan for making use of the
results stemming from their respective SLO implementation.13 The Transfer Center,
EOPS, Opening Doors and Smart Start have all developed their SLO statements,
have crafted objective means of assessment, and are currently gathering student
responses. The Student Employment Office program has developed an SLO
statement and has crafted an instrument for assessment – the gathering of student
responses will begin fall 2009. Student support programs are conscientiously and
robustly engaged in the student learning cycle.
To demonstrate quality of services and to assure that the institution achieves the
goal of its Institutional Mission,1 a process described in the Program and Services
Review14 (PSR) is available. Through extensive dialogue, the institution revised its
PSR process in 2008 to align itself more closely to the institution’s Strategic Planning
Framework for Institutional Effectiveness.12 For example, in PSR the mission of each
program is related to the mission of the institution; likewise, the institutional goals
are aligned with program goals. Specifically, the PSR process is now driven by an
evidence-based approach that focuses on using results for planning. PSR committee
members are charged with offering constructive feedback regarding how well
programs are engaging in evidence-based decision-making and planning; such
feedback, in turn, influences any corresponding budgetary recommendations. This
change in the PSR process not only places more emphasis on evidence-based
program and service improvements, but more importantly, links the PSR process
with the broader Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness. To
this end, PSR is an annual evaluation geared towards investigating program
effectiveness and improvement in order to better serve students.
Evidence supporting the quality of Student Support Services has also been offered
by an external evaluation team conducting a Student Services Program Review and
Technical Assistance Site Visit in 2008.15 Conducted every six years, the purpose of
the visit is to evaluate an institution’s overall integration and coordination of
college-wide student services programs, and to specifically evaluate Student
Services Categorical Programs - CalWORKS, EOPS/CARE, DPS, Credit and NonCredit Matriculation. The evaluation team offered several commendations; among
them was the commendation for taking a “data-driven approach to identifying and
assessing students’ needs and the collaborative use of the Office of Institutional
Research”.16 The team also commended the institution’s “responsiveness in
addressing the unique educational needs of its diverse student populations”
through the Marie Kane Center’s one-stop concept, and programs like
AMAN/AWOMAN, which focuses on African American student retention, the
Transfer Center, and the CIW program.
218
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for Standard II.B.1.
II.B.2. The institution provides a catalog for its constituencies with precise,
accurate, and current information concerning the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
General information
•
Official Name, Address(es), Telephone Number(s), and Web Site
Address of the Institution
•
Educational Mission
•
Course, Program, and Degree Offerings
•
Academic Calendar and Program Length
•
Academic Freedom Statement
•
Available Student Financial Aid
•
Available Learning Resources
•
Names and Degrees of Administrators and Faculty
•
Names of Governing Board Members
Requirements
•
Admissions
•
Student Fees and Other Financial Obligations
•
Degree, Certificates, Graduation and Transfer
Major policies affecting students
•
Academic Regulations, including Academic Honesty
•
Nondiscrimination
•
Acceptance of Transfer Credits
•
Grievance and Complaint Procedures
•
Sexual Harassment
•
Refund of Fees
Locations or publications where other policies may be found
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution publishes a College Catalog 2008-200917 offering constituencies a host
of information regarding academic resources, requirements, and major institutional
policies affecting students. The institution has made a commitment to precise,
accurate, and current information in the catalog through the hiring of a catalog and
schedule coordinator who collaborates with faculty coordinators, support services
and programs, and others who have responsibility for material presented in the
catalog to ensure the highest level of catalog accuracy. The catalog is updated
annually to reflect the most recent general information, requirements for a successful
student pathway, major policies that affect students, and information references to
find additional procedures and policies. Since the last accreditation visit, all catalogs
219
were complete in their offerings of all pertinent institutional data, with the exception
of the Academic Freedom Statement, which was not included in the College Catalog
2008-2009 used for this self-study. However, the 2009-2010 catalog includes the
institution’s Academic Freedom Statement18 in the Policies and Regulations section.
The College Catalog is introduced to students in new college orientations in
counseling.
The institution ensures that the catalog information is easily accessible to students,
prospective students, and the public by providing free access to the current and
archived catalogs on the institution’s website, as well as having printed copies
available for purchase at the bookstore and online. The College Catalog 2008-2009
can be found in all the academic and student services areas at all three campuses
(Rancho Cucamonga, Chino, and Fontana). Copies of the printed catalog are sent to
local area high schools, provided as reference items to the city and county libraries
within the institution’s district, and mailed to neighboring community colleges and
to each of the CSU and UC campuses within the state. In addition, the catalog is
introduced to new students during the orientation meetings.
The structure of the catalog is very clear and facilitates ease of use. The format
retains a core of information, but it is continuously evaluated and revised in order to
improve its usefulness. The catalog has both a Table of Contents and an Index that
allows for quick references to the various sections. The College Catalog 2008-2009
contains the names and degrees of administrators and faculty as well as the names
of Governing Board members. The catalog contains a summary of general
information, such as the official name, addresses, telephone numbers, and website
address of the institution. The Institutional Mission, course, program, degree
offerings, academic calendar, and program length are also easily found in the 20082009 College Catalog. The Academic Calendar can be found immediately just before
the Index. Financial aid information over the past five catalog years has been
located on pages 12-13, demonstrating the consistency of the catalog design.
Student access is important to the institution. For example, individuals with special
needs can get assistance with garnering information from the catalog. The
institution employs diverse individuals with a variety of language skills to assist
students with any questions regarding policies and procedures. Students who
require languages other than English may be directed to identified staff for
translation assistance. For students with special needs, audible, Braille and E-text
versions of the catalog are available upon request from DPS.
220
SELF-EVALUATION
The College Catalog 2008-200917 addresses all WASC required areas. Upon the team
visit, the 2009-2010 catalog will be in place and the institution will highlight changes
for the team.
a.
b.
General information (College Catalog 2008-2009)
•
Official Name, Address(es), Telephone Number(s), and Web Site
Address of the Institution
www.chaffey.edu (Page 1)
•
Educational Mission
Chaffey College improves lives within the diverse communities it
serves through equal access to quality, learning-centered occupational,
transfer, general education, and foundation programs (Page 3)
•
Course, Program, and Degree Offerings
Students who successfully complete the requirements for graduation
are awarded Associate in Arts and Associate in Science degrees
(Page 6)
•
Academic Calendar and Program Length
The institution is organized on the semester system (Page 6)
•
Academic Freedom Statement
The catalog does not contain this statement. The institution is in the
process of designing an academic freedom statement.
•
Available Student Financial Aid
The Financial Aid Office administers a number of programs designed
to help students with limited resources meet their educational
expenses (Pages 12-13)
•
Available Learning Resources
The Office of Student Activities promotes events and coordinates
programs that provide students with an opportunity for educational
and social growth outside the classroom (Pages 28-33)
•
Names and Degrees of Administrators and Faculty
(Pages 167-172)
•
Names of Governing Board Members
(Page 167)
Requirements
•
Admissions
All high school graduates, anyone who has a Certificate of Proficiency
or a G.E.D., and anyone 18 years of age or older who can benefit from a
course of study are eligible for admission (Page 8)
•
Student Fees and Other Financial Obligations
221
c.
d.
As a publicly supported community college, the institution provides
low-cost education; student pay nominal fees at registration (Pages 1112)
•
Degree, Certificates, Graduation and Transfer
Students who successfully complete the requirements for graduation
are awarded Associate in Arts and Associate in Science degrees (Pages
35-82)
Major policies affecting students
•
Academic Regulations, including Academic Honesty
Integrity is an essential component of the student academic experience
(Pages 26-27)
•
Nondiscrimination
The Chaffey Community College District is committed to providing
equal educational and employment opportunity (Pages 24-25)
•
Acceptance of Transfer Credits
A transfer applicant, according the University, is a student who has
graduated from high school and enrolled in a regular session at
another college or university (Pages 88-90)
•
Grievance and Complaint Procedures
Procedures for grievance appeal hearings are found in the Student
Handbook (Page 26)
•
Sexual Harassment
It is the policy of the Chaffey Community College District to provide
for all students and employees, an educational, employment, and
business environment free of all forms of harassment, exploitation,
intimidation, or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual
favors, and other verbal, visual, or physical conduct or
communications of a sexual nature (Page 24)
•
Refund of Fees
Refunds are issued automatically for classes dropped by the refund
deadline date, cancelled classes, and BOGW (fee waiver)
reimbursements (Pages 11-12)
Locations or publications where other policies may be found
The 2008-2009 College Catalog includes notations indicating a specific policy
for programs.17
The process of developing the catalog works for the institution. Constituents are
guaranteed precise, accurate, and current information regarding the requirements
for this standard. Weeks prior, publication information printed in the catalog is sent
to the appropriate manager to address changes or add new information. In
addition, the Instructional Support Office meets regularly with a Schedule and
Catalog Advisory Committee to address some of the revisions needed.
222
The institution is a Hispanic Serving Institution. As such, each term’s Schedule of
Classes contains critical information relating to student services information and
non-discriminatory policies translated into Spanish, along with links to the
registration process in Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, Tagalog, and Vietnamese. In
addition, both the printed and online versions of the Admission Application are
available in both English and Spanish. The Financial Aid Office has six documents
translated to Spanish including the Fee Waiver, Free Application for Federal Student
Aid (FAFSA) worksheet, and Fund your Future Brochure.19 Cultural and linguistic
bias in instruments and processes are constantly a focus for staff training and
review. Monthly staff development training and review sessions are held. Several
staff members are bilingual in English/Spanish and English/Vietnamese.
While the institution does not have a real-time online catalog, mid-year changes to
important information (for example, fees) are disseminated to students and
prospective students via a variety of methods. In addition to including any changes
in the next term’s Schedule of Classes, any/all of the following delivery modalities
may be employed: website pop-ups and/or scrolling text, MyChaffeyVIEW alerts,
articles in the student newspaper, local newspaper news briefs, posters, flyers,
marquee announcements, emails, postcards, telephone on-hold messaging, and
ChaffeyVision (monitors throughout the campus).
PLANNING AGENDA
II.B.3. The institution researches and identifies the learning support needs of its
student population and provides appropriate services and programs to address
those needs.
II.B.3.a. The institution assures equitable access to all of its students by providing
appropriate, comprehensive, and reliable services to students regardless of service
location or delivery method.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
In spring 2007, based on research identifying future needs of the institution, and in
support of the learning needs of the institution’s student population, the institution
established a “One Stop Shop” located in the Marie Kane Student Services
Administration building on the Rancho campus. Students may apply online for
admission or financial aid using one of the computers located in the main lobby,
meet with a financial aid representative, pay for classes or other fees, and refer
students to assessment and counseling services located in the same building. The
Fontana and Chino campuses also have a similar arrangement, although on a
223
smaller scale. All sites incorporate high tech with high touch to ensure a student is
able to easily transition between services and to ensure student success from
application to registration. Prior to the one stop shop, services were located
throughout various locations on the Rancho campus.
The institution’s Executive Expectations,20 and Institutional Goals/Ends Policies2
directly address equitable access for students including admissions and records,
cashiers, financial aid, EOPS/CARE, DPS, counseling and matriculation, athletics,
health services, transfer center, child care, student government and student
organizations. The pathways for these services are characterized by support for
access, progress, learning and success, as evidenced by research determining the
learning support needs of students at all three campus locations. To that end, the
Student Services Monitoring Report,21 the Annual Program and Services Review
(PSR),14 the Student Services Satisfaction Survey,22 and other program specific
satisfaction surveys, such as the Online Appointment Booking System Survey and
the MyChaffeyVIEW Survey,11 yield information that leads to meaningful dialogue
about how to best respond to students’ learning support needs. The institution
provides comprehensive, reliable services and equitable access to students at the
Rancho, Chino, and Fontana campuses. Information on services, eligibility
requirements and contacts may be found in the Schedule of Classes,23 College
Catalog 2008-2009,17 and on the institutional website http://www.chaffey.edu.
Student services programs work closely with the OIR to identify student needs to
establish equitable access. Student services faculty and staff have embraced the
development, implementation and research of Student Learning Outcomes during
the past two years to address comprehensive reliable services.
All student service programs are at varying stages in the process of assessing how
well student needs are met based on established Student Learning Outcomes and
use of evidence to provide programs and services to meet those needs. As can be
seen in the table in the self-evaluation section, Student Services Learning Outcomes
have been accomplished on the proficiency and sustainable continuous quality
improvement levels of implementation (WASC rubric).24 The SLOs were developed
with full faculty and staff input and are at the stage where data has been gathered,
and changes have been made, where indicated, in a dynamic mode with the goal of
improving service delivery.
The institution has transitioned to online application services, offered through
CCCApply in both English and Spanish.25 By using MyChaffeyVIEW, students can
add or drop classes, pay fees, review their class schedules and even update their
registration information (name, address, phone, and email). In addition, students
can access the Online Appointment Booking System to schedule assessment
appointment at all three campus locations. Also, during the spring 2009 semester,
224
the Counseling Department piloted online advising supported through CCCconfer,
a password protected, innovative approach to providing students with advising
opportunities, regardless of location.
However, after a few CCCconfer
appointments, the Counseling Department determined that (a) more equipment (for
example, headset) was needed to fully implement the system, and (b) additional
student information would be required to more efficiently and comprehensively
address the needs of students. As of June 2009, the equipment has been purchased,
and the necessary changes are being implemented, in preparation for a re-launch of
the pilot version of the system during the fall 2009 semester.
A new initiative, undertaken in the fall 2008, allows students to use add codes issued
by the instructor to register for classes. The benefit of this new process is that
students can add classes for which they have instructor permission via the web,
without the need to visit the Admissions and Records Office in person to submit a
signed add card. In addition, official transcripts can be requested online, in person,
or via postal mail. Unofficial transcripts can be accessed via MyChaffeyVIEW5 and
printed on demand. Also, through implementation of CCCTran, official transcripts
can be electronically transmitted to other participating educational institutions.
To facilitate faculty administrative activities for their classes, MyChaffyVIEW
provides current class rosters, rosters of students who have dropped the classes,
rosters of students who have added the classes, and wait lists for classes. The rosters
provide email addresses for students who have included them in their applications.
Students can be dropped by the instructor via MyChaffeyVIEW. Census
confirmation for classes can be done on MyChaffeyVIEW. Grades can also be
submitted online in this manner. Grade changes and paperwork for incomplete
grades (I) must be submitted in person.
There were approximately 32,331 in person student contacts for services for spring
2008, and about 26,396 for fall 2007. The average waiting time was under 9 minutes
for spring 2008, and under 12 minutes for fall 2007.26
The Admissions Office processed 28,802 applications for the 2007-2008 academic
year, 13,841 of those students registered online while 9,044 utilized the telephone
registration system (T-Reg) or registered in person.
To improve student access to the aforementioned services, the institution has
established web centers, available at all three campus locations, that allow students
to apply for admission and financial aid, and affords them access to
MyChaffeyVIEW. Staff members are always available to provide computer support
services for those students who need additional assistance.
225
The availability of online services has not affected the level of face-to-face or
telephone access students have to staff members. In fact, staff members at the
Rancho, Chino, and Fontana locations are assigned to work in the lobby area
directing and assisting students as they arrive. Additionally, the Marie Kane Center
is equipped with a Q-matic system, which utilizes a visual queuing system to
improve efficient and timely walk-in services for students. Therefore, when
students visit the Marie Kane Center in person, they can “take a number” to speak
with an Education Service Generalist to receive individualized attention.
The institution prides itself in providing appropriate, comprehensive, and reliable
services as described below. The Admissions and Financial Aid staff provide
information sessions and application workshops to local high school professionals
and students on request. The information in these workshops is currently
incorporated in a “New Student Information Session”27 provided in conjunction
with the Counseling Department for on-site presentations to fourteen feeder high
schools in spring 2009.
In fall 2008, the Cashiers Office instituted the FACTS Deferred Payment Plan.28
FACT/Nelnet enables a student to pay their tuition in monthly installments if they
meet the following criteria: they are a credit student for the summer, fall or spring
semesters and have incurred tuition fees. Depending on when the student registers
for classes and submits his/her FACTS/Nelnet Business Solutions Payment
Agreement,28 either of the following payment plans may apply: monthly payments
only, or an immediate down payment followed by monthly payments. There are no
interest or finance charges assessed. The only fee involved is the FACTS/Nelnet
non-refundable enrollment fee of $20 per semester.
FACTS/Nelnet will
automatically deduct the funds from a checking or savings account, MasterCard,
Visa, Discover Card, or American Express. Information may be obtained through
the institution’s website: http://www.chaffey.edu/cashier/facts.shtml.
The Assessment Center, located on the Rancho campus, provides general assessment
testing for recommended placement in Reading, English, Mathematics and ESL.
Appointments are available for the 14 sessions scheduled each week with
opportunity for students to also be seen on a “walk in” basis during the scheduled
sessions. Additional sessions may be scheduled during peak registration periods
utilizing specific computer labs on the Rancho campus. The Fontana and Chino
campuses have a designated computer lab for assessment testing once a week. The
Assessment Center on the Rancho campus has 22 computers and assesses, orients,
and advises over 6000 students per year using ACCUPLACER software. The
Fontana campus, Chino campus, and the former Ontario campus, provided over
2000 assessments this past academic year. New students, as well as high school
dually enrolled students, are required to complete assessment and orientation before
their registration dates. Research based multiple measures are applied at the time of
226
assessment and additional multiple means of assessment are utilized to include
transcript evaluations and counselor recommendations. On site assessments for
local high school students are scheduled on request. Effective fall 2008, the
Assessment Center’s computers have been updated with career surveys/inventories
for use by Guidance classes or individuals during non peak registration periods.
There are 13 general counselors; however, special programs (PUENTE, Opening
Doors, and International Students) have counselors reassigned 0.5 FTE each and
Articulation has a reassignment of 1.0 FTE. The actual FTE of general counselors for
the general student population is equated to 10.50. Additionally, there is 100%
athletic counselor (funded through Athletics) and one full-time counselor is assigned
to the Fontana and Chino campuses. The department is also staffed with 12 adjunct
counselors. In the 2007-2008 academic year, counselors provided 85,598 student
contacts, 11,413 students were served via student groups, 12,482 assessment tests
were provided and 8,962 educational plans were developed.29 The Counseling
Department reviews the data from SARS to determine staffing patterns and student
contacts on an annual basis. Through the utilization of various faculty schedules,
full walk-in services, counseling, and group activities, the department is able to
provide equitable access to students, especially during peak registration periods.
Table 1. The Number of Student Contacts with Counselors/Student Services from
the 2004-2005 Academic Year through the 2007-2008 Academic Year
Student Contacts
Students Served in Groups
Assessment Test
Educational Plans
2004-2005
23,392
586
10,299
3,711
2005-2006
24,740
818
8,544
3,839
2006-2007
41,009
1,054
9,361
6,897
2007-2008
85,598
11,413
12,482
8,962
Initiatives and programs specifically addressing learning needs of under prepared
and underrepresented students are research based. The key to the success of these
programs is the infusion of institutional research that supports data driven
outcomes. Specifically, the Opening Doors to Excellence (ODE) program is a
collaborative initiative enhancing instructional and student services providing
probationary students with pathways to develop successful academic and life
strategies. This project will be extended to over 2,000 students who are on
academic/progress probation or dismissal. Coordination of services, partnerships
with the Success Centers, and referrals to other Student Support Services are a vital
part of this program. Originally funded through the Manpower Demonstration
Research Corporation (MDRC), this project has now been institutionalized. MDRC
has collected and analyzed follow up data on probationary students participating in
the study and will publish their findings in a national research journal. The
institution’s OIR and Opening Doors plans to establish a local research agenda for
this project as well.
227
The Smart Start Outreach program, housed in the Counseling Department, meets
the learning needs of new students by identifying those students, based upon their
assessment results and self-reported academic history, that are at risk for
experiencing academic difficulty. Identified students are asked to seek more
information on the Smart Start program using a short and concise narrative oriented
to their assessment results. A flyer informing them of the Smart Start program is
also provided with additional information, and they are offered an invitation to
attend an informational session on the program. Students attending the
informational session complete an online assessment, SmartGrades,30 that provides
the counselor with additional information about students’ strengths, weakness, and
their preparedness for the college experience. At the close of the session, students
are provided a personal tour of the campus. At the conclusion of the tour, students
meet with a counselor to develop a multiple semester educational plan based on
their assessment results, desired educational goals, and potential risk factors
identified through SmartGrades, the online assessment tool previously administered
to the student by a counselor apprentice. Additional services are provided to
targeted students. Targeted students enroll in classes that include the program
Guidance classes, or partake in Project Second Chance, a program targeting new
students that previously dropped out of high school to assist them in their transition
to college.
The Counseling Department, in concert with the English department, supports the
Puente Project to increase retention in consecutive writing courses and preparation
of students for transfer to four-year colleges and universities. The Puente Project
can easily be accessed at the institution’s website.31
The African American Male Academic Network (AMAN) and the African American
Woman’s Academic Network (AWOMAN) projects began in the spring semester of
2006 with 12 students and has grown today to over 174 students. The project is a
retention and mentoring collaborative designed to assist the institution’s African
American students with regards to:
•
•
•
•
Successful completion of academic goals
Navigation of the institution’s campus and available resources
Establish connectedness and engagement with the campus community to
increase feelings of self-worth
Complete a vocational certificate, associate degree, graduate and/or transfer to a
four year college or university
The AMAN project was conceptualized and designed based upon the 2005-2006
Student Equity Plan32 developed by the President’s Equity Council,33 which reported
to the campus community that course completion rates of African American males
228
were significantly lower than other student groups on the campus. In collaboration
with the Office of Institutional Research, a research design agenda was developed
for the 2007-2008 academic year that centered on measuring and impacting students’
ability to focus. To that end, the program faculty developed an assessment
instrument34 in the spring 2009 semester that asked students to: 1) provide a
personal definition of focus; 2) self-assess their current ability to focus; and 3)
identify reasons why they assessed themselves at the current focus level. The
assessment instrument was completed by 31 AMAN/AWOMAN students at the
beginning and end of the spring 2009 semester. Findings indicated that students did
indeed experience a statistically and practically significant gain in their self-reported
ability to focus. In fact, 16 of the 31 students reported a gain in their ability to focus.
Learning and Educational Development (LED) is designed to meet the learning
needs of non-credit students by assisting them with their transition into credit
courses, therefore aiding non-credit student matriculation. The purpose of this
academic support is to encourage students to complete a certificate program, an
associate degree, and/or transfer to a four year college university. LED is a student
support service working in conjunction with the institution at large. The LED
project, along with the ESL department, will launch in concert with the Office of
Institutional Research this academic year, tracking the persistence of non-credit
students moving into credit courses.
Effective spring 2009, students seeking career information have access to both the
Global Career Center, located in the Campus Center East, and online information
offered through Virtual Career Resources (VCR) on the institution’s website.35
Students have an opportunity to complete career inventories, identify research
career fields, meet with a career counselor, attend workshops, and develop a
resume. The VCR site is designed to be a framework for ongoing posting of career
development resources available to the entire college community. The Chaffey
College Foundation and Alumni Affairs are partnering with the Global Career
Center, a comprehensive model which links alumni to the current student body for
student career enhancement.
The Student Employment Office offers job opportunities on- and off-campus to
students seeking both work experience and income. Students learn job skills, and
supervisors are flexible in scheduling work hours to accommodate class schedules.
In addition, the Student Employment Office, which includes student employment
and cooperative education, offers educational resources and job referrals.
In the 2008-2009 academic year, the Student Employment Office processed 2,038
applications and filled 502 positions with 490 students.36 In the 2007-2008 academic
year, 1,884 applications were processed to fill 476 positions with 457 students.37 In
229
the years prior to that, it was recorded that 1,237 applications were processed during
the 2006-2007 year38 and 1,416 applications were processed for the 2005-2006 year.39
Students use the Global Career Center to identify career goals through the use of
career assessments, counseling services, career workshops, and other online and
material career resources. During the course of the first semester, the GCC hosted
eight (8) résumé writing workshops, four (4) job interview workshops, two (2) career
exploration workshops, and one (1) career networking workshop. In addition to
those regular workshops, the GCC arranged several special presentations. These
included a guest speaking engagement with Carolyn Kalil, co-author of the True
Colors Personality System, and a special Job Interview Boot Camp presented by the
institution’s Executive Director of Human Resources. Several class visitations were
also conducted for ESL students, graduating students from the Dental Assisting
program, and students enrolled in Guidance courses.
The mission of the Transfer Center is to provide information and resources to help
students continue their education after Chaffey College. The services are available
to all the institution’s students. The office maintains a library of college catalogues
and reference materials, and provides access to the internet and specialized
computer programs that help students gather information about prospective four
year institutions and complete admissions applications. The center schedules and
hosts college representatives’ meetings with individual students, sponsors transferrelated workshops, schedules campus visits, and hosts college fairs. Monthly
schedules of activities are distributed throughout the campus community by email.
Staff members give classroom presentations on Transfer Center activities and
services. The Transfer Center arranges approximately ten trips per semester to local
university campuses to assist students with their transfer research. In 2008-2009,
staff took 176 students to visit 16 universities, including four UC campuses, six CSU
campuses, five private colleges, and one medical school.40
Tech Prep/Articulation41 at the institution has more than 150 active articulation
agreements with feeder high schools, Baldy View ROP, and selected high schools in
San Bernardino County and San Bernardino County ROP. The institution also has
an articulation agreement with the California Youth Authority (CYA). The focus of
the institution’s Tech Prep articulation in the 2008-2009 academic year was to
incorporate Statewide Career Pathways course templates42 and emphasize Creditby-exam opportunities.
A newly designed Child Development Center, reopened in spring 2003, serves as the
institution’s centralized child development instructional and service facility. The
center provides high quality care and educational experiences for children of
students enrolled in either day or evening classes. During the 2006-2007 academic
year, the Child Development Center served 163 children from 132 student families.
230
The service hours during that year totaled approximately 2,140 hours. During the
2007-2008 academic year, the center served approximately 182 children from 166
student families during the day, also totaling 2,140 service hours. Care is available
during the day for children aged two years through kindergarten. Fees are
calculated on an income-based sliding scale. On June 30, 2009 the Child
Development Center received official accreditation from the National Association
for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).43 The NAYEC Accreditation system
was created to set professional standards for early childhood education, and to help
families identify high-quality pre-schools, child care centers and other early
education programs. In the 23 years since NAEYC Accreditation was established, it
has become a widely recognized sign of high quality in early childhood education.
Almost 8,000 programs, serving one million young children, are currently accredited
by NAEYC - approximately 8% of all pre-schools and other early childhood
programs. As of this moment, there is no childcare at the Fontana campus or at the
Chino campus.
The administrators of the Chino campus have met with the staff of the YMCA and
with Ontario Head Start to determine whether these facilities could provide services.
Each felt that they had room for additional children. A very exploratory discussion
has been held with SunCal, developers of the Chino Park area, to request the use of
their vacant sales office which is adjacent to the Chino College Park campus.
The EOPS Office is located in the Harry D. Wiser Actuation Center (north of the
Cafeteria). EOPS, a state-funded program, provides comprehensive support services
to financially and educationally disadvantaged students. Program participants are
eligible for priority registration, academic and personal counseling, peer
advisement, and assistance buying books. Bilingual staff members are available to
assist students who speak limited English. Additional benefits and services are
available through the CARE program to EOPS students who are single parents with
children under fourteen years of age and receive public assistance. A Summer
Readiness Program (SRP) is offered to EOPS-eligible graduating high school seniors
from local feeder high schools. SRP prepares eligible high school students for the
rigors of higher education, and prepares them for college life.
EOPS/CARE services were initiated at the Fontana campus during the spring
semester 2004. At that time, EOPS counseling and support services were offered one
day a week. Services were offered at the Chino campus beginning in fall semester
2005. At that time, EOPS counseling and support services were offered one day a
week. Currently, EOPS counseling and support services, including the distribution
of benefits, are offered two days a week, including one evening at both the Fontana
and Chino campuses to better meet student needs. Both Fontana and Chino
students are served by EOPS staff offering classroom presentations, workshops for
application processes to EOPS/CARE, and general recruitment activities. In effect,
231
EOPS/CARE services are now an integral part of services available to all the
institution’s students, regardless of location.
EOPS services are also offered at the California Institution for Women (CIW) in
Chino. The institution’s Prison Program provides educational opportunities for
female inmates who are incarcerated. These women are traditionally representative
of under-prepared and underrepresented populations. To address outcomes of
these services, the Office of Institutional Research is analyzing program data to
assess the success of this program within the Strategic Planning Framework for
Institutional Effectiveness12 with the focus on providing recommendations for
improvement, as needed. The program is provided at all three locations with the
Rancho campus providing five days of service and the Fontana and Chino campuses
offering services two days a week.
To address the learning support needs of students, DPS, a categorically funded
program, provides service for students with physical, psychological, or learning
difficulties. DPS serves approximately 900 students at the Rancho campus, Fontana
and Chino campuses, the Learning Development Center (LDC) in Rancho
Cucamonga, and Diversified Industries (DI) in Montclair.
Services offered help students circumvent their functional limitations and become
active, productive members of the college community. The program emphasizes
independence and self-reliance while providing the support necessary for
individuals to achieve their goals. Funding is received through the Disabled
Students Program and Services (DSPS) section of the California Community College
System Office and is based on the number of students enrolled in the program as
well as on the types of disabilities served. The program is open to any student who
has a verifiable physical, psychological, or learning disability, either temporary or
permanent, which causes one or more educational limitations including, but not
limited to, mobility impairment, blindness/visual impairments, deafness and
hearing impairment, acquired brain injuries, other health conditions, developmental,
learning and psychological disabilities. The offered learning support services
include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Peer counseling
Priority registration
Test taking accommodations
Interpreters
Campus/community liaison
Note takers
Tutors
Academic counseling
Adaptive equipment/assistive technology
232
•
•
•
Tape recorders
Adaptive P.E.
Learning Disability assessment
Additionally, an Assistive Technology Center, under the direction of an alternate
media technical specialist, provides a unique resource for individuals with
disabilities in need of specialized equipment.
The LDC in Rancho Cucamonga, created for students with developmental or
learning disabilities, is a transitional work and job placement program offering
classes and workshops to assist students with successful job placement. Students
are eligible for these services based on their ability to successfully complete
assignments, actively participate in the program’s objectives, and conduct
themselves according to the institution’s code of conduct.
The International Students Program is intended to address the unique needs of
citizens of foreign countries who wish to study in the United States, specifically
Chaffey College. In addition to complying with the reporting requirements imposed
by Homeland Security, the International Student Office functions as a “one-stop
shop” to respond to prospective student inquiries and assist with applications and
registration. In addition, the program provides:
•
•
•
•
•
Specialized academic and career counseling,
Guidance on immigration and visa matters,
Housing and other community service referrals,
Help with obtaining drivers’ licenses, social security numbers and employment
(according to immigration guidelines),
Develops programs and activities to promote cultural awareness and
understanding on campus.44
In fall, 2004, the institution had 180 international students.
increased and is now averaging about 215 per semester.45
The number has
The institution’s CalWORKs program serves 300 students annually. Offices are
located at the Chino campus. The program works collaboratively with the county to
encourage a seamless service system for students. In addition, the program works
closely with the Economic Development Departments in each of the cities that make
up the Chaffey Community College District to initiate employment, internship and
mentoring opportunities for CalWORKs students. The program also offers a Foster
Youth Independent Living Program that prepares foster youth to emancipate out of
the foster care system. The program serves 35 to 40 youth who, each spring, are
invited to campus to participate in a ten week program. Students meet each week
for dinner and participate in workshops covering housing, health care, vital records
233
transportation, education, budget, computer literacy, and workforce preparation.
One of the classes is held at the Employment Resource Center in Rancho
Cucamonga (One Stop) where students learn how to access services from the
Employment Development Department, develop a resume, and access the Cal Jobs
website. Students take a campus tour and are introduced to student services, EOPS,
Financial Aid, Student Activities, and the Bookstore. Serious attention is devoted to
preparing students to continue their education at the community college. A
graduation dinner is usually held at an area restaurant where students dress up and
enjoy a demonstration on etiquette.
Cooperative work experience education makes experiential learning opportunities
available to all students by offering credit courses that integrate new learning
objectives into current work, and provides opportunities to apply classroom
learning through internships, community service, paid and volunteer work, and
special projects. Instructors meet with students to provide career counseling and
review career assessments and research assignments.
The Bookstore carries all required books, ancillaries, and supplies and is open six
days a week at the Rancho campus during fall and spring semesters, with extended
hours during the first two weeks of each term. Bookstore services are available at
the Chino and Fontana campuses. Students may also order books online. Other
bookstore services include special book orders, UPS mailing, textbook buyback, bus
passes, and stamps. The bookstore is completely self-supporting, with no funds
allocated by the institution for its operation. However, it is reviewed annually as a
part of the institution’s Program Services Review (PSR)14 and uses evidence for
planning based on the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional
Effectiveness.12 All proceeds from bookstore sales remain on campus and support
the Institutional Mission.1
The institution’s cafeteria located in the center of the Rancho campus is open five
days a week, provides both pre-prepared and made-to-order foods that include
baked goods, a soup bar, and Taco Bell Express. A new building is planned for
completion within two years and will provide more comprehensive and modernized
services, including a state of the art eatery and a coffee bar. Currently there is no
food service in Fontana, though the bookstore sells snacks and drinks. However, the
campus is also surrounded by about a dozen local restaurants and eateries. The new
academic building will contain a student lounge that will have vending machines
for snacks. At the Chino campus, students purchase sandwiches, chips, and drinks
from the college bookstore. Various vendors, including a coffee cart, lunch truck,
and Juice It Up have attempted to provide food service at the Chino campus;
however, students prefer driving off campus to eat. The overall plan for College
Park calls for several fast food restaurants which will then be within a short walk of
the campus.
234
Student Health Services, funded by a health fee of $15 in fall and spring terms,
provides a variety of services to students during scheduled hours five days a week
on the Rancho campus, and by appointment. In fall 2008, students recorded 2,428
visits to the health center. Services include first aid, treatment of minor illnesses,
health examinations, birth control, family planning, tuberculosis testing,
inoculations, laboratory testing, health consultations, individual and group
counseling, and a variety of health-related informational materials. Nominal
charges apply for certain laboratory tests and medications. The staff consists of
medical doctors, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, counselors, secretaries, and
student workers who are trained to provide health information and assist with
problems in a confidential and professional manner. Vending machines dispense
over-the-counter medicines and the health services staff offers flu vaccinations on
campus.
Physical Education/Athletics is currently underway with construction of a new
gymnasium. This will greatly improve access, and enhance athletics, while
providing additional facilities for the expansion of the athletics curriculum. The
institution offers intercollegiate sports, such as men’s and women’s water polo,
men’s and women’s track, football, men’s and women’s basketball, men’s and
women’s swimming, soccer, volleyball, baseball and softball. Overall, there are 14
intercollegiate teams with 292 participating students.46 Currently, there are no
athletic teams at the Chino and Fontana campuses. Students have expressed an
interest in having a variety of teams as the campus grows; however, funding is an
issue for the campus.
SELF-EVALUATION
To address the wide-ranging schedules of the institution’s diverse students, various
program offices at all three campus locations were open 7:30 am to 7 pm Monday
through Thursday and 7:30 am to 4:30 pm on Friday. These schedules changed due
to the economic downturn and the separation of part-time employees from the
institution. Schedules are now posted as Monday and Thursday 7:30 am to 7:00 pm,
Tuesday and Wednesday 7:30 am to 4:30 pm, and Friday 7:30 am to 2:00 pm.
Additional hours are provided on Saturday during the first two weeks of the
semester (during the high volume drop/add period). Bilingual services are
provided at all sites. The Fontana campus maintains the same hours and mirrors the
institution-wide schedule. There are three full-time and one permanent part-time
Admissions and Records staff members at Chino. They provide service 54 hours a
week. The hours in Chino parallel the Rancho A&R hours.
Student services programs, in conjunction with the OIR, periodically conduct
surveys to ascertain “customer satisfaction.” In the two most recent comprehensive
235
surveys, the results show that, on every question, the Admissions and Records
Office scored between 3.2 or higher on a four point scale (1 – strongly disagree; 4 –
strongly agree).22 Surveys are also conducted to measure student satisfaction with
individual services.
The Student Employment Office, in conjunction with Cooperative Education,
conducts a survey47 of students involved in their program. The survey provides
information about career decision making, tenure in the program, and quality of
experience. The survey is due to be re-tooled by the Office of Institutional Research
for increased ease of evaluating findings and in concert with the Strategic Planning
By the end of the pilot semester 1/20/09-6/17/09, the global career center served
519 students in the following areas: Career Assessments Administered (146), Career
Counseling Sessions (walk-in or appointment (165), Career Workshop Attendees
(84), Use of Computers for Career Planning (78), Use of Library Materials for Career
Planning (46).
To evaluate student needs and equitable access, as mentioned above, both the fall
2005 – summer 2007 MyChaffeyVIEW11 Survey, and the spring 2008 Online
Transcript Survey,48 provide evidence that students are very much satisfied with
both online services. The Online Transcript Survey findings led to the improvement
of the online transcript ordering process. The survey will be active from fall 2008
thru fall 2009 to obtain additional student feedback. The 2008 Student Services
Satisfaction Survey49 findings also point to students’ perceived overall satisfaction
with online materials and services offered by the collective set of student services
program. As Table 1 indicates, over 80% of respondents agree or strongly agree that
Online services are easy to use and helpful and materials provide accurate useful
information.
Table 2. Student Satisfaction with Programs’ Online Services & Materials
Agree or
Disagree or
Mean
Strongly
Strongly
Response
Agree
Disagree
Online services are difficult to access
21.0%
79.0%
2.99 (rev.)
Online services are easy to use
84.7%
15.3%
3.07
Online services are helpful
89.7%
10.3%
3.13
Online materials are poorly organized
15.5%
84.5%
3.02 (rev.)
Online materials address most of my questions
76.7%
23.3%
2.89
Online materials provide accurate information
87.3%
12.7%
3.02
Online materials provide useful information
90.4%
9.6%
3.07
Staff are difficult to reach via email
31.8%
68.2%
2.75 (rev.)
Email communication is helpful
85.0%
15.0%
3.09
Note: Responses to negatively worded items have been reversed (rev.) so that higher mean
responses denote a higher satisfaction rating.
Item
236
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for Standard II.B.3.a.
II.B.3.b. The institution provides an environment that encourages personal and
civic responsibility, as well as intellectual, aesthetic, and personal development
for all of its students.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution is committed to helping students understand the importance and
need for personal and civic responsibility. This commitment is illustrated in the
development of the institution’s four Core Competencies50 in 2008. As stated earlier,
the Core Competencies represent major skills that all students need in order to
succeed and become lifelong learners. It is for this reason that the college made
Community/Global Awareness and Responsibility one of the four Core
Competencies.
The institution has a student government, Associated Students of Chaffey College
(ASCC),51 with five executive officers and twelve students. ASCC is open to all
current students of the institution and all students are encouraged to participate.
Student Activities is managed by the director of student activities. ASCC and 28
other student organizations/clubs under the general guidance of Student Activities
Office are instrumental in encouraging extracurricular growth. In fact, many oncampus clubs are active in the community. Whether raising funds for Leukemia or
Foster Care Youth in the surrounding cities, students have a plethora of
opportunities in which to contribute to their communities and expand their social,
cultural, and civic consciousness. Some of the activities coordinated through ASCC
include the Chinese New Year Celebration, an International Student event;
International Education Week during the second week in November, an event
planned by International Student staff and the International Student Club; Cinco de
Mayo; Club Rush; and Kingsley Elementary School Book Drive (to name a few). A
calendar of activities is available.
All student clubs are linked to a faculty or staff advisor who models and encourages
personal and civic responsibility. The institution promotes an environment that
encourages personal and civic responsibility via the opportunities students have of
becoming visible members of standing institutional committees (for example, One
Book One College committee; 504 compliance committee; Student Activities and
Student Government Advisory Committee); in fact, the Student Body
President/Student Trustee holds a seat on the Governing Board. The shared
commitment to civic and personal responsibility between students and faculty is
also reflected in the formation of some committees. For example, a recently formed
237
committee, the Green Earth Movement (G.E.M.), is focused on the sustainability and
change of campus operations. Students have played an integral role in fulfilling
GEM’s mission by, in part, devoting a significant portion of their revenue to be used
for sustainable products. Noteworthy is the 2007-08 class gift in the amount of
$40,000 from the Associated Students to the institution, designated for sustainability
initiatives. Beyond this, Student Government has funded service initiatives to assist
with relief after natural disasters (for example, Habitat for Humanity, Hurricane
Katrina). In addition to the aforementioned activities, Associated Students of
Chaffey College and EOPS have taken students to Sacramento to participate and
observe political processes; students have even had the opportunity to meet with
elected officials on budget cutbacks in higher education. In preparation for their
community work, students are offered workshops focused on leadership skills,
cross-cultural understanding, and effective communication strategies.
Motivating and challenging opportunities for academically motivated students are
offered by the institution’s Honors Program. Students may enroll in designated
honors courses and seminars, participate in special activities and lectures, benefit
from articulation and transfer programs, and enjoy additional academic support
from the honors faculty. The institution recognizes academic excellence each
semester via personalized certificates for exemplary achievement (requiring a 4.0
GPA) and the Dean’s Honor List. Honors at graduation becoming a class
valedictorian are recognized based on cumulative academic accomplishments. The
student ambassador for the Honors program visits various classes and gives a short
presentation about the opportunities available to the institution’s students,
disseminates corresponding brochures,52 and answering any questions that may
arise. The Honors program initiated these presentations because students often
come when they are ready to transfer and express regret that they did not know
about the program sooner. The Honors Department is working to ensure that all
students are aware of the program and the advantages it offers to those transferring
to four-year schools, including scholarship opportunities.
Phi Theta Kappa, an international honor society, offers additional enrichment,
leadership and service opportunities for the institution’s scholars. Each of the
schools, the Financial Aid Office, the Office of Student Activities, and the Associated
Students of Chaffey College (ASCC) sponsor annual scholarship/awards
presentations to recognized academic achievement, outstanding personal
accomplishments, exceptional leadership, and contributions to campus life.
The Student Ambassador Program offers students a unique opportunity to develop
civic responsibility, and to enhance leadership and public relations skills, by
learning about the institution and the community, and by assisting staff and faculty
with special projects. Each year, 15-20 students undergo a thorough selection and
training process before being assigned to represent the institution at community
238
events, visit local high schools, assist new students with enrollment processes,
conduct campus tours, and assist with hospitality duties at special events.
The institution’s Wignall Museum of Contemporary Art strives to establish an
aesthetic environment through ongoing events. On an annual basis, the museum
holds many events during the academic year, including the Student Invitational and
the Winter Student Exhibition. Both events provide students a forum through which
they can showcase their art work to the campus community. The Wignall Museum
provides regular tours to the many classes that visit the museum throughout the
year, and since 2003, has held various expositions with professional artists. The
institution’s art committee creates an environment for students that encourage
aesthetic values. The museum holds an annual event, known as the Family Day at
the Wig,53 inviting students, staff, faculty, and community members to partake in a
host of art-related activities.
The institution offers guidance and self development classes which help students
acquire academic and life skills, and the Student Health Services Office, along with
other departments, offer self-help workshops to students.
The One Book, One College Program represents a collaborative effort on the part of
students, faculty, and staff in carefully selecting, reading, and discussing a work of
fiction or non-fiction throughout the year. Each semester, the One Book, One
College Committee holds a number of free events relating to the chosen work, and
many faculty members incorporate the work into their syllabi.
Students have the opportunity to participate in global issues via the Study Abroad
program with locations in Italy, Mexico, New York and South Africa. The
institution’s Study Abroad Program won Honorable Mention for the Andrew
Heiskel Award for International Education. In 2008-2009, the institution established
a Study Abroad Advisory Committee to more effectively plan learning
opportunities for students. The International Student Program brings to the campus
the opportunity to work and study with over 200 citizens from 50 different
countries, which in turn, enriches the institution’s educational environment,
promotes a better understanding of cultural differences, and prepares students in
becoming global citizens.
The institution’s events are expanding to the Fontana and Chino campuses
(Welcome Back Day/Student Elections/Constitution Day/Mini Transfer Fair).
Under federal mandate, Constitution Day is celebrated with the co-sponsorship of
the Financial Aid Office. An elected government official addresses the student
audience on civic responsibility, living in a democracy, and the importance of
exercising the right to vote at the Rancho campus and the Chino and Fontana
campuses.
239
In addition to Constitution Day, and the above named events, the Fontana campus
also hosts Black History Month Celebrations, Food before Finals, and Coffee Nights.
Chino campus students also participated in Constitution Day, Welcome Back lunch,
Black History month, Earth Day and Graduate Recognition Days. In addition, with
support from the Student Activities Office, two “Pizza with the Presidents lunches”
were held in which the superintendent/president and student body
president/student trustee asked for student input and suggestions regarding the
Chino campus.
The institution fosters an environment of personal development through its athletic
program.
In fact, the institution’s athletic program has gained statewide
recognition, as evidenced by state rankings54 and the number of students who have
earned athletic scholarships to four-year institutions.55 Student athletes receive
excellent coaching, access to state-of-the-art training equipment, and a
comprehensive academic support program. During the 2007-2008 academic year,
292 students made one of the institution’s athletic teams. Currently, the institution
offers football, volleyball, men’s and women’s soccer, men’s and women’s water
polo, men’s and women’s basketball, softball, baseball, swimming and diving, and
track and field.
Much emphasis on an environment that encourages personal and civic
responsibility comes from the Student Activities Office, which in partnership with
other institutional programs (E.O.P.S., International Students and DPS) and student
clubs, offers weekly events that place an emphasis on dialogue. Such events vary
from musical performances to lectures. Ideas are welcome from all the institution’s
constituents. Cultural diversity is not recognized exclusively during a particular
month; rather, it is celebrated throughout the year. Noteworthy is the annual ASCC
scholarship program that will award $150,000 to students in the 2009/2010 academic
year. ASCC also assists departments across the campus through grants awarded for
the purposes of improving learning environments and providing additional events.
These department grants are initially submitted by faculty and successful applicants
are selected by a Student Government subcommittee. The student leaders, in a
process facilitated by the director of student activities, review all applications and –
since all selected projects are funded by A.S.C.C. revenue - make all funding
decisions after a thorough deliberation process.
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution’s students have many opportunities for personal development and
civic contributions. Whether participating in a local book drive for economically
challenged elementary schools, partaking in a Wignall Student Invitational,56 or
traveling to Sacramento to meet with elected officials on budget cutbacks in higher
240
education, students benefit greatly from the institution’s commitment to fostering an
environment conducive to civic, intellectual, and personal responsibility and
growth.
The institution engages in dialogue concerning what constitutes a good learning
environment. Discussions in faculty senate, board meetings and college council
meetings are ongoing. Evaluations of the institution’s efforts occur also through the
bi-annual Campus Climate Surveys57 sponsored by the President’s Equity Council.
Student satisfaction surveys58 and periodic program specific surveys are
administered and present evidence that is used to plan for specific events and
activities.
The aforementioned programs and activities are conducive to establishing an
environment that encourages personal and intellectual growth. This viewpoint is
bolstered by findings stemming from the Campus Climate Survey (2007).59 Findings
indicated that over 80% of surveyed students felt that the institution was Socially
Comfortable (84.1%), Friendly (86.5%), Safe (82.4%), Welcoming (81.3%), and Fair
(80.8%).
The Student Activities Director meets regularly with the leadership at the Fontana
and Chino campuses to maintain dialogue, plan for future events, and process
feedback about better serving students at each location.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for Standard II.B.3.b.
II.B.3.c. The institution designs, maintains, and evaluates counseling and/or
academic advising programs to support student development and success and
prepares faculty and other personnel responsible for the advising function.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution designs and maintains counseling and advising programs at the
Rancho campus and both the Fontana and Chino campuses. The Counseling
Department on the Rancho campus is open from 7:30 am until 7:00 pm Monday
through Thursday, and 7:30 am until 4:30 pm on Friday. The institution’s Fontana
and Chino campuses each have a full-time counselor assigned; the services and
times are limited to counselor availability. Bilingual English/Spanish counseling
services are available at all the sites.
The Counseling Department reviews and updates orientation and counseling
delivery systems for effectiveness and modifies or updates those systems annually.
241
After completion of the assessment test (or Exemption for Assessment, Orientation,
and Counseling form), new students are invited to participate in a New Student
Orientation Group (one hour) and may stay after the orientation to meet with
program apprentices and a counselor for first term registration assistance, specific
program information (Health Science, Math/Science/Engineering transfer
information), or other quick questions.
These orientations have also been advertised and completed at the Fontana campus
with plans to expand to the Chino campus starting in spring 2009. Students may
also complete a quick counseling (10-minute, first-come/first- served) session with a
counselor for first term classes, prerequisite challenges, major/transfer GE
paperwork, or complete a small group first term planning session with the
counseling apprentices.
During the 2007 summer/fall application and registration period, the Counseling
Department piloted a “full service” walk-in program which permitted all students to
meet with a counselor for up to 30 minutes for any counseling service on a firstcome-first served basis. A modification of both the full service walk-in counseling
and pre-assessment orientation program was designed and a pilot program was
instituted in spring 2009.
Matriculation services are provided through the Counseling Department. The goal
of this service is to assist students in establishing appropriate educational goals and
to provide support services to help them achieve these goals.
Counseling services at the institution are evaluated on an annual basis through
various methods, including the institution’s annual Program and Service Review
(PSR),60 the Student Services Satisfaction Surveys,49 and the annual Board
Monitoring Report.61 Since the last accreditation team visit, the institution has
actively designed, and now maintains, counseling programs for probation and
dismissal (Opening Doors to Excellence), retention (AMAN/AWOMAN), and atrisk students (Smart Start and Early Alert). The Counseling Department also offers
additional robust services: Puente, Honors, Learning and Educational Development
(non-credit ESL), Transfer, Tech Prep, High School Partnership, Gateways to
Teaching, and the CIW program.
Opening Doors to Excellence, Puente Program, Transfer Center, Tech Prep, and CIW
analyze their programs on an annual basis, and as such, conduct an individual PSR
that is also briefly discussed in the Counseling Department’s PSR.60
The institution is excited about the results of the Opening Doors to Excellence (ODE)
program,62 designed to support student development. As initially described above
(II.B.3.a.), ODE is a collaborative initiative enhancing instructional and student
242
services by providing probationary students with pathways to develop successful
academic and life strategies. Students in their second consecutive semester on
probation are targeted and intensive recruitment efforts follow. Recruited students
are asked to sign a contract committing them to achieving removal of probationary
status. The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) a non-profit,
non-partisan social policy research organization originally funded ODE for the
purpose of assessing the effectiveness of the aforementioned innovative counseling
and instructional strategies.
Through extensive dialogue with MDRC, the institution’s faculty and staff designed
and implemented the various facets of the ODE program. ODE provides enhanced
learning and student support through a two-unit mandatory college success
guidance course and a one-unit co-requisite guidance seminar. The guidance
seminar is specifically designed to serve as a practicum for students inasmuch as it
entails having students meet with a counselor to evaluate their academic skills using
assessment results, transcript history, and educational plan. ODE guidance courses
require students to complete five directed learning activities in the institution’s
success centers including: Math Success, Writing Success, Reading/ESL Success
and/or Multidisciplinary Success Centers. Student utilization of the success centers
is an essential instructional support component of matriculation. Counseling,
Success Centers, English, and Math faculty collaborate on an on-going basis to
develop a variety of directed learning activities that assist students in addressing a
variety of learning challenges.
During fall 2007 dialogue with faculty, Institutional Services (IS), Information
Technology Services (ITS), and Student Services initiated the implementation of a
pilot program funded by the Hewlett Foundation: The Early Alert Program.
Subsequent dialogue among members of the Early Alert Committee, including the
dean of counseling, the Counseling Department, and Information Technology
Services, helped to focus and refine the program’s implementation. During the fall
2008 semester, the institution’s faculty piloted its own home-grown computerized
early alert system to assist students in becoming successful. This system identified a
total of 78 students from the pilot instructors’ courses as having some form of
academic difficulty. In order to support student development and success, these
students were sent letters and emails alerting them of instructors’ concerns and
specific recommendations for improvement. Instructors also invited students to
meet with them during their office hours to discuss the alerts. Early alert counselor
apprentices then made follow-up phone calls to alert students as well. They were
able to speak with 30 of the alerted students to inform them of additional support
programs and services available to assist them in addressing their difficulties.
Seventy-three students (94% of those alerted) were still enrolled at the end of the
alerting period. In spring 2009, the Early Alert pilot was expanded to include over
60 instructors.
243
Meanwhile, the Smart Start program (initially described in II.B.3.a., p. 223) is
beginning its third semester of operation in the spring 2009. Modeled after the
Opening Doors program, the program entails having new first time students enroll
in guidance classes to help them successfully transition into college. These guidance
classes require students to complete assessment, meet with a counselor to complete
an educational plan, and participate in directed learning activities in the Success
Centers. Some students with low math placement results are also enrolled in a
collaborative learning Math 610 course in which several corresponding assignments
are coordinated between the guidance and math courses over the duration of the
semester. Targeted students are identified via their assessment results and their selfreported performance in previous math courses. Students that previously dropped
out of high school are also targeted.
The Learning and Educational Development Program (LED) addresses maintenance
of a program designed to assist student development and success for non-credit
English as a Second Language students’ transition into credit courses. This
academic counseling support program, based on a design similar to EOPS,
encourages students to meet with a counselor several times per term to develop a
contract and educational plan. The goal of the program is to provide supportive
services to non credit ESL students and then transition the student into credit
programs offered by the institution. LED is primarily offered at the Fontana campus
where the initial non credit courses are offered. Effective fall 2008, non-credit ESL
courses are also available on the Rancho campus. The LED Program, along with the
ESL department, is working with the Office of Institutional Research to track the
persistence of non-credit students moving into credit courses.
Beginning fall 2009, the Chino Learning Advancement for Student Success
(C.L.A.S.S.) was initiated at the Chino campus. Intensive academic and counseling
support was infused for students who tested into foundation courses, specifically
English 450 and Reading 550. C.L.A.S.S allows students to progress through
transfer-level English and reading courses as a cohort and engage with a series of
classroom guest speakers sponsored by various student support services (for
example, EOPS, Honors program, Transfer Center). Students are required to meet
with a counselor to develop an educational plan and identify career goals.
The institution’s California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids
(CalWORKs) program is categorically funded and meets the needs of low income
students who are diligently working to end their dependence on county aid.
Supportive services include: (a) educational counseling, (b) limited personal
counseling, (c) career counseling, (d) and resume advising. The program is
managed by the director of economic development and reports to the chief
administrative officer/vice president in Chino.
244
Faculty are prepared for the counseling advising function at the institution. The
counseling department provides each counselor and counseling apprentice a
“Counselor Handbook”63 with all counseling documents/forms, general education
sheets, computer programs (Action PlanIt, SARS, Datatel and Image Now)
instructions, Health Science program information sheets/application checklists, and
Student Behavior, Academic Integrity and Harassment policies. Adjunct counselors
receive training annually with counselor updates sent via email. Individual requests
for updated training or review may also be completed. First year tenure track
counselors participate in a semester-long, campus wide “New Faculty Orientation”
program.64
All counselors (Counseling, EOPS, DPS, Cal Works, Athletics, and Hope Grant) meet
once a semester to maintain and enhance knowledge, receive updates, new
information, and program/procedure changes. The counseling department has
meetings several times a semester with presentations from outside areas (for
example, instruction, department coordinators, institutional representatives);
additionally, they receive conference workshop information and information
regarding new program development. All tenure/ tenure track counselors are
encouraged to attend professional development training, CSU/UC conferences, and
area specific conferences (for example, first-year-experience, at risk students, Puente,
Umoja, EOPS, California Association for Post-Secondary Education and Disability
(CAPED), and Athletic Advisement Conferences).
All counselors are trained to complete educational plans electronically and, if
requested, provide copies to students during the counseling sessions as well as
email copies to students.
All tenured faculty/counselors are evaluated in
accordance with Chaffey College Faculty Association (CCFA) guidelines. The
counseling department also evaluates service delivery systems annually and
completed updating and redesigning the on-line orientation (available in English,
Spanish and Closed Captioned).65 In fact, there are plans for a Student Service
Orientation program to be presented in a group setting for all new students who
complete an application to the institution (also to be developed in an on-line format).
SELF-EVALUATION
A formal evaluation of the Opening Doors to Excellence Program (ODE) was
completed by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC).66
Findings stemming from the MDRC’s evaluation of the program indicated that an
enhanced version of the ODE program was linked to an increase in the average
number of credits earned, an increase in the proportion of students earning a grade
point average of 2.0 or higher, and an increase in the proportion of students moving
off probation.
245
A pilot version of the Smart Start program was implemented in the spring 2008
semester. Forty-four students enrolled in two sections of Guidance 503/592B. A
total of 36 students completed the courses and earned a grade on record (81%
retention rate). Of the 36 students, 22 enrolled for fall 2008, indicative of a 61%
persistence rate. The fall 2008 program was limited to one section of Guidance
503/592B with 34 enrolled students. Of the 34 students, 27 of them earned a grade
on recorded (79% retention rate). As of the spring 2009 semester, the program is
offering one Guidance 503/592B section targeting 30 students. Both fall 2008 and
spring 2009 offered a collaborative learning opportunity to students as they could
enroll in Math 510 concurrently with Guidance 503/592B.
The OIR undertakes research studies to evaluate counseling and advising programs
based upon the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness12 which
links to the annual Program and Services Review process. All programs and
services participate in the annual review linked to the Institutional Mission1 and
Institutional Goals/Ends Policies.2 Programs link goals/SLOs/AUOs to assessment,
gather research based evidence and make future research plans based on the
evidence.
Based on evidence15 from the Office of Institutional Research, when comparing
students who either received counseling, orientation, or were assessed (for example,
matriculated) to students who were not, matriculated students were statistically
significantly more likely to have a higher overall success rate; such students
consistently have a higher basic skills success rate, higher occupational course
success rate, and are more likely to persist from one fall term to the next. In fact,
over the past four years, matriculated students have been statistically significantly
more likely to persist than non-matriculated students (see figure below). In
addition, the magnitude of the effect of the program was also calculated in the form
of an effect size (an effect size reflects the practical or real-world significance of
observed differences between groups; values equal to or greater than .20 are
indicative of real-world or practically significant effects). When comparing
matriculated students with non-matriculated students, the difference in success rates
was both statistically significant (p < .05) and practically significant (ES = > . 20).
246
Figure 1. The Persistence Rate of Matriculated and Non-Matriculated Students from
the 2004-2005 Academic Year through the 2007-2008 Academic Year
70%
Did Not Matriculate
Matriculated
Persistence
60%
57%
50%
48%
40%
30%
51%
48%
39%
32%
20%
36%
30%
10%
0%
04-05
05-06
06-07
07-08
Successful results were also evident when comparing matriculated students to
students who were not matriculated on the Accountability Reporting for
Community Colleges (ARCC) outcomes. Matriculated students were statistically
significantly more likely to be transfer prepared (TP), transfer directed (TD), and to
have earned a degree (see Figure below). Thus, it is clear that matriculation has a
positive relationship to a host of positive academic outcomes.
Figure 2. The Percent of Matriculated and Non-Matriculated Students Identified as
Transfer Prepared (TP), Transfer Directed (TD), Transfers, and Degree Earners
50.0%
40.0%
Did Not Matriculate
Matriculated
33.3%
30.0%
29.2%
20.0%
10.0%
23.2%
21.7%
20.5%
20.3%
14.0%
13.8%
0.0%
TP
TD
Transfer
Degree
EOPS, another program with a counseling advising component, shows support for
student development. EOPS students were statistically significantly more likely to
earn a certificate than non-EOPS students (see figure below).
247
Figure 3. The Percent of EOPS and Non-EOPS students Earning a Certificate
20.0%
non-EOPS
EOPS
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
11.3%
5.8%
0.0%
Certificate
Counseling/Advising may also be a factor in DPS. The evaluation of DPS indicated
that, when comparing DPS students to non-DPS students, DPS students were more
likely to persist and not be on probation than non-DPS students. In fact, over the
past three years, DPS students have been statistically significantly more likely to be
in good academic standing than non-DPS students.
Research outcomes15 indicate that counseling and advising makes a positive
difference in supporting student development.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for Standard II.B.3.c.
II.B.3.d. The institution designs and maintains appropriate programs, practices,
and services that support and enhance student understanding and appreciation of
diversity.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
embraces and promotes the value of diversity in a variety of venues.
Culturally rich and innovative programs offered through the Wignall Museum of
Contemporary Art (renamed from Wignall Museum to Wignall Museum of
Contemporary Art in 2009) explore the scope and diversity of the art of our time
through the lens of contemporary art. Some past programs include diverse-themed
exhibitions including: Mammygraphs: Mark Steven Greenfield; Trick Baby: Ernest
Arthur Bryant III; Subvertisements curated by the Center for the Study of Political
Graphics; Girly Show: Pin-ups, Zines & the So-Called Third Wave; Leaving Aztlán ;
Drive Time; Radiant Spaces/Private Domains: Southern California; Kazuo
Kadonaga; Past Imperfect and Homecoming. Through the vehicle of contemporary
art exhibitions, the Wignall Museum of Contemporary Art provides the students of
the institution a unique opportunity to view artworks up close and personal, to
The institution
248
expand on the imagery and information they are researching in the classroom and to
link up thematically across diverse disciplines. Through lectures, artists’ talks, walkthroughs, written materials and research, the Wignall provides the campus
community with an alternative way to teach and learn. By providing accessible
materials and hands-on events and opportunities, students are allowed direct
engagement. These opportunities can ignite students’ creative investigations and
can support critical thinking skills in relation to cross-campus curriculum and
analysis. In addition, the Wignall Museum of Contemporary Art also presents
various family events focusing on arts and culture which supports a diverse
approach to the world and our culture.
To foster the appreciation of diversity, the institution’s Theater provides a collection
of plays and musicals to meet a wide range of topics from the serious to comical.
Included in previous and current productions are The Laramie Project, The Wiz, The
Children’s Hour, Little Shop of Horrors, and the Vagina Monologues. The Theater
has also been available for outside productions including Las Mujeres de Juarez and
NWC.
The institution’s “Study Abroad Program” enhances student understanding of
diversity and cultures, and can be a life changing experience that allows students to
gain both an understanding of other cultures and a new perspective of life within
the United States. Studying abroad provides students a unique vantage point to
learn about the history, politics, economies, arts, and languages of other nations.
Whether participants study abroad as a means of attaining an enriched academic
experience, or to simply enjoy a more sophisticated experiential travel environment,
these studies will necessarily contribute to personal growth and understanding. In
addition, study abroad is typically looked upon favorably by universities, graduate
schools, and employers; as such, participation in the institution’s programs can
further students’ academic and employment opportunities. The program has
offered courses in Italy, Spain, Mexico, and South Africa.
Through the International Student Program, the institution extends an invitation to
citizens from all over the world to come to the United States and study at Chaffey
College. Through the admission and enrollment of more than 200 students from 50
different countries, the institution has an additional opportunity for educational
exchange that both teaches American values and customs, and promotes a greater
understanding and appreciation of foreign cultures.
Numerous student clubs67 also help to promote awareness and appreciation of
diversity. Examples of such clubs include: the Muslim Student Association (MSA),
Together-Plus Club-(Disability Awareness), Gay Straight Alliance (GSA), Hispanic
Association of Colleges and Universities Club (HACU). These groups participate in,
and are instrumental in promoting, a variety of events offered throughout the year,
249
including “International Education Week”, Hispanic Awareness/Cinco de Mayo,
Black History Month, Chinese and Vietnamese New Years, Disability Awareness
Month, Palestine Awareness Week and Women’s History month. For all events,
flyers are prepared with explanations of the meaning of a particular celebration.
International Education Week and the Chinese Vietnamese New Year celebrations
are planned by the International Student Office.
While various student groups strive to promote diversity, there are also faculty and
staff associations whose goals reflect the institution’s emphasis on enhancing the
understanding and appreciation of diversity. The institution’s Latino Faculty and
Staff Association (CCLFSA), founded in 2002, is a volunteer organization open to all
the institution’s staff, faculty, and administrators committed to creating an
environment that welcomes and supports Latino students, community members and
the institution’s employees. The association sponsors cultural events and a Latino
graduation program, and raises funds for the awarding of scholarships to the
institution’s students and employees. A monthly newsletter68, is electronically
distributed to all its members on a monthly basis to keep them informed of current
issues.
Likewise, the Chaffey College Black Faculty and Staff Association (BFSA)69 is
dedicated to academic, social, and cultural enrichment; as such, the BFSA continues
to support, challenge and enhance the enrichment of students, faculty and staff. The
mission of BFSA is to actively promote educational excellence and successful degree
attainment of its members and students at all levels. It is also the mission of the
BFSA to build unity and to serve as a support system for Black faculty, staff and
students. BFSA represents African Americans as well as all members of the African
Diaspora (whether from Africa, the Caribbean region, the United States or
elsewhere). BFSA actively promotes educational excellence and successful degree
attainment of its members and students at all levels. The Association supports
challenges and enhances students, faculty, and staff in their academic, social, and
cultural enrichment in conjunction with the community at large. BFSA is open to
enrollment from all the institution’s students, faculty, and staff, and advocates the
principles of equity for all students, faculty, and staff. BFSA provides scholarships
(two were awarded in 2008-2009) to outstanding students and student leaders and
also funds conference attendance and professional development not paid by the
institution.
BFSA promotes educational excellence and cultural enrichment through a variety of
events hosted throughout the academic year. For 2008-2009 academic year that
included: “Africa’s Legacy in Mexico”, a multicultural event which included
educator/ Speaker Sherehe Roze and an expert panel, “What’s done in the Dark”,
with speaker Millie McGhee, educator and descendent of J. Edgar Hoover. Miss
Mcghee spoke about J. Edgar Hoover’s mixed race heritage and her own struggles
250
with illiteracy. BFSA also sponsored several events for black history month that
prompted multicultural heritage in conjunction with several departments on
campus (ASCC, The Music Department, Fashion Department, Foundation and the
Bookstore).
The College Hour luncheon and/or afternoon/evening programs present topics
including: MSA presents Ramadan Iftar; Dr.Hatem Bazian, UC Berkeley Prof/ Guest
Speaker on the state of Palestine; Emad Bayoun and Edina Lakevich Guest speakers;
Student Diversity and Campus Climate: A Dialogue on Successful Pedagogical
Approaches and Strategies; Practical Tools to Increase College Access and
Achievement: Recruiting and Retaining Latino Students (Panel Presentation); and
Legacy of Africa in Mexico. The institution also hosted the UMOJA II conference –
Taking a Statewide Leadership Role to Promote African American Student Retention
and Success. Collectively, such forums afford students the opportunity to learn
about and appreciate diverse viewpoints, and by doing so, help to enhance students’
awareness of diverging perspectives. EOPS is mandated by Title 5 to acknowledge
and celebrate Cultural Awareness throughout the academic year and to expose the
campus community to the richness of the cultures that are representative of the
institution’s student body. This is accomplished by working with other departments
across campus and offering, or co-sponsoring, institution-wide events recognizing
and highlighting the contributions of all ethnicities and cultures. DPS conducts
annual (and more often as needed) walkthroughs to address ADA related concerns
of students. DPS sponsored an awareness day inviting the institution’s constituents
to take part in learning about various disabilities, including negotiating the
institutional environment in a wheelchair, walking blindfolded, and experiencing
what learning disabilities is all about.
The institution’s emphasis on designing and maintaining programs that support and
enhance student understanding and appreciation of diversity is further
demonstrated in degree requirements; all students seeking an Associate of Arts
and/or Associate of Science degree are required to meet a multicultural/gender
requirement by successfully completing an approved course.70 Courses are
designed to promote cultural and gender awareness, and are offered throughout the
various departments and schools. These courses include, but are not limited to:
Deaf Culture, Global Business, Child in the Multicultural Society, Ethnic Group
Relations, Cultural geography/anthropology/sociology, Cultural Literatures,
Intercultural Communication, Woman Artists in History, World Music, World
Religions, Holocaust History and Philosophy, and Culture and Nutrition.17
Lastly, the recently developed Faculty Success Center offers workshops to assist
faculty in addressing multicultural facets of learning. Based on the belief that
culture cannot be separated from student identity, responding to cultural diversity
becomes an important aspect of effective teaching. The Faculty Success Center has
251
offered a two-day interactive workshop in spring 2009 to provide training to faculty
in Culturally Responsive Teaching techniques.71 Forty participating faculty learned
about some of the cultural norms and expectations that students bring with them to
the college setting and how those cultural norms impact their performance and
behavior. During this workshop, faculty explored various strategies to connect with
students from different cultural backgrounds, created poster board projects, and
implemented ways to help them succeed.
SELF-EVALUATION
While there is no specific research evidence that speaks directly to the
aforementioned activities, the campus climate survey72 supports student responses
related to diversity. Findings stemming from the Campus Climate Surveys indicate
that students have positive feelings about how students of various racial/ethnic
backgrounds interact. Specifically, between 75% (2007) and 79% (2005) agreed or
strongly agreed with the following statement: “I feel I am a part of the college
because students from a variety of racial/ethnic groups interact well”. Such
evidence speaks to the emphasis that the institution places on enhancing the
understanding and appreciation of diversity.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for Standard II.B.3.d.
II.B.3.e. The institution regularly evaluates admissions and placement
instruments and practices to validate their effectiveness while minimizing biases.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution regularly evaluates placement instruments and practices at least
every six years for the purposes of validating their effectiveness while minimizing
bias. In July 2001, the web-based Accuplacer assessment tests,73 which are on the
Chancellor’s Office approved list covering English, Reading, Mathematics, and ESL:
Reading, Language Usage and Sentence Meaning, were selected for use by the
institution. The Accuplacer tests are adaptive inasmuch as the sequence of test
questions presented to each student varies as a result of responses offered to
preceding questions. The benefit of employing such tests is that each individual
institution is able to design its own placement rules based upon sound research
practices. An additional benefit is that students are able to receive scores and
placement recommendations immediately upon completion. OIR works with
faculty in the respective disciplines to maintain and refine appropriate placement
rules with confidence intervals supported by multiple predictors and test scores.
Accuplacer has been approved for use until 2012.
252
The institution also administers the Combined English Language Skills Assessment
(CELSA) test74 exclusively to ESL students to determine “ability to benefit”
establishing a student’s eligibility for federal financial aid pursuant to subdivision
(d) of Section 1091 of Title 20 of the United States Code.”
In order to minimize bias, the institutional researchers apply the 160 placement rules
and develop values for multiple measurements that result in the greatest
predictability of course outcome. The researchers meet with faculty and staff to
evaluate assessment instruments. In 2009, the Office of Institutional Research met
with the English faculty to collect data and reevaluate the multiple measures and
“cut scores” that determine placement recommendations into English. Mathematics
and ESL faculty met with the Office of Institutional Research upon approval of
new/redesigned curriculum during the 2007/2008 academic year. The Reading
department has completed their most recent evaluation cycle and the revised “cut
scores” and recommended placements are in use.
Approximately 25 locally-developed multiple measures questions are included as
part of the assessment process for admissions and placement.75 Examples of such
measures include self-reported high school GPA, the number of years since last
attended college, and the anticipated number o f hours a student plans to work
while in school. Students respond to multiple measure questions prior to
completing the Accuplacer. Multiple measures questions have been developed with
input from English, Mathematics, Reading, and ESL discipline faculty. The OIR
employs logistic regression, classification tables, and classification and regression
tree models to determine which multiple measures serve as best predictors for
course-specific success and non-success.75 In addition to ensuring that multiple
measure questions have predictive ability, questions are added to the placement
process only after a review of disproportionate impact and differential prediction
indicates that the proposed questions do not adversely impact student populations
by gender, ethnicity, age, and/or disability.
Three assessment instruments are currently used in mathematics.76 In order to
determine which instrument is the most appropriate starting point for students,
responses from the multiple measures questions are used to develop a branching
profile. The branching profile is based upon sound research practices and reduces
the number of mathematics assessment tests students are required to complete;
research indicates that the recommended mathematics assessment instrument is
correct over 80% of the time. In instances where students either over- or underperform on the recommended starting mathematics assessment instrument, students
are automatically branched to the appropriate mathematics assessment instrument.
253
In 2008, the OIR, in collaboration with the math instructors, established new cut
scores and placement rules for MATH-504 (basic Operations of Arithmetic), 510
(Arithmetic), 520 (Pre-Algebra), 410 (Elementary Algebra), 425 (Intermediate
Algebra), 25 (College Algebra), 31 (Plane Trigonometry), and 61 (Pre-Calculus). The
content validation process for each course mentioned previously, as well as for the
new math courses (for example, MATH-504 and 425), has also been conducted.76
Currently, the OIR is waiting for course success information allowing for analyses
that will help identify the educational background measures that increase the
likelihood of successful course completion in math courses.
Analyses are
anticipated to take place in fall 2009.
Also, in 2008, the OIR, along with the ESL faculty, engaged in cut-score and content
validation studies for all ESL courses.16 As is the case with Math, analysis will be
performed in 2009. Additionally, in 2008, the Office of Institutional Research and
ESL Faculty engaged in the process of locally validating the Accuplacer-based ESL
Listening Test. The only piece of research necessary to complete this is the
predictive validity study, which will be completed summer 2009. Accordingly, the
research will be submitted to the Chancellor’s Office for approval in summer 2009.
In 2007, the English Department worked with the OIR to complete a content
validation of its assessment instruments and set new cut-scores for the English
courses in the placement sequence.16 Equally important, in the fall 2007 and spring
2008 semesters, new cut-scores were used to place students and gather educational
background data. The OIR and the English faculty selected background measures in
December 2008. Accordingly, in January 2009, the new background measures were
included with a student’s test score to provide students with the most appropriate
placement recommendation. The OIR and the reading instructors will complete the
process of evaluating the content validity and re-assessing the cut-scores for the
reading courses during summer 2009. In addition, the validation process will also
include two new reading courses.
Upon completion of research and norming of test scores by the Office of Institutional
Research, the English, Reading, Mathematics and ESL departments will provide
updated information to the Counseling Department for assistance with student
placement.
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution’s efforts in validating the effectiveness of its assessment instruments
is reflected in the success rates of students who adhere to their placement
recommendations.16 For example, in mathematics, the OIR has found that students
who followed their math placement recommendation during the 2003-2004 and the
2005-2006 academic years were more likely to successfully complete the target
254
course in question (for example, Math-520) than were students who had successfully
completed the corresponding prerequisite course. As is shown in the figures below,
this finding was true of all examined math courses, including Math-520, Math-410,
Math-420, Math-25, Math-31, and Math-61. All differences were statistically
significant.
Figure 4. Effect of Following the Placement Recommendation or Successfully
Completing the Prerequisite on Success in MATH-520.
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
1.00
Effect Size
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.34
0.41
0.27
0.16
0.18
0.01
0.00
-0.20
Followed Placement
Successfully Completed Course
How the MATH-520 Prerequisite was Met
Completing the Prerequisite (for example, MATH-520) on Success in MATH-410
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
1.00
Effect Size
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.43
0.43
0.44
0.27
0.20
0.26
0.25
0.00
-0.20
Followed Placement
255
Completing the Prerequisite on Success in MATH-420
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
1.00
Effect Size
0.80
0.60
0.66
0.62
0.59
0.40
0.35
0.20
0.37
0.36
0.00
-0.20
Followed Placement
Figure 7. The Effect of Following the Placement Recommendation or Successfully
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
Effect Size
1.00
0.80
0.80
0.69
0.60
0.54
0.40
0.24
0.20
0.23
0.11
0.00
Followed Placement
Successfully Com pleted Course
How the MATH-25 Pr erequisite was Met
Effect Siz e
0.90
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
0.98
0.70
0.50
0.30
0.10
0.44
0.27
-0.10
-0.06
-0.20
-0.19
-0.30
Followed Placement
Successfully Com pleted Course
256
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
1.00
0.92
Effect Size
0.80
0.60
0.64
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.00
-0.06
-0.20
Followed Placement
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for Standard II.B.3.e.
II.B.3.f. The institution maintains student records permanently, securely, and
confidentially, with provision for secure backup of all files, regardless of the form
in which those files are maintained. The institution publishes and follows
established policies for release of student records.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Institutional policies regarding the maintenance, safety, release and destruction of
confidential student records is published in the Policy Manual77 Executive
Expectations Category 3, Chapter 5 (5.1.3, 5.1.4, and 5.1.5) and Procedure 5.1.5
(Student Records, Retention and Destruction). The institution publishes the Student
Privacy Rights and Access to Records in the College Catalog 2008-2009.17 FERPA
regulations are strictly adhered to by the institution. Students may request to block
their information from release at the time they apply. Regulations are in place to
secure student records. Court orders and IRS subpoenas are processed in
accordance with legal mandates.
In 2003, the institution purchased Image Now, a computerized document storage
system. Student records are scanned and linked by student ID number. All
required permanent documents are scanned into the Image Now system from any of
the institution’s campuses/centers, and the information is retrieved via Colleague
and Image Now. The Records Retention Committee, comprised of members from
Admissions & Records, Financial Aid, Human Resources and Information Services,
are currently reviewing the process and procedure for document destruction from
the Image Now system.
257
In addition, the institution’s Counseling Department maintains student assessment
scores in the Accuplacer website,78 which is password protected.
Student
educational plans are retrieved through ActionPlanIt, an independent external
computerized educational planner offered by Data2Info. Students who would like
to obtain copies of their test results or educational plans complete a request form79
available in the Rancho campus Counseling Department or online at the institution’s
Counseling department webpage.
The institution’s commitment to maintaining the confidentiality of student records
extends to its administrative system, Colleague (developed by Datatel, Inc.).
Training for all the institution’s employees requiring access to Colleague is provided
by the Information Services Department (IS). Such training is mandated and a
privacy statement80 is signed and maintained by IS. In Colleague, access to the
student population is based upon the employee’s job description, as approved by his
or her 1st level manager. Upon each entry into Colleague, the employee must click
on the agreement statement prior to use.
The Information Technology Services Department is responsible for all hardware
and software production, applications, databases, and data that resides in Colleague.
Within this scope, they provide secure backup policies, along with systems and
procedures for the following file servers: Production Servers, Test Servers, and Web
Servers. Backups are completed daily or weekly depending on the type of file.
SELF-EVALUATION
As mentioned above, the institution does maintain student records securely and
with confidentiality. Staff are trained to understand confidentiality and the
institution publishes policies for release of student records.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for Standard II.B.3.f.
II.B.4. The institution evaluates student support services to assure their adequacy
in meeting identified student needs. Evaluation of these services provides
evidence that they contribute to the achievement of student learning outcomes.
The institution uses the results of these evaluations as the basis for improvement.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
An institutional process that is integral to assuring the evaluation of Student
Support Services, is the annual Program and Services Review14 (PSR). PSR is a self-
258
evaluative process by which each program/service engages in self-reflective
dialogue about its existing practices that impact or support student learning and
achievement. Two critical components of a program’s/service’s PSR are their
Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Administrative Unit Outcomes (AUOs).
Every program/service presents SLOs that describe the specific knowledge, skills, or
abilities that a given program wants their students to acquire. AUOs describe the
improving of a service, product, and/or process that supports the maintaining or
operation of the institution (for example, Online Transcript Request Service). The
most recent revision to the PSR process took place in December 2008 when PSR was
linked with the newly adopted Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional
Effectiveness.12 At the core of the Strategic Planning Framework is the Institutional
Effectiveness Process12 (see figure below), which serves as the means of integrating
assessment and planning for a host of institutional functions, including Student
Learning Outcomes and Administrative Unit Outcomes. PSR has required selfreflective dialogue about program SLOs and/or AUOs since 2007. The latest
revision to the PSR process now requires such dialogue to norm to the Institutional
Effectiveness Process describing the distinct phases of the SLO/AUO cycle. Both
SLOs/AUOs reflect a given program’s identified goals, while the Means of
Assessment describes how the program intends to measure the knowledge, skills, or
abilities identified by the SLO/AUO. Meanwhile, the Criteria for Success describe
the benchmark that a program establishes for its identified SLO/AUO (for example,
75% of students will answer eight of the 10 quiz questions correctly). The Summary
of Evidence24 refers to obtained findings (for example, the actual percent of students
correctly answering eight of the ten questions). The Use of Results addresses the
outcomes of the assessment/evaluation as the basis for improvement (for example,
changing teaching strategies to improve performance on the 10-item quiz).
Figure 10. Chaffey College’s Institutional Effectiveness Process
259
All SLOs and AUOs described in PSR are examined by the Learning Outcomes
Committee, comprised of faculty and staff representing various departments and
programs. The committee offers both quantitative and qualitative feedback for
every identified SLO. Quantitative feedback takes the form of online checklists, one
for SLOs and one for AUOs, developed by the committee. The items contained
within the form were influenced by both the Institutional Effectiveness Process12 and
by the WASC Rubric for Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness,24 which denotes the
different levels of SLO/AUO progress (for example, Awareness to Sustainable
Continuous Quality Improvement).81 Once committee members complete and
submit a form, a copy is automatically sent to the PSR primary writer and the SLO
facilitators. Each submittal also populates a database housed in the Office of
Institutional Research.
Meanwhile, qualitative feedback takes the form of
constructive open-ended feedback that addresses each phase of the SLO/AUO cycle
(for example, Learning Outcomes Statement). In sum, the institution’s SLO/AUO
cycle forms the primary basis by which the institution evaluates Student Support
Services to assure their adequacy in meeting identified student needs. Likewise, the
feedback offered by the Learning Outcomes Committee assures that the evaluation
of Student Support Services contribute to the achievement of student learning
outcomes or the improving of program services or processes, and that the
institutional focus remains on using the results of such evaluations as the basis for
improvement.
While the aforementioned description accurately depicts current institutional
processes by which the institution evaluates and improves Student Support Services,
it is important to characterize the institutional dialogue and commitment that
gradually evolved into the evidence-based approach described above. The
institution is proud of the dialogue at so many junctures in the development and
evaluation of SLOs in Student Support Services with the clear intent to adequately
meet identified student needs. Since 2004, the institution has actively accelerated its
Student Learning Outcomes development through unified and cooperative
ventures. Instructional programs and Student Services have made great progress in
committing to Student Learning Outcomes as success indicators. Both entities
initially embarked on their own development path. The director of the Office of
Institutional Research was assigned by the previous superintendent/president as
the link between student services and instruction. He served on the Instruction
Student Learning Outcomes Task Force, and co-chaired the Student Services
Committee with the executive assistant (EA) to the superintendent
president/accreditation liaison. In 2004, the director of the Office of Institutional
Research and the EA presented the vice president of student services with
information showing that in 2002-2003 only 4.5% of the research activity conducted
by the OIR had been in Student Services, less than in any other area at the
institution. Although in the past student services programs had designed individual
260
program outcome evaluations to meet compliance with state and federal guidelines,
there had been neither a comprehensive research philosophy of Student Services
achievements nor of Student Learning Outcomes. This fact prompted the
conceptualization of a comprehensive Student Services Research Plan,82 of which,
Student Learning Outcomes was one of the major components.
Rethinking Student Services from a holistic perspective, including Student Learning
Outcomes, was new for Student Services managers, who were used to effective and
efficient program evaluation of their program area for state and federal reporting.
In 2004, following an introductory information meeting on Student Learning
Outcomes, several meetings were held with all Student Services managers
identifying common Student Services outcomes across programs. The question was
asked: “What knowledge, skills, and/or ability do you want your students to
possess after they have been served by your program?” All Managers worked
together to identify what they thought would be an answer to the question. After
several meetings, it became clear that there were common Student Services Learning
Outcomes with which all individual program managers could identify. These
included social responsibility, self-esteem (professional pride), independence,
accountability, and effective use of appropriate technology. It was agreed, based on
outcomes research, that each program should identify no more than two or three
learning outcomes to “tackle” in the first year. The result is presented in the table
below.
“Passion for Education”, although first identified, was not chosen by any of the
programs. This process was rewarding and resulted in identification of various
assessment procedures and tools best suited for each program. Throughout the fall
2005 and spring 2006 semesters, managers requested in-services for their entire staff,
which were led by the executive assistant to the superintendent/president (EA) and
the director of institutional research.
261
Table 3. A Listing of the Various Learning Outcomes Adopted by Student Services
Programs
Student Services
Learning Outcomes
Sense of Social
Responsibility
Program Choices
Athletics, EOPS
Self-Esteem
(professionalism,
pride)
Student Activities
DPS, EOPS
Self-Esteem (personal
empowerment)
EOPS
Independence
(resourcefulness)
Accountability
Effective Use of
Appropriate
Technology
Student Activities
Athletics
Counseling
Transfer Center
Student Health
Services
DPS
EOPS
Student Activities
Admissions and
Records
Student
Health
Services
Financial Aid
Counseling
Admissions and
Records
Transfer Center
Financial Aid
DPS
Additionally,
student
services
programs participated in in-service
training sessions broadening the
institution-wide understanding of
learning outcomes.
Managers
requested in-service training for
their entire staff, which were led by
the EA and the director of
institutional research. Throughout
the fall 2005 and spring 2006
semesters, the institution supported
the
institutional
pilot
groups
through an assessment phase and
recruited new programs for the next
phase of identifying outcomes.
In fall 2006, the previous vice
president of instruction set a goal for
99% of all programs to have
identified learning outcomes by the
end of the 2006-2007 academic year.
This goal was supported at the
beginning of the fall 2006 semester
with a Student Learning Outcomes
Day that was set aside as part of
scheduled Flex activities. On this
day, all remaining instructional
programs were required to identify
three-to-five
Student
Learning
Outcomes.
To promote and facilitate the Student Learning Outcomes Initiative, all components
of the SLO cycle – from the outcomes statement to making use of the results became embedded within the institution’s Program and Services Review process.
By the fall 2008, the institution had institutionalized the former Learning Outcomes
Task Force into a permanently standing Student Learning Outcomes Committee
made up of over 20 members, including the dean of counseling and matriculation,
along with other Student Services staff members. At the October 21, 2008 Faculty
Senate meeting, the appointment of two SLO facilitators was approved. The
262
facilitators, with assistance from the OIR, were charged with the development of
finalization of institutional core competencies, assisting in the full integration of
SLOs into program review, and working with departments to develop course level
SLOs that are in line with program and institutional SLOs.
After engaging in extensive training and discussion, student services programs are
utilizing a multitude of assessment instruments and methodologies to evaluate
whether services contribute to achievement and meet students’ needs. For instance,
the Counseling Department randomly assesses students served, engaging the first
student each counselor sees daily and asking each student to provide assessment
feedback. Conversely, the AMAN/AWOMAN Program and athletic team sports
have chosen to acquire learning outcomes data on program participants. A third
option was selected by the DPS program, which identified populations that will take
part in combinations of pre/post assessment and multiple visit assessments. While
the majority of student services programs have developed pre/post assessment
instruments for both external (faculty, staff, employer) evaluators and students selfevaluation, a number of programs are also engaged in, or are exploring, additional
means of assessment. Behavioral, affective, and cognitive measures have all been
explored, are currently being incorporated by various Student Services programs,
and are in the process of being evaluated in relation to student achievement and
improvement of services as necessary.
As described above, the institution is committed to evaluating Student Support
Services, thereby ensuring that they meet identified student needs. Evidence
collected that explores student needs includes department meetings, Student
Learning Outcome (SLO),81 development and implementation, student satisfaction
surveys83 and an annual Student Service Monitoring Report84 presented to the
Governing Board.
The Student Services Council, with representation from each department of student
services, meets monthly to share information about activities and issues85 within and
between departments. Often guest speakers are invited to apprise the Council of
issues outside of Student Services. This forum provided an opportunity for the vice
president of student services to identify issues related to student needs and provide
updates on institution-wide issues. Since the 2004 accreditation self study, Student
Services vice presidents have changed three times. In 2006 the vice president of
student services was reassigned to the chief administrative officer position for the
Chino campus. A new vice president was hired in July 2006 and stayed until his
retirement in July 2009. Thereafter, Student Services was reassigned to the vice
president of instruction.
263
SELF-EVALUATION
Matriculation Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) at the institution has moved from
identification of program specific SLOs to selection of assessment tools for pilot
implementation that began 2007. Individual meetings were scheduled in October
2008 for each student service program to cooperatively identify appropriate
program specific and Student Service wide processes. The individual program
meetings were facilitated by the director of institutional research, the dean of
counseling and matriculation, and the EA, who have responsibility to provide
leadership for the establishment/implementation of Student Services SLOs. Student
Services envisions that programs will identify SLOs each October to include in
Program and Service Review each November. As part of Program and Service
Review, two of five SLOs will be assessed each spring to generate findings, and
make use of the results, by the following year. Simultaneously, a Student Services
Satisfaction Survey will be conducted each spring to inform the discussion for
identification of SLOs for the following year. This will foster a dynamic, on-going
process conducive to “closing the loop” between the Office of Institutional Research
and Student Services programs. This process, like all other processes, addresses the
Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness.12
Evidence related to the achievement of SLOs is based on the institution’s integrated
strategic planning model and identified in each program’s PSR14. As of this writing,
the following student services programs are participating in SLO assessment. The
table below shows the progress in implementing SLOs according to the WASC
Rubric for Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness.24 As of June 2009, 8 of the 17
programs listed below (47%) meet the proficiency level of progress, and all
programs are at least at the developmental level.
Table 4. Characteristics of Institutional Effectiveness in Student Learning Outcomes
(Levels of Implementation)
Program
Awareness
Admissions & Records
AMAN/AWOMAN
Assessment Services
Athletics
CalWORKs
Global Career Center*
Development
Proficiency
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cashier’s
Counseling Guidance Courses
DPS
X
X
X
264
Sustainable
Continuous
Quality
Improvement
Table 4. (cont’d.)
Program
Awareness
Development
EOPS
Financial Aid
International Students
Proficiency
Sustainable
Continuous
Quality
Improvement
X
X
X
New Student Orientations
X
Opening Doors to Excellence
X
Transfer Center
X
Student Activities
X
Student Health Services
X
* New Global Career Center opened spring 2009; Student Employment Office re-opened fall 2009
A detailed discussion showing the evaluation process used by each program is
available on the website of the Office of Institutional Research.16 The following is a
more detailed discussion of each of the aforementioned programs:
Discussion of SLO implementation and evaluation
The identified learning outcome for the Admissions and Records Office is to
improve student understanding of MyChaffeyVIEW,5 and the registration statement
account detail. A nine item assessment tool86 was handed to students using oncampus computers or web stations for fall 2008. The summary of evidence indicated
that students generally possess a firm understanding of MyChaffeyVIEW and the
registration statement account detail.
Admissions and Records is on the proficiency level and has devised an assortment
of strategies to address these areas,87 many of which include the revising of various
items on the assessment form along with the revising of the MyChaffeyVIEW site.
In addition to evidence that shows that services contribute to SLOs several Student
Support Services have engaged in AUO development including the Transfer Center,
EOPS, Opening Doors, Smart Start and others related to the Online appointment
Booking System and Online Transfer Request.
The AMAN/AWOMAN Program chose to engage in an in-depth exploration of two
student learning outcomes: The increasing of student independence and the
effective use of appropriate technology employing a four point rubric16 for
assessment. During the fall 2006 semester, the rubric was piloted with students
enrolled in GUID-3 sections. Given the success of the pilot phase, the rubric was
employed with the same population of students during the 2008-2009 academic year
and was completed by the instructors teaching those sections. While the pilot phase
entailed only a single assessment at the end of the semester, the full implementation
265
of the SLO consisted of forms being completed by the instructors during the first
two weeks of the semester, and the last three weeks. The summary of evidence16
points to small gains in both independence and effective use of technology; however
the difference was not found to be statistically significant. After modifying the
assessment form, the program will re-implement the SLO during the spring 2010
semester. In addition, as described in II.B.3.a. above, a second SLO was developed
for the 2007-2008 academic year that centered on measuring and impacting students’
ability to focus. To that end, the program faculty developed an assessment
instrument in the spring 2009 semester that asked students to: (a) provide a personal
definition of focus, (b) self-assess their current ability to focus, and (c) identify
reasons why they assessed themselves at the current focus level. The assessment
instrument was completed by 31 AMAN/AWOMAN students at the beginning and
end of the spring 2009 semester. Findings indicated that students experienced a
statistically and practically significant gain in their self-reported ability to focus. In
fact, 16 of the 31 students reported a gain in their ability to focus. The counseling
faculty member who taught these sections also provided similar data for each
student using an online rubric. Evidence will be evaluated to implement
improvements.
In the spring 2009 term, the counseling department’s Assessment Services piloted
an “Early Assessment” program with 12 local feeder high schools. Included in the
pilot were: A.B. Miller, Alta Loma, Ayala, Chino, Chino Hills, Don Lugo, Fontana,
Kaiser, Los Osos, Ontario, Rancho and Upland High Schools. The pilot consisted of
a two-part program in which apprentices/adjunct counselors presented a New
Student Information Session including programs and services offered at the
institution, how to apply to the institution, Financial Aid, and assessment
information. Part two of the program included a group assessment followed by a
College Orientation and Counseling session. Over 1,400 student contacts were made
in one month during the Early Assessment pilot project.
During the spring 2009 semester, the high school students who participated in early
assessment/counseling were asked to identify institutional resources, procedures,
and policies that support their academic success. The Means of Assessment was
collaboratively developed by the counselors and staff facilitating the program and
the OIR. The Criteria for Success, also stated in Program and Services Review, was
that students would identify the institution’s services, registration procedures and
policies with 80% accuracy. The Summary of Data was written by the OIR and
identified that on average, students responded to 62% of the 16 questions correctly
and that 80% or more of the students answered three questions correctly. Further
examination of student responses revealed that re-wording some of the questions
may help to improve student responses. In addition, at the writing of this selfstudy, instructional strategies for improving responses to some of the questions are
being developed and will be implemented during the 2009 – 2010 academic year.
266
As a self-evaluation, the institution’s Athletics Department conducted an
assessment trial run of Student Learning Outcomes in fall 2006, with the Men’s and
Women’s Basketball team. The identified learning outcome was to increase sense of
social responsibility and student independence. The means of assessment consisted
of a pre and post survey88 of both the players and the coaches, using an “Athletics
Program Student Learning Outcomes Student Form”,89 as well as an “Athletics
Program Student Learning Outcomes” form90 for the coaches. Their criterion for
success was a 75% gain in either sense of social responsibility or independence.
The Athletics Department completed the implementation of its SLOs during the
2007-2008 academic year. The summary of evidence16 indicates that:
•
The goals articulated in the student learning outcomes assessment statements
were not met. Student-athletes did not experience a 75% gain in either sense of
social responsibility (38.1% experienced gain) or independence (9.5%
experienced gain).
•
Similarities between student-athletes and basketball team head coaches on
student sense of social responsibility (pre- and post-assessment) and preassessment of student independence.
Post-assessment of student independence revealed statistically significant
differences between student-athletes and head coaches; student-athletes rated
their end-of-season level of independence higher than the head basketball
coaches.
Over the course of the season, both student-athletes and head basketball coaches
perceived a decline in student independence; although it appears that this is
partially driven by a high pre-assessment rating by both groups.
A statistically significant increase in student-athletes’ sense of social
responsibility as perceived by both student-athletes and head basketball coaches.
From the beginning to the end of the season, both student-athletes and the head
basketball coaches perceived gains in student-athlete sense of social
responsibility.
•
•
•
The Athletics Department has continued into cycle two for the 2008-2009 season
with the administration of SLO surveys to the fall and winter sports teams and will
discuss possibilities for improving proficiency in the areas assessed. Some proposed
improvements are student mentoring for the area of student independence, and
team building seminars for the area of social responsibility. The Athletics
Department plans to re-tool the student survey form questions, which are currently
in a first person response. The survey questions will be crafted to assess proficiency
using situational responses.
267
The CalWORKs Program is in the developmental stage of Student Learning
Outcomes. The program has focused upon two distinct SLOs. The learning
outcome for SLO # 1 is to increase student understanding of his/her rights and
responsibilities as a participant in a Welfare-To-Work program. Meanwhile, the
second student learning outcome is to increase a student’s understanding of his/her
educational plan, career options for the chosen major, and how these choices will
assist him/her in reaching self-sufficiency. The means of assessment is a four point
rubric91 highlighting the four distinct levels of demonstrated student understanding.
The rubric is to be completed by a counselor each time a student makes a visit to
CalWORKs so that the progress of that student can be tracked over the course of
their involvement in the program. The implementation phase of the SLO will begin
during the summer 2009 term and will continue through the fall 2009 semester – it is
then that the OIR will generate a summary of evidence stemming from the
implementation of these to determine how to improve the program in such a way
that students have a greater chance of acquiring a high level of understanding.
Career Services/Student Employment Office: was re-invented in spring 2009 and
consists now of the new Global Career Center. The Student Employment Office is
housed in the center. The Student Employment Office is in the developmental stage
of Student Learning Outcomes. The program’s learning outcomes statement is to
improve students’ understanding of how to correctly complete an application for an
interview request. The program, in collaboration with the OIR, has crafted a means
of assessment comprised of eight true/false items meant to measure students’
understanding of the application process92 Students will complete the instrument
before and after receiving guidance from a staff member with the application
process. Implementation will begin during the fall 2009 semester; a summary of
evidence will be generated during the Spring 2010 term.
The Cashier’s Office is in the proficiency level of Student Learning Outcomes.
Their learning outcomes statement is to increase student understanding of policies
governing the payment of fees and receipt of refunds. To that end, they crafted a
means of assessment comprised of five true/false items designed to measure
student understanding.93 The instrument was administered during a two week
period in spring 2008 to students visiting the Cashier’s Office. While only 33
students completed the form, the summary of evidence revealed that students
possessed an understanding of the aforementioned policies. Nevertheless, findings
also revealed two areas in which students may need additional instruction or
clarification: (a) the time constraints on refund eligibility and (b) the role that the
Franchise Tax Board may play in collecting past due amounts.
Given such findings, the Cashier’s Office has used the results to generate various
strategies for program improvement, among them revising the language of the two
items students most often answered incorrectly to address possible ambiguity in the
268
language. After further discussion, it was also noted that not all Admissions and
Records staff members distribute refund information in the same manner as the
Cashier’s staff. For example, the Cashier’s staff are very disciplined in ensuring that
all students who submit payments in person get a Refund Bookmark with relevant
information. The bookmark serves as a reminder of refund information and
deadlines. It was discovered that the Admissions staff rarely distributes Refund
Bookmarks possibly due to the lack of awareness on the importance of the
bookmark. Therefore, it was agreed that the Admissions and Records Office would
collaborate with the Cashier’s Office to disseminate crucial information to students.
Another strategy included the use of technology to inform students of upcoming
deadline dates. Students now receive more regular email updates to alert them of
upcoming deadlines.
The Child Development Center serves the children of the institution’s students and
staff and is in the process of developing AUOs. To support learning access and
success, the Child Development Center regularly examines the quality of the
services it provides to the institution’s students and members of the community.
Since spring 2005, the Child Development Center has conducted an annual Parent
Survey.94 The survey is designed to examine parent satisfaction with various aspects
of the Child Development Center, such as the interaction between the children and
staff, the quality of the center’s equipment and resources, and the center’s health and
safety policies/procedures. Findings across all years of implementation indicate
that parents are very much satisfied with the services offered by the Child
Development Center. The most recent findings, generated for spring 200895 indicate
that parents are particularly satisfied with the number of adults working with
children, the center’s health and safety policies and procedures, and the overall
quality of the Child Development Center. To maintain funding, the program must
submit reports to the Department of Education that include parent surveys and
evaluations of the children. The Child Development Center assesses the children
with the Desired Results Development Profiles96 after the first 60 days and then
every 6 months thereafter. The results allow the program to develop learning goals
for the children. There is also an Infant Toddler Environmental Rating Scale and an
Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale97 that are used to create program goals.
The Child Development Center has just received (June 2009) official accreditation
from the National Association for the Education of Young Children.98
Counseling has developed and assessed three learning outcomes statements: a)
students will actively pursue their educational and/or career goals; b) students will
value, appreciate, and effectively use technology to research, plan, and pursue their
educational and career goals; and c) students will be able to engage in critical
thinking. The first two SLOs were collaboratively developed prior to the fall 2008
term. The Counseling instructors developed two 4-point rubrics99 to be completed
by GUID-3 students as a pre-post assessment to assess their pursuit of their career
269
and/or educational goals as well as their use of technology in pursuing their career
and/or educational goals. The pre-post assessments100 were disseminated to all
GUID-3 students during the fall 2008 semester after the start of the course and near
the end of the course. A total of 70 students completed both the pre and post
assessments. Findings stemming from the implementation of the first SLO indicate
that students were much more likely to self-rate themselves as pursing their
educational and/or career goals. For instance, 91% of the students self-rated
themselves as actively pursuing their goals or that they have developed a
comprehensive plan to achieve their goals.
Findings stemming from the
implementation of the second SLO indicate that students were much more likely to
self-rate themselves as effectively using technology or as being comfortable with
using technology. For instance, 90% of the students self-rated themselves as
effectively using technology or as being comfortable with using technology.
The third SLO was developed as a post-assessment to measure critical thinking of
GUID-3 students. The critical thinking measure asks students to self-rate their
critical thinking skills on a 7-point Likert scale. The questions seek to measure how
well students question information, search for supporting evidence, develop their
own ideas, and search for possible alternative explanations. The measure is a
standardized measure of critical thinking taken from the Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ).101 The MSLQ has been used in a wide-range of
courses and educational settings and was specifically designed to help improve
college student performance. The reliability coefficient alpha was equal to .80,
which is considered to be a very strong indication that the measure consistently
measures critical thinking. The developers of the MSLQ suggest that if a student’s
average score is 4 or higher then they are doing well. However, if their average
score is 3 or lower, the developers suggest that students seek help from their
instructor and/or counselor (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991).
Accordingly, this information was used as a comparison to examine the impact of
GUID-3 on the critical thinking skills of students. Findings revealed that students
rated their critical thinking skills as 5.03 on a 7 point scale. At the same time,
question 1 was below 4.00, which is the recommended average by the developers of
the critical thinking measure. A possible use of the results might involve strategies
in GUID-3 to specifically deal with this measure. For instance, assignments might be
created that encourage students to question information that they hear or read in
their GUID-3 course. Finally, 87.5% or 84 out of the 96 GUID-3 students had an
average critical thinking score of 4.00 or higher.
Disability Programs and Services (DPS) has developed and assessed two learning
outcomes statements: a) Students will be able to identify their disability, and b)
Students will be able to identify the accommodations associated with their disability.
DPS Faculty and staff, with the support of Institutional Research, developed two
questions in which students were asked to identify their disability and the
270
appropriate accommodations for that disability.
The resulting survey was
disseminated to 106 students during the fall 2008 semester. In addition, the DPS
Program also provided the OIR with a database that identified DPS students and
their disability – this allowed the Office of Institutional Research to determine the
extent to which students were able to accurately identify their disability (SLO# 1).
Findings stemming from the implementation of the first SLO indicate that only 36%
of DPS students were able to correctly identify both their primary and secondary
disability.102 However, all three visually impaired students were able to correctly
identify their disability. In addition, 70% of students with a psychological disability
and 63% of students with a brain injury were able to correctly identify their
disabilities.
Furthermore, DPS staff and faculty also created a chart that identified the most
appropriate accommodations for each disability - this allowed the Office of
Institutional Research to determine the extent to which students were able to
accurately identify the accommodations associated with their disability. Findings
indicated that only 3 out of 106 DPS students who were assessed correctly identified
the appropriate accommodations associated with their disability. The students who
correctly identified the appropriate accommodations were 3 of the 16
psychologically impaired DPS students. In addition, 80% of the DPS students who
were mobility impaired identified half or more of the correct accommodations.
Conversely, 67% of DPS students with a speech or language impairment did not
identify any accommodations correctly. DPS students with a brain injury were also
less likely to identify accommodations correctly.
These findings revealed that the assessment form did not adequately take the
student’s secondary disability into account. As such, DPS has since revised the
assessment form and made a distinction between primary and secondary disability.
The SLO will be re-assessed in the fall 2009 semester.
Extended Opportunities Programs and Services (EOPS) is in the proficiency level
of Student Learning Outcomes. The learning outcomes statement for one SLO is to
improve EOPS student independence and responsibility. During the spring 2008
semester, the EOPS program – in collaboration with the Office of Institutional
Research – crafted a means of assessment comprised of 17 Yes/No items103
describing various student behaviors or characteristics indicative of both
independence and responsibility. Information was obtained via counselor ratings
obtained during two face-to-face meetings with students, at start term and end term
fall 2008, and through Colleague, the institution’s information database. Assessment
scores at both time points were obtained for a total of 139 students.
The table below highlights the summary of evidence; that is, it illustrates student
performance on the assessment instrument at the beginning (start term) and end
271
(end term) of the semester. In all cases, ‘Yes’ responses are indicative of positive or
desired student behaviors or characteristics (for example, engaging in career-related
research, utilizing priority registration). EOPS staff members will be meeting during
the summer 2009 term to decide upon and implement strategies for making use of
the results. Overall, as indicated by the difference in average total score across the
two time points (0.14), students demonstrated a small increase, not statistically
significant, in independence and responsibility. EOPS staff members came to the
conclusion that one reason for the lack of observed change from the beginning to
end of the semester may be due to the nature of the assessment items, only
continuing students (for example, students who had completed at least one semester
in EOPS) could be assessed. Specifically, staff members believe that the rigor and
novelty of the first year experience in EOPS serves to increase students’
independence and responsibility; such an increase, in turn, may reach a plateau once
students commence their second year in EOPS, leading to the finding that students’
level of independence and responsibility does not increase over the course of the
subsequent semester. Given such conclusions, EOPS will be working with the Office
of Institutional Research to craft a new assessment instrument designed for use with
both first-time and continuing students.
Table 6. EOPS Student Performance on a 17 Item Assessment Evaluating
Independence and Responsibility at Start and End Term During the Fall 2008
Semester
Assessment Item
Start Term
Yes/No
End Term
Yes/ No
Completing Tasks (rev)
Non-Mandatory Appts. (rev)
Educational/ Career Research
Explored Transfer/ Career Options
Scholarship/ Reference Letter
On-Campus Activities
Ed Plan Preferences
Maintained 12 Units
Timely Printout Submission
Mandatory Appointments
GPA ≥ 2.0
GPA ≥ 2.5
GPA ≥ 3.0
Priority Registration
Self-Initiated SC Visit
Additional SC Visits
Average Total Score
137
128
48
43
25
9
54
117
73
124
92
72
41
67
69
44
8.54
133
130
38
39
23
8
37
118
82
132
95
69
44
79
47
67
8.68
2
11
91
96
114
130
85
22
66
15
47
67
98
72
70
95
6
9
101
100
116
131
102
21
57
7
44
70
95
60
92
72
Stat.
Signif.
Effect
Size
(d)
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
-.18
.06
-.16
-.06
-.04
-.03
-.26
.02
.13
.22
.05
-.04
.05
.17
-.32
.34
.05
*Note: Q3 and Q17 were omitted due to differences in coding categories (see FA08 coding sheet). However, the findings
stemming from each item are reflected by the reported averages.
272
EOPS is also implementing a second SLO: “impact students’ perceived well-being
with respect to goal orientation, self-esteem, and social support”. Assessment is by a
pre-post self-report measure implemented in both the fall 2008 and spring 2009
semesters; due to sparse response in 2008, only 2009 data for 250 students was
analyzed. A summary of evidence and a plan for making use of the results will be in
place by fall 2009.
The same SLO above was implemented in EOPS’ 2008 Summer Readiness Program,
which helps to prepare at-risk graduating high school seniors for the challenges of
attending college. While the program is designed to improve students’ academic
preparedness, its emphasis on preparing students for college life via a supportive
learning environment that includes a three course learning community (Guid – 2;
Guid – 3; Math – 592A) may also impact students’ perceived well-being. In fact,
findings stemming from the implementation of this SLO indicated a change in prepost self-reported perceptions of well-being across a range of affective indices.
Specifically, findings indicated that students expressed an increase in self-esteem
and social support after completing the Summer Readiness Program. EOPS will
soon be developing and implementing strategies for improving self-reported goal
orientation among Summer Readiness students.
Table 7. Self-Reported Ratings Across Five Scale Measures Before and After
Partaking in the 2008 EOPS Summer Readiness Program
Scale Measure
Goal Orientation (5 Items)
Self-Esteem (7 Items)
General Social Support (8 Items)
Before Program
(Mean Total)
17.55
24.05
26.58
After Program
(Mean Total)
17.65
25.50
28.95
Stat.
Signif.
No
Yes
Yes
Effect
Size (d)
.04
.46
.70
The Financial Aid Office is in the proficiency level of Student Learning Outcomes.
Their learning outcomes statement is to increase students’ understanding of the
financial aid application process. A nine-item multiple choice tool,104 designed to
measure students understanding of various topics pertaining to the application
process, was completed by a total of 1,378 students before and after partaking in a
one hour financial aid informational workshop offered during January and February
2008. The table below highlights the summary of evidence. Findings indicate that,
with the exception of question five, students demonstrated improved performance
at post-test for all question items. This trend is further illustrated in the overall
averages observed at both time points. In addition, the before and after differences
across all items were found to be statistically significant; however, statistically
significant differences are often observed with large sample sizes. As such, we
examined pre and post-test differences via an effect size, a measure of the extent to
which observed differences are practically significant (educational researchers
273
typically consider effect sizes of .25 or larger as indicative of meaningful or
practically significant differences). The effect sizes in the table below further
demonstrate the increase in student learning at post-test as several effect size
estimates are near or above the .25 threshold. Nevertheless, there were two question
items for which students demonstrated little or no improvement at post assessment:
questions 3 (obtaining a pin number) and 5 (the verification process).
Table 8. The Performance of Potential Financial Aid Applicants on a Nine Item
Assessment Tool Before and After Partaking in a One Hour Informational Workshop
Question Item
FAFSA Deadline
Online FAFSA Application
Pin Number
Application Window
Verification Process
Checking Award Status
Receipt of Funds
Enrollment Requirements
Progress Requirements
Overall (Avg.)
Number
Correct
Pre-Test
1199
1144
1101
1056
944
1117
1166
872
1031
6.99
Number
Correct
Post-Test
1294
1224
1128
1174
834
1233
1227
1015
1193
7.49
Stat.
Signif.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Effect
Size (d)
.23
.17
.05
.22
-.17
.24
.13
.22
.30
.31
Based upon the average number of correct responses, it is clear that the information
workshops helped students acquire information about the financial aid application
process. Therefore, the program met its stated criterion for success. However, to
reiterate, student responses indicated that they still did not fully understand the
process of obtaining a pin number or undergoing the verification process. To
address such issues, all financial aid staff members engaged in documented
dialogue105 that led to the crafting of several strategies to improve student
understanding, particularly in the aforementioned problem areas. First, staff will be
reviewing and updating the PowerPoint presentation delivered at the workshop to
ensure students have clear information that adheres to the questions presented on
the assessment tool. In addition, staff members discussed plans for creating a
bookmark with quick tips and answers to general questions for students to have in
the packet of information disseminated at the workshop. In an effort to maintain
student engagement and interest for the duration of the workshop, staff members
also discussed the possibility of incorporating interactive activities into the
presentation. Lastly, staff members have begun revising a few question items to
address concerns that (a) they may have been ambiguously worded, and (b) they
may have more than one correct response. The aforementioned findings are based
upon an implementation taking place at the Rancho campus (spring 2008). After the
274
aforementioned strategies for program improvement were implemented, this SLO
was re-assessed at the Rancho campus, the Fontana and Chino campuses (spring
2009).
The International Student Office is in the proficiency level of Student Learning
Outcomes. Their learning outcomes statement is to help international students
become more aware of the various policies and procedures they must adhere to.
Students answered an eight item multiple choice assessment106 before and after a
two-day international student orientation held during the fall 2008 semester. The
table below illustrates the summary of evidence. Findings indicate that the
orientation was effective at increasing student knowledge of the pertinent policies
and procedures. No gain in knowledge was observed for questions regarding units
required to be full time and methods of registration. A decrease in performance was
observed for a question dealing with a notification period when an address or other
information is changed.
Based upon these findings, the International Student Office will be careful to
reinforce the concepts for which students demonstrated the least understanding. In
particular, these concepts will be incorporated into interactive activities offered
during the orientation. This SLO will be re-assessed during the beginning of the fall
2009 semester.
As described above (II.B.3.a., p. 223), Opening Doors to Excellence (ODE) is a
program offering additional instructional and Student Support Services to
probationary students seeking successful academic and life skills. Guidance 506
(College Success) and Guidance 511 (College Success Seminar) serve as a core
component of ODE; these courses help students acquire basic study skills and gain a
better understanding of college requirements. While the program is designed to
improve students’ academic preparedness, its emphasis on preparing students for
college life via a supportive learning environment that includes the aforementioned
two course learning community (Guid – 506/511) may also impact students’
perceived well-being. As such, ODE worked with the Office of Institutional
Research to implement a study designed to examine the change in self-reported
perceptions of well-being across a range of affective indices before and after
completing Guidance 506/511 in both the fall 2008 and spring 2009 semesters. Both
the fall 2008 and spring 2009 cohorts of students were asked to complete a survey
containing several brief self-report measures: (a) goal orientation, (b) self-esteem, (c)
perceived value of obtaining an education, and (d) educational
behaviors/participation. A total of 57 students in the fall 2008 cohort and 56
students in the spring 2009 cohort completed the survey before and after completing
Guidance 506/511. As the tables below indicate, findings point to a meaningful
increase across measured indices in both the fall 2008 and spring 2009 cohorts,
particularly in regards to self-esteem. Thus, while ODE offers students the academic
275
preparation necessary to becoming a successful college student, the program’s
supportive learning environment seems to also have a positive impact on students’
perceived sense of well-being. Through collegial discussions, the program has since
decided to revise some of the survey items measuring goal orientation so as to
improve the instrument’s clarity – this newly revised version of the instrument,
along with the other indices, will be re-implemented in the spring 2010 semester.
Table 9. Self-Reported Ratings Across Four Scale Measures Before and After
Completing Guidance 506/511 in the Fall 2008 Semester
Scale Measure
Before Course
Completion
(Mean Total)
After Course
Completion
(Mean Total)
Effect
Size (d)
Goal Orientation (5 Items)
19.23
19.95
.34
Self-Esteem (7 Items)
Value of Education
(6 Items)
Educational Participation
(9 Items)
22.90
27.02
1.22
19.93
20.15
.09
18.16
19.89
.36
The Student Activities Office began its implementation of their SLOs during the
spring 2008 semester and is on the proficiency level. The SLOs are designed to
explore the students’ independence in acquiring scholarship information and the
students’ self-esteem about the possibility of receiving a scholarship. The means of
assessment are the “Student Activities Student Learning Outcomes Student Form”107
and the “Student Activities Student Learning Outcomes Staff From”,108 both of
which utilize a 4-point rubric. The summary of evidence shows that for the SLO
administered in spring 2008, student and faculty rated similarly in the area of Self
Esteem; however, the faculty rated the students significantly lower in the area of
Independence. Furthermore, only 71% of the students surveyed rated themselves as
optimistic in the likelihood of receiving a scholarship. The Student Activities staff is
in discussion about how to use the results stemming from the implementation of the
SLOs. Initial discussion leads the staff to believe that a commitment to engage the
students, and spending more time helping them with the application process, will
increase the success in both areas. Strategies will be developed and implemented
prior to the fall 2009 semester.
Assessment for another SLO measuring the successfulness of conducting and
organizing extra-curricular events at the institution is in progress.
276
Student Health Services has developed and assessed two learning outcomes
statements: (a) Independence - Students will take responsibility for their medical
care and know how to access care, and (b) Responsibility - Students will learn about
the available health services and health education, and will be able to access care
and referrals.
Working collaboratively throughout the fall 2007 semester, the Student Health
Services staff developed two 4-point rubrics to be completed by students as a prepost assessment109 to assess the independence and accountability of students about
their own health. The survey was disseminated to 138 students during the spring
2008 semester prior to and following class presentations, educational outreach
activities, and clinic visits. With regard to both independence and responsibility,
students rated themselves statistically significantly higher on the post-assessment.
Student Health Services plans to continue outreach and focus upon a new learning
outcome to assess. Consequently, the plan is to continue outreach as is and generate
a new outcome.
The Transfer Center is on the proficiency level of Student Learning Outcomes. The
identified learning outcome is to increase student understanding of the transfer
process. The Transfer Center created a twelve item pre-post multiple choice
assessment110 that students completed during fall 2008 before and after listening to a
30-45 minute presentation on the process of transferring to a four-year institution.
The summary of evidence16 indicates that students generally demonstrated an
increased understanding across most question items including Intersegmental
General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC), California State University
(CSU)/University of California (UC) transfer. There were six items for which
findings did not show increased awareness, among them: academic planning,
applied majors, and the educational plan.
Based upon these findings, the Transfer Center revised the assessment form so as to
address any possible ambiguity in some assessment items. In addition, the
assessment form was shortened to eight items due to concerns that some items were
not adequately addressed in the presentation. This SLO was re-assessed during the
spring 2009 semester; a summary of evidence will be generated before the beginning
of fall 2009.
The foregoing evaluations of SLO attainment in Student Support Services provide
evidence for planning to address student needs.
PLANNING AGENDA
277
References – Standard II B. Student Support Services
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
New Student Orientation
MyChaffey VIEW
Online Appointment Booking System (E-SARS) - Rancho
Community College League for Innovation
Research Brief, Student Services Satisfaction Survey - Spring 2007
MyChaffeyVIEW Survey
Chaffey College Website, Office of Institutional Research, SLO/AUO Resources, Student
Services/Administration Unit, SLO and AUO Briefs
Categorical Programs Self-Evaluation for Chaffey College
Financial Aid, Spanish Translated Documents
Governing Board Policy Manual, Policy Category 3, Executive Expectations
Governing Board Monitoring Report, Student Services
WASC Rubric for Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness
CCCApply
Student Contacts/Admissions 2007
New Student Information Session
FACTS/ Nelnet Business Solutions Payment Agreement
Scheduling and Reporting System (SARS)
Smart Grades Online Assessment
Chaffey College Website, Puente
President's Equity Council
AMAN/AWOMAN Program Student Learning Outcomes Pre-Assessment Form
Virtual Career Resources (VCR)
Student Employment Data 2008-2009
The Transfer Center
Tech Prep / Articulation Agreement
How to Create Local Articulation Agreements Using the Statewide Career Pathways Articulation
Templates 2009
National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)
International Student Office cultural awareness
International Student Program Survey
Physical Education/Athletics, Intercollegiate Teams
Student Employment Survey
278
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
Admissions & Records Office Online Transfer Request Survey Spring 2007
Student Services Satisfaction Survey 2008
Chaffey College Website, Associated Students of Chaffey College (ASCC)
Honors Program, Brochures
Family Day at the Wig Brochure
Athletics Program State Rankings
Athletics Program State-wide Recognition Program
Wignall Student Invitational
Bi-Annual College Climate Survey
Yearly student satisfaction surveys
Campus Climate Survey 2005-2007
Program and Services Review (PSR), Counseling
Governing Board Monitoring Report
News Release, Chaffey College & MDRC Present Report on Successful Opening Doors Program
Counselor Handbook
Faculty Handbook, New Faculty Orientation
Chaffey College Website, Orientation Services
MDRC Formal Evaluation of Opening Doors
Associated Students of Chaffey College (ASCC) Club List
Monthly newsletter-CCLFSA
BFSA event flyers or brochures
Faculty Success Center, Culturally Responsive Teaching Techniques
Campus Climate Survey
Web-based Accuplacer Assessment Test
Combined English Language Skills Assessment (CELSA)
Admissions and Placement Assessment
Mathematics Assessment Cut Scores
Accuplacer Website
Chaffey College Website, Counseling, Request for Test Results Form
College Catalog 2008-2009, Student Privacy Rights
Student Services Research Plan
Research Brief, Student Services Satisfaction Survey
Student Service Monitoring Report
Student Services Council notes
Learning Outcomes Assessment 1 Form, Financial Aid
Chaffey College Website, Office of Institutional Research, SLO/AUO Resources
Athletics Program Pre and Post Survey
Athletics Program Student Learning Outcomes Student Form
Athletics Program Student Learning Outcomes Form (Coaches)
CalWORKs SLO Assessment Rubric, Career Orientation
Admissions & Records Online Services Webstation Survey
Cashier's Office Learning Outcomes Assessment Form
Child Development Center Parent Survey (2005-2009)
Child Development Center Parent Survey Spring 2008
Child Development Center desired results development profile
Infant/ Toddler Environmental Rating Scale
Child Development Center Agency Annual Report
Counseling Department Student Learning Outcomes Form
279
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
Pre-post Assessment, Counseling
Examination of the Multiple Learning Strategies Questionnaire (MSLQ) for Use on Accuplacer
SLO research / DPS
EOPS means of assessment 17 yes/no questions
Financial Aid Nine Item Multiple Choice Assessment
Financial Aid meeting minutes
Institutional Students Eight Item Multiple Choice Assessment
Student Activities SLO Student form
Student Activities SLO Staff form
Student Health Services pre/post assessment
Transfer Center 12 items pre/post assessment
280
Standard II C. Library and Learning Support Services
Library and other learning support services for students are sufficient to support
the institution’s instructional programs and intellectual, aesthetic, and cultural
activities in whatever format and wherever they are offered. Such services
include library services and collections, tutoring, learning centers, computer
laboratories, and learning technology development and training. The institution
provides access and training to students so that library and other learning support
services may be used effectively and efficiently. The institution systematically
assesses these services using student learning outcomes, faculty input, and other
appropriate measures in order to improve the effectiveness of the services.
II.C.1 The institution supports the quality of its instructional programs by
providing library and other learning support services that are sufficient in
quantity, currency, depth, and variety to facilitate educational offerings,
regardless of location or means of delivery.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Learning Resources/Library
The institution’s library and other learning support services include the Library on
the Rancho campus and a Cybrary at the Chino campus. There are four success
centers on the Rancho campus, two at the Chino campus, and one at the Fontana
campus. The Information Technology Services (ITS) department coordinates
staffing for 11 labs. The ITS department has a staff of technicians who provide the
traditional audiovisual learning support services to the college and the campuses;
this support service is addressed in Standard III: Technology Resources.
The institution offers a wide range of library and learning support services. The
Library occupies a 36,000 square foot building in the center of the Rancho campus
that was expanded and renovated in 1992-1993. The Library building houses the
Writing Center, but the remainder is used for library related learning activities such
as an Information Research area, Reference and Circulation desks, Bibliographic
281
Instruction room, individual study carrels, group study tables, and group study
rooms. The Library provides pay-to-copy and pay-to-print services. The Library
also has space for an administrative office, processing areas, a meeting room, and
the institution’s archive collection. The Chino campus opened during the summer
2008 session; likewise, it was in June 2008 that the Library, known as a Cybrary,
opened to support student learning activities at the Chino campus with a reference
and circulation desk combination. The Cybrary consists of an information research
area along with individual carrels and group study tables and rooms. A Cybrary is
also part of the instruction building in Phase Three of the Fontana campus
development. Phase Three has an approximate date of completion of mid 2011.
Construction is scheduled to start in fall 2009, subject to resolution of California
State funding issues.
The Library provides access to a book collection, a textbook reserve collection,
periodicals both in print and electronic formats, e-books, and DVDs and videos. The
Electronic Reserves (eRes) program provides electronic, 24/7 access to students for
their class reserve reading, sample tests, and syllabi. Faculty may manage their own
eRes account where they add and delete material. The faculty schedule group
instruction in using the print collections and electronic resources. Librarians
provide this instruction as well as conduct individual reference interviews with
students to meet their research needs. The Library’s website1 contains links to the
current 2008-2009 College Catalog,2 the AGent portal, and tutorials, study aids, and
other resources supporting the quality of instructional programming.
The Library migrated from the Inlex OPAC (Online Public Access Catalog) to the
AGent OPAC in 2003-04. Its collection, as of June 2008, consists of 83,709 printed
books, 22,352 e-books, 1,870 audio-visual items, 128 periodical titles, and
subscriptions to 23 electronic research databases.3 In addition to aggregators,
specialized databases provide access to unique periodical titles to support specific
curricula. Specific media designations in the automated system indicate a reserve
textbook, children’s, periodical, video, reference, as well as a general collection.
Fifty-four computers provide access to the Internet, the library catalog, research
databases, and Microsoft Office. Four computers provide access to the Library
catalog; 12 computers provide Microsoft Office only; ten computers are set up for
video editing of student generated video content for class projects. There are 40
networked computers in the Bibliographic Instruction room and 10 Mac Books for
workshops on the iTunes/iMovie University student generated content video
project in the meeting room. There is seating for 354 students in the Library.
The Library has three video/DVD monitors where students view library and
instructor’s reserve video material. Two of the 54 computers have adaptive software
(JAWS, MAGic, Kurzweil and Dragon Naturally Speaking) and a scanner for
282
students who require this support. Disability Programs and Services (DPS) will
provide, upon request, an adapted mouse and adapted keyboard. Examples of this
hardware include ergonomic and one handed keyboards, large keys keyboard,
touch mouse, track ball, Braille keyboard, and joy stick mouse.4
There are pay-to-print systems in the Information/Research area and the
Bibliographic Instruction room. In August, 2004, an upgrade to the pay-to-print
system resulted in the addition of a “Time Access Management” module. This
module requires a login protocol to restrict computer terminal use to current
students, faculty, and staff. At the outset, the “Time Access Management” module
created a student account to pay for printing; the system currently uses bill and coin
stations. The copier room has three pay-to copy machines.
The Library staff consists of one administrator, four full-time librarians, 1.75 fulltime equivalent (FTE) librarians or overload assignments, 4 full-time and 3.325 FTE
part-time classified technicians and clerks, and 19 hours for student workers. At
least one reference librarian is available to help students, instructors, and staff with
library research and present bibliographic instruction. Two librarians present
workshops on the Apple iTunes project and assist students with editing. Evening
and Friday/Saturday reference librarians received training in the Apple iTunes
project during spring, 2009 flex.
The Chino campus Cybrary has 30 computers that provide access to the internet, the
library’s catalog, online electronic resources, including e-books, and Microsoft
Office. The Chino Cybrary has a collection of reserve textbooks, pay-to-print and
pay-to-copy.
Students request books from the Rancho Campus for next day
delivery to Chino.
The Chino campus Cybrary has one reference librarian and one clerk on desk during
operating hours. Currently, there are no library services at the Fontana campus.
Plans for the new academic building will include a Cybrary, modeling the staffing
and services provided at the Chino campus.
The Library purchases are evaluated and implemented through the Strategic
Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness5 and the Program and Services
Review6 (PSR) process. All materials and databases are purchased with an annual
allocation from the State Instructional Equipment, Library Materials, and
Technology Grant. The Library portion of the annual TTIP Grant is used for Library
automation. The Library purchases equipment and peripherals as librarians, ITS
support technicians, and students identify needs. Whenever a new module or
upgrade for the Library’s automated system is developed, the librarians evaluate its
usefulness to student learning; the Library pays the cost for the first year from TTIP
and ITS budgets for subsequent years in the next planning and budget allocation
283
cycle. A report of TTIP expenditures from April 2004 to August 2009 is included as
a reference.7
The heavy emphasis on e-books and online electronic resources supports an
overriding principal of the Library from the 1997 “Library of the Future” report
which refers to a library without walls. In addition to electronic databases and
desktop computers, in spring 2008, the Library initiated a wireless network
throughout the building and the adjacent outdoor reading areas, improving quality
and currency of services. The Library heard many student requests for wireless
access and did a survey to assess potential student wireless use. The Library and the
previous superintendent/president supported wireless and this project came to
fruition in spring semester, 2008. The wireless use has increased steadily and
students appreciate the flexibility of using their personal computer anywhere in the
Library.8
Learning Resources/Success Centers
The institution’s success centers play a critical role in offering learning support
services. The success centers reflect the philosophy stated by Dr. Vincent Tinto that
“access without support is not opportunity,” therefore the centers developed a
support and success model, rather than a deficit model. That is, they are structured
to ensure that students have access to support before they fail, rather than waiting to
support them after they fail. The centers are an extension of the classroom, relying
on the partnership of the classroom faculty to provide input on curriculum and the
development of current learning strategies, rather than just provide a place for
practice.
The success centers employ pedagogy that explores a variety of unique learning
opportunities that are possible in a center environment. The following tenets are
central to the success center operations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Promote individual instruction and learning
Promote collaborative learning
Ensure a risk-free environment
De-emphasize grades and judgment
Promote the affective development of the learner
Provide a sense of community with the institution
Support and imitate the values of the classroom
The centers represent the initial efforts of the Basic Skills Transformation9 in 2000, as
well as the Student Success Initiative10 in 2006. The institution presently supports
eight success centers serving all students: the Math Success Center, Writing Success
Center, Language Success Center, Reading/Multidisciplinary Success Center as well
284
as Multidisciplinary Success Centers at campus locations in Chino, Fontana, and the
California Institution of Women (CIW) in Chino. As the institution’s Accountability
Reporting for Community College (ARCC) Outcome for 2008 indicates, the centers
are accessed regularly by a significant portion of the student population, and those
participation rates meaningfully improve student success.11
Figure 1. The Organizational Structure of the Success Centers at the Rancho, Chino,
and Fontana Campuses, and at CIW
Success Center Structure
Rancho Campus
Language
Center
CIW
Writing Center
Math Center
Multidisciplinary
Success Center
Serving All Disciplines
Multidisciplinary/
Reading Center
Chino Campus
Fontana Campus
Reading/
Writing Center
Multidisciplinary
Center Serving
All Disciplines
Multidisciplinary
Center Serving All
Other Needs
The success centers are open approximately 60 hours per week, providing day,
evening, and weekend hours at all locations. Students who are required to use the
success centers are provided with a formal orientation process in their lecture
courses as to how and when to access the centers. They are also advised as to what
materials they will need to bring with them in order to work effectively. Every
center provides support through an instructional specialist assigned to a specific
location, as well as support through contract instructional assistants to help with
intake processing and tutor training and coordination. In addition, every center
provides a diverse group of apprentices to support the supplemental learning and
tutoring activity at each location. In total, the institution employs approximately 350
hourly employees to provide students with learning opportunities through
workshops, tutoring, directed learning activities, and study groups, emphasizing
individual learning styles and modes.
The success centers (with the exception of the Math Success Center) are organized in
the School of Instructional Support. They provide academic support for the entire
285
college community, not just specific students enrolled in individual courses or
disciplines. However, the Math Success Center is organized in the School of Math
and Sciences. Students who are required to attend, and those who seek assistance
voluntarily, access each of the success centers. Some courses, specifically Reading,
Math, English, Guidance, Modern languages, and ESL require students to
participate in success center activities as part of their supplemental learning
requirements. However, all center activities are available to all students on a
voluntary basis, with tutoring being the most utilized activity. All students with
requirements are given an orientation in their lecture course, and some visit the
center for their orientation. Students who seek tutoring or other services on a
voluntary basis are given an orientation in the center.
The effectiveness of the success centers relies on their partnership with classroom
faculty. Supplemental learning activities, workshops, study groups, directed
learning activities, are all designed with the cooperation and consultation of
classroom instructors. They identify the needs of their students, and the activities
are designed accordingly. Activities uniformly address skill issues; however, they
also indirectly address students’ perspectives on learning and the development of
successful habits. These activities are part of a continuous Student Learning
Outcomes (SLOs) review cycle as part of the overall evaluation of the program. The
SLO process is used to continuously update curriculum and instructional delivery in
the success centers. The centers provide a format for classroom assessment, as well
as the assessment of the efficacy of center services and programs.12
When a faculty member initiates new curricular activities, the Success Center
Advisory Committee reviews the curriculum’s feasibility and effectiveness. As new
curriculum is introduced, it is often piloted and then modified before being made
available to a larger audience of faculty and students. In turn, activities that are
already in use are evaluated by this committee to enhance existing curriculum.
The following activities comprise the Success Center curriculum12 at the centers:
Directed Learning Activity are instructor-initiated projects or activities that
students complete in the success center. All directed learning activities have
instructional design and curricular connectedness to particular courses or classes.
Directed learning activities may be used to meet supplemental learning
requirements.
Study Groups are focused learning sessions led by a success center facilitator that
address the needs of a small group. Classroom instructors work through the success
center instructional specialists to develop specified curriculum that is delivered by
apprentice tutors. Study groups have a strong instructional design component that
286
is tied to the classroom instruction.
supplemental learning requirements.
Study groups may be used to meet
Workshops/Seminars are pre-arranged or scheduled “mini courses” taught by
certificated instructors and focus on one skill or subject area that directly enhances
and supports classroom instruction. Workshops may be used to meet supplemental
learning requirements.
Tutoring is a sustained interaction between a student and a success center
consultant that addresses student questions, and provides feedback on an
assignment, concept, or skill. Students initiate contact when they are referred by a
counselor or instructor for an identified learning need. Tutoring may take place
one-on-one or in groups. Students do not receive supplemental learning credit for
tutoring sessions. Tutoring sessions are tracked into Guidance 650 for non-credit
apportionment.
Lab Resources are provided by the success center to enable students to complete
class assignments. A variety of resources and services are available, including
computers (for course software, internet access, typing, and printing), specialized
materials (such as books and resource materials), and proctoring for make-up tests.
Although students may receive support from success center personnel while using
these resources, interaction is not the primary focus of the visit. Lab resources may
not be used for supplemental learning requirements or non-credit apportionment.
Learning support services specifically for math and science are provided through a
five-year Hispanic Serving Institutions grant that addresses supplemental
instruction.
Learning Resources/Instructional Labs are supported by the institution through the
Information Technology Services (ITS). The department employs short-term,
temporary workers (“lab apprentices”) to provide technology support to students in
instructional labs. The instructional labs that are supported by this program
include, but are not limited to, one open Computer Lab; two digital Media Graphics
Labs; the Cardio Fitness Lab; two Health Science Labs; The library; the Math Center;
The Theatre/Music Lab, and the Computer Lab at the Chino Institute for Women
(CIW).13 Currently, 19 apprentices provide approximately 369 hours of support to
the instructional labs each week.
Apprentices are primarily responsible for assisting students in the use of
instructional technology hardware/software, tracking/monitoring lab attendance,
and maintaining the lab environment. Lab apprentices are employed for no more
than nine semesters and may not work in excess of 980 hours and 170 days within an
academic year. In order to be employed as a lab apprentice, individuals must have
successfully completed a CIS-1 class or equivalent.
287
In a standard term (fall or spring) anywhere between 3,000 and 4,000 students visit
the instructional labs where they are assisted by the lab apprentices. This number is
considerably smaller during summer terms, when approximately 1,000 students
visit the labs.14
Various training opportunities are provided to instructional lab apprentices
throughout the duration of their employment. Topics addressed include the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lab Orientations (for example, safety guidelines, rules and job responsibilities.)
Using the Positive Attendance System
Using MyChaffeyVIEW (the college online self-service program for students)
Hardware Troubleshooting and Communicating with the Information
Technology Services Department
Customer Service
Student Conduct Issues and Student Discipline
Completing Incident Reports
Emergency Preparedness
Sexual Harassment Awareness and Non-Discrimination
Working With Disabled Students
Taking Software Inventory
Learning Resources/Grants provides grant-goal-related services to students. The
institution’s Title V Hispanic Serving Institution’s grant cooperative with Riverside
City College, the Copernicus Grant with the University of California Riverside, and
the College Cost Reduction and Access Act Hispanic-Serving Institution’s with
California Polytechnic University, Pomona all have goals and objectives that support
educational offerings.
For example, the Title V grant offers Supplemental
Instruction (SI), an academic assistance program utilizing peer-assisted study
sessions. The program has been attached to the Math and Science department since
the fall of 2005 when it began with six faculty in six courses. The program has since
grown and during the 2009 spring semester twenty-six faculty participated in the
program in 21 different courses with 57 math and science sections. The purpose of
the SI program is to reduce rates of attrition within targeted historically difficult
courses, to improve student grades in targeted historically difficult courses, and to
increase the graduation rates of students. Over the last five years, 38 math and
science faculty have participated in the program.
SI sessions are regularly scheduled through the Office of Institutional Services.
Review sessions allow students to compare notes, discuss readings, develop
organizational tools, and study sample test items. Students learn how to integrate
course content and study skills while working together.
288
All students in a targeted course are urged by the instructor to attend SI sessions
resulting in participation of students with varying ability levels. SI is an important
learning support service. What is most important is that there is no remedial stigma
attached to students’ participation since the program targets high-risk courses rather
then the high-risk students. 15
SELF-EVALUATION
Library
The institution supports the quality of its instructional programs. Both library and
learning supports services function to support educational offerings. The Library’s
collections have grown in a regular and managed way since 2004.16 The Library’s
resources provide support sufficient in quantity, currency, depth, and variety to
facilitate learning.
Information Technology Services (ITS) replaces computers for staff on a regular
rotation. ITS replaces student computers whenever the computers in classrooms are
upgraded with new models: the older computers replace the even more obsolete
models that the students are using for research and writing assignments.
In spring, 2009, the Library used TTIP funding to replace 54 hard drives, keyboards,
and mice in the Information/Research area. The monitors had been replaced
recently in order to accommodate flash drive ports. These computers are the same
standard as those in the Chino Cybrary.
Success Centers
The success centers are one of the most widely researched initiatives at the
institution and are often included in other initiatives promoting student
achievement. Since 2004, approximately 45% of all students each semester use
services provided by the success centers.17
Instructional Labs
Instructional lab apprentices are evaluated each term. Components of the
evaluation include the apprentice’s ability to work with diverse groups of students;
assist students in the use of technology; monitor and maintain the lab environment;
comply with safe practices; and follow the directives of the supervisor. The
instructional computer lab coordinator emails any dean with primary responsibility
for an Instruction Lab a current software inventory for their review, modification,
and approval before the beginning of each semester and summer session. The dean,
or designee, requests additions, deletions and upgrades to current software or
indicates that the current software needs no change.18
289
Grants
The institution has an excellent record meeting the goals and objectives of grants.
The Supplemental Instruction (SI) learning resources program works closely with
math and science faculty and the program has increased in faculty participation
since 2005.15
Figure 2. Number of Faculty and Course Participating in Supplemental Instruction
(SI) from Fall 2005 through Spring 2008
Participation
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Faculty
20
08
20
07
Sp
rin
g
Fa
ll
er
20
07
m
20
07
Su
m
20
06
Sp
rin
g
Fa
ll
er
20
06
m
20
06
Su
m
Sp
rin
g
Fa
ll
20
05
Courses
Students who utilized SI two or more times have a statistically significantly higher
success rate (75%) than students in the same section who did not utilize SI. In
addition to examining the relationship between student course success and
supplemental instruction, the relationship of SI to the Accountability Reporting for
the Community College (ARCC) showed student progress in transfer directedness,
transfer preparedness, degree earners, and transfers. Results on the Student
Progress and Achievement Rate (SPAR) indicated that students who have used SI
are statistically significantly and substantially more likely to be transfer directed,
earn 30 or more units, be transfer prepared, earn a degree, and transfer.19
290
Figure 3. The Percent of SI and Non-SI Students Identified as Achieving Various
Educational Outcomes
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for II.C.1.
II.C.1.a. Relying on appropriate expertise of faculty, including librarians and
other learning support services professionals, the institution selects and
maintains educational equipment and materials to support student learning and
enhance the achievement of the mission of the institution.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Library holdings support these courses and programs to the level that is appropriate
to meet the needs of the program. The librarians maintain close contact with the
teaching faculty and other learning support services to discuss the need for
materials and equipment. The librarians present a session on library resources to
new faculty during their semester-long orientation program.20 This introduction
results in individual contacts between the collection development librarian and the
faculty where they identify specific needs they have for books, databases, and video
material to support their courses. The collection development librarian also sends a
newsletter each semester to all faculty emphasizing new services and resources
along with suggestions for requesting materials. There is a flex activity each
semester with a focus on information literacy and library services.21 Librarians
develop Bibliographic Instruction sessions for each assignment and consult with the
instructor about the subject, topic, and emphasis; suggestions for additional library
resources frequently emerge from these interactions.
291
The librarian assigned to the Chino campus Cybrary also sends letters to individual
faculty at Chino and the Ontario High School site informing them of library services
and resources; these letters have been sent to the Fontana campus as well as the
other campuses since 2005. Since 2006, letters have been sent to faculty teaching
online courses targeting the specific resources and services that are available for
their student population.22
The collection development librarian is a permanent member of the Curriculum
Committee and reviews the resources for new and revised Course Outlines of
Record23 (COR). The librarian evaluates the currency and relevance of these
resources and suggests more current texts and additional readings. Having a
librarian as the faculty chair on the Curriculum Committee and serving as the cochair of the SLO Committee has increased faculty awareness that the bibliographic
instruction activities of the library support the college’s core competencies.
The collection development librarian rewrote the Library’s Collection Guidelines in
spring, 2008.24 This revision reflects the Library’s emphasis on core competencies of
the institution, information literacy, and the Library’s role in supporting program
and course level SLOs. The guidelines address parameters for growth of the
collection and evaluation methodologies to insure an adequate “turn over” or
removal of books from the collection. The Library collection and services are a
criterion for review and accreditation for some occupational programs where the
Library’s resources are evaluated based on currency and completeness. These
reviews either validate the quality, depth, and variety of the collection or provide
the librarian with recommendations for collection improvement.25
The success centers provide essential learning resources for the disciplines and
students they individually serve. All of the centers provide computer and printing
access, to varying degrees depending on location; however, the primary role of
computers is to facilitate instructional activity designed by the instructors rather
than “open lab” access. At the Rancho campus students have access to seven open
computer labs, including the library for research, word processing, and printing.
The Chino and Fontana campuses each contain approximately 30 computers in the
success centers, which represent the open lab spaces at these locations. The centers
also provide printed material, texts for instructional use, and software packages
identified by the disciplines and incorporated into the center’s curriculum.26
All of the centers also provide access to specialized equipment for students with
physical disabilities. Each center houses a unit containing the software and
hardware necessary to facilitate the instruction of students who have auditory and
visual challenges. The Disability Programs and Services (DPS) department provides
training and support for this equipment, and the centers refer students if they seem
to require additional services through DPS.
292
SELF-EVALUATION
According to an institutional survey conducted during the fall 2008 semester, over
95% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the following statement: “The
District evaluates library and other learning support services to assure their
adequacy in meeting identified student needs”. 27 A student survey, “Examining the
Perceptions of Library Services and Resources,” conducted in spring 2008, evaluated
answers to questions about satisfaction, helpfulness, and use of library staff, services
and resources. A total of 848 students completed the form. As the table below
indicates, students are very much satisfied with library services.27
Table 1. Frequency Distribution of Question 2: The Satisfaction with Library
Activities based on Responses to the 2008 Perceptions of Library Services
Response Choice
Frequency
Percent
Very Satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Unsatisfied
Very Unsatisfied
Total
370
364
90
7
17
848
43.6%
42.9%
10.6%
0.8%
2.0%
100%
Table 2. Frequency Distribution of Question 3: The Perceived Helpfulness of Library
Services, Resources, and Staff based on Responses to the 2008 Perceptions of Library
Services
Response Choice
Almost Always
Frequently
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Total
Frequency
318
319
177
19
2
Percent
38.1%
38.2%
21.2%
2.3%
0.2%
835
100%
This student survey will be collected every spring semester to provide a context for
trend analysis of both student use and perception and satisfaction of services. On
the 2009 student survey, 82.2% of students surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that
“the Library’s hours of operation meet my needs” and 17.8% disagreed or strongly
disagreed. Student comments were primarily focused on the Chino campus and
Friday hours. As a result, Cybrary hours have been extended by five hours on
Friday beginning in fall 2009.
293
Students using the success centers have greatly benefited from the
learning/teaching experience and use of materials and technology in the centers.
All eight success centers are evaluated using evidence of usage, student retention
and success, student satisfaction surveys, program reviews, SLOs, and anecdotal
feedback. The institution determines the effectiveness of the centers as a whole, of
each individual center, and of the various services and instructional activities of
each.28
Evidence of usage is based on a positive attendance system in which students are
logged-in upon entering and logged out when leaving. They are assisted in this
process by an assistant, who ensures that students choose appropriately, which
safeguards the accuracy of the positive attendance data. This allows for the
collection of evidence that consists of total minutes per session, class for which the
student is receiving assistance or instruction, and the type of activity that is
performed including: directed learning activity; attending a workshop; participating
in a study group, receiving peer tutoring, or using lab resources.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for II.C.1.a.
II.C.1.b. The institution provides ongoing instruction for users of library and
other learning support services so that students are able to develop skills in
information competency.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
In fall, 2008 the Faculty Senate and the Curriculum Committee adopted core
competencies25 and they are addressed in the Strategic Planning Framework for
Institutional Effectiveness,5 Institutional Goals/Ends Policies29 which serve as
Institutional Student Learning Outcomes for the institution. The Library’s SLOs 30
are linked to these core competencies. Critical thinking skill development is a major
emphasis in Bibliographic Instruction sessions and it is supported by the Library’s
SLOs. These four SLOs are:
•
•
•
•
Student develops research strategy to fulfill information task
Student utilizes information sources to facilitate research
Student demonstrates ability to use library technology services and facilities
Student applies and demonstrates ethical and responsible use of information and
library resources30
The institution’s faculty schedule Bibliographic Instruction (BI) sessions with the
librarians for whatever class meeting works most effectively with their syllabi; the
294
librarian gives them the option of a general BI or one tailored to specific information
competency requirements of a specific assignment. All BI sessions address critical
thinking. Students are taught information search strategies and then shown how to
fit information retrieved into the context of their own current understanding of the
topic under review and the assignment being prepared. In this manner, students are
prompted to evaluate, synthesize, and analyze information they have retrieved.
Faculty are very involved in the BI session. The workups for these BI sessions are
saved online for all the librarians to access whenever they present to that faculty’s
classes. Faculty are required to attend the BI with their classes where they
participate in the sessions and add to the discussion. The librarians generally follow
up informally with the faculty to determine their satisfaction and listen to any
suggestions for other strategies or resources. Faculty may schedule one follow-up
class session for their students to do research in the BI room; this guarantees each
student a computer without competing with all the students using the
Information/Research area. The faculty are expected to bring and remain with their
class. From summer/fall 2007 through spring 2008, librarians presented BI sessions
to 280 classes and 6,346 students.31
The librarians present library orientations during flex days to both contract and
adjunct faculty. These presentations are evaluated as a part of the flex program. A
librarian presents a session on library services and resources to new contract faculty
as part of their semester-long in-service program.
SELF-EVALUATION
The Library supports the development of skills and information competency.
Librarians present workshops and evaluate learning outcomes. Further assessment
of the development of skills related to information competency occurred through
two SLO assessments32. by fall semester 2008. The Library, in collaboration with the
Office of Institutional Research, developed a two-part assessment instrument33 to
measure student’s overall understanding of library research.
The assessments were completed by 840 students before and after completing a BI
session. Evidence showed that the workshops were helpful in increasing the
number of students who would use tools for locating full-text magazine and journal
articles, cite and paraphrase research sources, and understand how to use the library
catalog to locate a book, identify a book’s title, and identify the number of authors.
The major difference following the in-service session was that students understood
the meaning of plagiarism.
In addition, during the spring 2009 semester, the institution participated in a student
survey based in the University of Washington’s iSchool and funded by ProQuest.
295
PIL (Project Information Literacy) “is a national study about early adults and their
information seeking behaviors, competencies, and the challenges they face when
conducting research in the digital age.34” Survey questions address research
methodology for both course work research and research that affects the student’s
daily life. The Office of Institutional Research reported this data from the survey.34
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for II.C.1.b.
II.C.1.c. The institution provides students and personnel responsible for student
learning programs and services adequate access to the library and other learning
support services, regardless of their location or means of delivery.
II.C.1.d. The institution provides effective maintenance and security for its
library and other learning support services.
II.C.1.e. When the institution relies on or collaborates with other institutions or
other sources for library and other learning support services for its instructional
programs, it documents that formal agreements exist and that such resources and
services are adequate for the institution’s intended purposes, are easily accessible,
and utilized. The performance of these services is evaluated on a regular basis.
The institution takes responsibility for and assures the reliability of all services
provided either directly or through contractual arrangement.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution provides adequate access to the Library. Hours have changed
slightly over the past six years. In fall, 2004 the 7:45 a.m. opening was moved back
to 7:30 a.m. to accommodate students who needed to print papers or eRes materials
for their morning classes. Beginning in spring, 2007 the Library opened one hour
earlier at 8:00 a.m., instead of 9:00 a.m. on Friday to be more available to students
before their classes. Library hours are posted in several locations. The circulation
desk hands out an informational bookmark with the hours and holidays for the
current term as well as directions for online book renewal.
The Chino campus Cybrary is open Monday and Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m. and Tuesday and Wednesday from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. This pattern gives
students from each module equal access throughout the week. While students
would like the Library to be open 24/7, the current schedule makes the best use of
staff and covers periods of high use well. The Cybrary also distributes an
informational bookmark relevant to the Chino campus. The online databases have
experienced an increase in retrievals from 2002-03 through 2007-08.35
296
Table 3. Number of Online Library Database Retrievals from 2002/2003 through
2007/2008
Years
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
Numbers
34,144
161,237
205,195
178,137
751,926
673,836
The success centers support approximately half of the student population every
term, with 30% of the student population visiting two centers or more each term.
The following table represents the growth in the success center activity over a period
of time. As the data indicates, approximately half of the student population accesses
at least one success center every year.17
Table 4. The Number and Percent of Success Center Contacts from the 2000-2001
Academic Year through the 2007-2008 Academic Year
Academic
Year
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
Students accessing
success centers
5,345
8,832
10,105
10,282
11,649
12,355
11,975
12,687
Number of student
Population
26,545
29,921
32,505
26,088
26,857
27,138
27,244
25,209
Percent accessing
Success centers
20.1
29.5
31.1
39.4
43.4
45.5
44.0
50.3
The Library uses a security system to prevent the theft of materials. For three
semesters, from fall 2007 through fall 2008, the library had a private security guard
during peak hours. This position has been eliminated due to budget problems. The
position was extremely effective in maintaining an academic environment in the
Library. Student conduct issues will be monitored and the security guard position
may be reevaluated.
Each success center also keeps records of specific functions or services provided.
These include number of tutorial and mentoring sessions, directed learning
activities, workshops, make-up exams, competency exams, instructional modules,
297
assistant-training sessions, informational & class presentations, advisory meetings,
and faculty in-service training sessions delivered.
All students have access to every activity in every center. Distance learners are
provided with access to meet their success center requirements either through
personal visits to the centers, or through an online format sponsored by the center.
To date, the Writing Center is the only success center providing online services;
however, the institution is exploring the option to expand this availability through
CCC Confer.
The success centers are housed in various locations at each campus. Each center is
located in its own space, with the exception of the Language Center and
Multidisciplinary/Reading Success Center that share a new building (Berz
Excellence Building) built in 2008. The lower level of the facility houses both
centers, and they share a common entrance. All of the centers are secured by
campus safety and each location is maintained through the campus maintenance
department. Maintenance and operations assigns facility maintenance attendants to
the Library for daily and more specialized cleaning.
SELF-EVALUATION
Students, faculty, and staff have access to all electronic databases and e-books as
well as instructor’s eRes reserve materials in the library on desk top computers or
their own laptops. The college community may also access these resources at the
Chino Cybrary and any location with internet connectivity. The success center in
Fontana currently provides computers for remote access to these resources and the
Cybrary designed as part of phase three will provide the same standard of services
as available in Chino, including a reference librarian. A process is in place to send
books to Chino with next day delivery as students request them.
For summer and fall 2007, and spring 2008, the Library checked out and renewed
39,296 items in various formats. Included in the total are 19,432 checkouts of
textbooks on reserve. For the same time period, the total searches of the electronic
databases were 2,030,331. From these searches, there were 673,836 downloads or
prints.35
The institution’s California Institution for Women (CIW) program is discussed in
Standard IIB. The Library provides students in the CIW program access to selected
library resources and bibliographic instruction tutorials on flash drives because the
inmates are not allowed to use the Internet.
Librarians present BI to classes at the Chino and Fontana campuses in the same
format as on the Rancho campus, whenever possible. Librarians will produce online
298
tutorials for instructors whose classes meet outside regular library hours, if the
instructors allow the librarians sufficient lead-time to prepare the tutorials. SLO
assessment using Student Response Technology will be available at both the Chino
and Rancho campuses.
Digitized video materials may be accessed at the Chino and Fontana campus
classroom instructor stations as well as in the Rancho campus classrooms. The
digitized material is streamed from ITS servers over the college network.
The Library automated system modules are web based and they are hosted off site.
The offsite host performs daily backups and redundancy of files to protect the
Library’s database and student records, and provides back-up power generation
systems to maintain consistent service levels. The Library does not participate in a
reciprocal lending agreement with other colleges and universities.
AGent Verso provides automated modules and authentication through the internet.
The contracts for service and maintenance are processed and funded by Information
Technology Services. The Library monitors the service and works with the vendor
to achieve solutions to problems if they occur. Vendor generated reports of activity
level support the scope and quality of the service provided.
Following the last accreditation during fall semester 2004, library staff found that
students were reluctant to commit large sums for their future printing needs and
that they preferred a pay-as-you-go method. The student account module has been
discontinued after a one semester trial and the pay-to-print system currently uses
bill and coin stations.
Quality Copy provides pay-to-print and pay-to-copy services for the Library,
Cybrary, and success centers. Auxiliary Services handles the contract for these
services and coordinates system installs using the college network. By mid-spring
semester, 2009 all of the pay-to-print locations will be web-based and they will not
rely on the college network. This vendor also provides an authentication system
that limits library computer use to currently enrolled college students. Each location
makes their repair and troubleshooting calls as needed and monitors the supplies
inventory. The standard of vendor service, college use, and satisfaction are
reviewed when contracts are renewed.
Self evaluation for the Library is further addressed in II.C.2. page ___.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plans for II.C.1.c., II.C.1.d., and II.C.1.e.
299
II.C. 2. The institution evaluates library and other learning support services to
assure their adequacy in meeting identified student needs. Evaluation of these
services provides evidence that they contribute to the achievement of student
learning outcomes. The institution uses the results of these evaluations as the
basis for improvement.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Library evaluation follows the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional
Effectiveness5 through preparation of an annual Program and Services Review6
(PSR) process at the institutional level. PSR addresses each program’s mission, goals
related to ends policies, core competencies, and planned activities and strategies for
the future. PSR also includes the examination of the SLO assessment feedback36
provided by the SLO committee. In addition, the self study reports on the status of
prior year goals and activities, responds to recommendations from the
subcommittee reviewers, and responds to recommendations from the committee as
a whole body. The reviewing committee is composed of faculty, classified and
management representatives from all parts of the institution. A list of goals and
achievements is included as part of the annual budget preparation document.37
The Library presents a monitoring report annually to the Governing Board,
beginning July 2009. This report presents to the Governing Board the manager’s
goals for the Library based on the mission and goals of the institution. The report
addresses findings stemming from the implementation of SLOs and administrative
unit outcomes (AUOs), and offers a plan for how to best make use of such results to
improve both student learning and administrative unit outcomes.38 The Library
dean has participated in the development of strategic plans, such as the Educational
and Facilities Master Plans. The dean has also represented the library as a
stakeholder in the planning for the Chino campus and the Fontana campus
expansion.
Evaluation with faculty occurs on an informal level when librarians schedule and
wrap up Bibliographic Instruction sessions. As mentioned above (II.C.1.b), findings
stemming from the library’s SLO assessment indicate an improvement of student
learning following BI sessions.
In addition to implementing an SLO aimed at improving information competency,
the Library is conducting an annual User Survey39 designed to obtain student
feedback necessary to ensuring that the Library provides high quality services and
resources.
This survey is an assessment for one of the associate dean’s
administrative unit outcomes. In May 2008, 858 forms were completed and returned
and the evaluation showed that students were satisfied with the Library services
and resources. For instance, 86% of respondents reported being ‘satisfied’ or ‘very
300
satisfied’ with the activities they engaged in while visiting the Library. In addition,
76.3% of respondents reported that they ‘frequently’ or ‘almost always’ felt that their
ability to find and evaluate information was improved by the library’s services,
resources, and staff. Moreover, 52.2% of respondents reported that they ‘frequently’
or ‘almost always’ utilized the Library’s resources as a way to learn or discover new
information. Patrons were most likely to engage in three activities: (a) study
(19.3%), (b) use library computers (16%), and (c) print out a document (11%).40
As an example of meeting student needs and facilitating student learning, the
Library offers students a workshop designed to help them understand and use
iMovie, a video-editing software used for several classes. In an effort to obtain
student feedback regarding the workshop, a survey was implemented in concert
with the Office of Institutional Research, during the fall 2008 to evaluate library
support services. Students were generally satisfied with various aspects of the
iMovie workshop and with their video editing project experience, even though some
students identified it as time-consuming. Areas for which students wished to
receive additional assistance pertained to enhancing the multimedia features of their
video, along with the importing and exporting of video files.41
A consistent drop in the number of non-reserve checkouts starting in 2005-06 led to
a further examination of the search parameters of the online catalog. The changed
parameters are more intuitive and mirror the display of other search engines the
students are familiar with.
Assessment of learning outcomes is an integral aspect of the Strategic Planning
Framework for Institutional Effectiveness.5 Evaluating achievement in success
centers is based on student learning outcomes. The success centers have developed
SLOs that define and measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the mission and
functions of each center. This sets in place a means for systematic self-assessment,
review, and modification of the focus and operations of the centers addressing the
quality, quantity, depth, and variety. The discipline-specific centers Math, Writing,
Language, and Reading have developed outcomes that relate specifically to each
service area. For example, The Writing Success Center conducted an SLO
assessment42 focused upon increasing students’ recognition of the existing
connection between the Writing Center’s offered activities/services and subsequent
classroom success. To that end, students completed a brief assessment asking them
to indicate the extent to which they perceived a link between their utilization of the
Writing Center’s services and their classroom success. The assessment was
completed before and after attending the Writing Center’s Orientation Workshop.
Findings revealed an increase in this perceived link at post-test. In fact, at post-test,
over 75% of respondents felt that it was “likely” or “very likely” that their utilization
of services was related to succeeding in their coursework. The Writing Center has
continued to develop and modify its curriculum in such a way that it provides
301
meaningful instructional resources and services to students and highlights the link
between such resources/services and classroom performance.42
The Language Success Center implemented an SLO directed at improving students’
knowledge of available learning resources. The center had students attending an
orientation presentation complete an assessment tool before and after the
presentation. Findings indicated that students became more aware of the lab hour
requirement and the procedural process required to access the facility after
attending the presentation (7% and 20%, respectively). In addition, students
demonstrated an increased understanding of the three qualifying lab activities (71%
increase). The Language Success Center has since further enhanced its orientations
with visual media and interactive activities designed to appeal to a variety of
learning styles.43
The Multidisciplinary Centers at Rancho, Fontana, and Chino, (and at one time
Ontario) all developed separate learning outcomes that serve more global needs.
For example, the Rancho campus Multidisciplinary/Reading Center conducted an
SLO focused upon increasing students’ understanding of effective study skills.
Students attending a study skills workshop were assessed before and after the
workshop; the assessment tool asked students to rate their knowledge of effective
study skills on a five point scale (one = little or no knowledge; five = extremely
knowledgeable). Findings indicated that the average rating before the workshop
was 2.53; this average increased to 4.36 after the workshop. In an effort to improve
the breadth of information provided by the assessment tool, the Rancho
Multidisciplinary/Reading Center will add more items to the existing tool. The
Chino Multidisciplinary Center has planned to implement a SLO focused upon
examining the extent to which the skills acquired during center activities are
manifested in coursework; the center will work with selected faculty members to
narrow the scope of the project and develop an appropriate assessment tool. This
SLO is scheduled to be implemented during the 2009-2010 academic year. Thus,
each center is responsible for the identification of these outcomes, in conjunction
with the disciplines they serve, and identifying appropriate assessment measures
that are implemented and evaluated locally. These assessments consist of pre- and
post-testing, as well as some of the information gleaned from the student satisfaction
surveys. The assessment evidence informs further evaluation and programmatic
improvement.44
Students’ acquisition of the knowledge, skills, and abilities measured by the SLO
assessment instruments may underlie the observed increase in success rates.44 For
instance, students who accessed a success center in 2004-2005, compared to students
enrolled in the same sections who did not access the success centers, were more
successful regardless of enrollment status, gender, or ethnicity. Students who
accessed a success center compared to those who did not do so had a higher success
302
rate 73.7% versus 59.7%. Success centers have a particularly positive impact on the
success rates of first-time students (71.7% vs. 50.8%) and African American students
(67.3% vs. 48.5%). The benefits of the success center are not limited to a single
campus location. In fact, students who used the Chino Success Center had a higher
success rate (76.6%) than those who did not access the Chino Success Center (60.3%);
likewise, students who used the Fontana Success Center had a higher success rate
(68.4%) than did those students not accessing the Fontana Center (61.2%).
Other research has examined the impact that specific success centers have on success
rates. In particular, one study examined the success rates of students in 20 different
language courses (ranging from American Sign Language to Chinese) that did and
did not attend an orientation offered by the Language Success Center (LSC) during
the fall 2006 semester. The orientation is designed to introduce students to the wideranging academic support that the LSC offers. Findings revealed that students who
attended the LSC orientation had a significantly higher success rate in their
respective language courses (68.0%) than those students who had not attended the
LSC orientation (61.0%).45
In addition to examining performance outcomes, the Office of Institutional Research
has designed and set up an on-line satisfaction survey to be taken by the students
who have accessed and used the services and instruction of each success center.
Generally, these surveys are available for approximately two weeks, or enough time
to ensure that a statistically significant number of students respond. The students
are asked to rate their satisfaction with the center services, facilities, personnel,
quality of instruction, and relevance. In addition, each center asks students to rate
their satisfaction with individual workshops, activities, and study groups. For the
Opening Doors & Smart Start programs, students are asked to rate the effectiveness
of the directed learning activities that they performed within the centers. The results
of all of the surveys are shared with the instructional specialists of each center, and
the findings for each specific center are then shared and analyzed with the staff of
each center. All of the previous surveys are available online through the Online
Analytical Processing cubes (OLAP).46
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution evaluates learning support service in relation to meeting student
need and achievement of learning outcomes. All areas participate in the annual PSR
process.6 Student learning outcomes are in the assessment stage with sufficient
feedback for evaluation and planning processes in some areas. The success centers
remain a constantly positive influence on student success and retention. In fact,
findings from our most recent survey, conducted during the spring 2008 semester,
indicate that over 95% of the students surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that the
success centers were comfortable, well maintained, that they would visit a success
303
center again, and that the learning environments at the centers were friendly and
welcoming. In addition, between 94% and 97% of respondents agreed or strongly
agreed with the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Success center workshop facilitators were helpful in explaining concepts clearly
and were well organized
They would attend another success center workshop
Their tutors were knowledgeable, involved them in the learning process, and
were friendly and respectful
The academic support resource they needed was available when they needed it
The success center equipment worked properly
The success center staff was knowledgeable about the centers’ resources
Most library planning and evaluation occurs through student responses to surveys
and SLO assessment results. The Library is using increased amounts of data to
facilitate evaluation and future planning. Usage data and comparative statistics
influence decisions about hours of operation, services offered, and collection
development and maintenance. Following two student survey cycles, hours of
operation have been changed and color printing implemented.
Library use is reported to the Governing Board in support of the dean’s AOUs, and
goals and accomplishments are included in the final budget for board approval.
Goals and plans are addressed in PSR. During school meetings held on flex days
during the fall and spring semesters, library statistics and survey data are reviewed
for evaluation and planning.47 In fall, librarians discuss projects that they plan to
undertake. SLO assessment strategies are reviewed and evaluated and current year
SLO activities are proposed. In spring semester flex, there are follow-up evaluations
and modifications as appropriate.
The faculty provides informed evaluations of library services and bibliographic
instruction whenever they interact with librarians or the dean. All of these threads
are interwoven into departmental evaluation and result in regular on-going
program planning, improvement and resource allocation.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for II.C.2.
References – Standard II C. Library and Learning Support Services
1
2
3
Chaffey College Website, Library
OPAC as of June 2008
304
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
E-mail from William Miller 6-18-09
TTIP April 2004-Aug 2009
Wireless Connectivity Proposal
Basic Skills Transformation 2000
Student Success Initiative 2006
Research Brief, Focus Areas to Increase the Accountability Reporting for Community College
(ARCC) Outcomes for 2008
Success Center Folder
List of Labs and Location Map
Instructional lab student visits data
SI Documentation
Library Annual Statistics
Success Center Data
E-mail from Melanie Siddiqi 4-17-09
Title V Grant Success Data
Faculty Handbook, New Faculty Orientation
Library Flex Activity, Bibliographic Instruction
Sample Newsletters to Faculty
Course Outlines of Record (COR)
Collection Development Guidelines 2008
Discipline Software Packages in Center Curriculum
Center Use Statistical Report
Chaffey College Website, Outcomes and Assessment (SLOs), Library
Annual Statistics, Bibliographic Instruction
Library Assessment Instrument 2008
Library Assessment Instrument 2008 Results
Did You Know? Vol. 20, Project Information Literacy (PIL) Survey
BI Statistics - Annual Statistics
SLO Assessment feedback
Annual Budget Preparation
Governing Board Monitoring Report-Library Svcs SP 2009
User Survey
User Survey Results
Research Brief, Examining the Perceptions of Library Services/Resources Spring 2008
SLO Assessment of Writing Success Center
SLO Assessment of Language Success Center
Chino Multidisciplinary SLO assessment
SLO Assessment of Language Success Center 2006
Library Statistics and Survey data Fall/Spring
305
Accreditation Standard 3 - Resources
Human Resources Subcommittee Chairs
Angie Horton
Donna Walker
Professional Development
Faculty Senate
Physical Resources Subcommittee Chairs
Jeff Brouwer
Bob Cecil
Ann Perez
Executive Director, Facilities,
Maintenance & Operations
Admissions/Records
Assistant II
Technology Resources Subcommittee Chairs
Mike Fink
Carol Hutte
Melanie Siddiqi
Kristina Spalding
Director, Technical Services
Librarian
Interim Executive Director,
Information Services
Admissions/Records
Assistant II
Financial Resources Subcommittee Chairs
Joyce Oakdale
Anita Undercoffer
Instructor, Chemistry
Director, Budgeting Services
Standard III
Lisa Bailey
Executive Director, Human
Resources
Raul Alvarado
Jonathan Ausubel
Eric Bishop
Patricia Bopko
Baron Brown
Manager, Grounds
Instructor, English
Director, Fontana Campus
Coordinator, Financial Aid
Instructor, Administration of
Justice
Sharon Brown
Ben Bull
Donna Colondres
Earl Davis
Kim Erickson
Adjunct Counselor
Coordinator, Electronic Media
Counselor
Vice President, Business
Services
Director, Accounting Services
Mike Eskew
John Fay
Dale Fisher
Sam Gaddie
Bob Markovich
Instructor, English
Maintenance & Operations
Instructional Asst. III,
Mathematics & Science
Photography Specialist, Visual,
Performing & Comm Arts
Kim Mascarenas
Carol McClure
Steve Menzel
Stephanie Moya
Amy Nevarez
Administrator, Payroll
Instructor, Biological Science
Vice President, Administrative
Services
Executive Assistant I,
Counselor, EOP&S
306
Standard III Resources
The institution effectively uses its human, physical, technology, and financial
resources to achieve its broad educational purposes, including stated student
learning outcomes, and to improve institutional effectiveness.
Standard III A. Human Resources
The institution employs qualified personnel to support student learning
programs and services wherever offered and by whatever means delivered, and to
improve institutional effectiveness.
Personnel are treated equitably, are
evaluated regularly and systematically, and are provided opportunities for
professional development.
Consistent with its mission, the institution
demonstrates its commitment to the significant educational role played by
persons of diverse backgrounds by making positive efforts to encourage such
diversity. Human resource planning is integrated with institutional planning.
III.A.1. The institution assures the integrity and quality of its programs and
services by employing personnel who are qualified by appropriate education,
training, and experience to provide and support those programs and services.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution abides by a comprehensive and inclusive employment process to hire
qualified faculty, management, and staff who have the experience, training, and
education required for a particular position. The Human Resources Staffing Plan1
outlines the recruitment prioritization process for the employment of qualified
personnel in each employment group.
Full-Time Faculty Positions
Since the last accreditation visit in 2004, the prioritization process for full-time
faculty employment has been expanded. In 2008, the process was redesigned to be
more comprehensive and collegial, using criteria established and updated by the
administrative team and Faculty Senate.
The criteria for prioritization,2
incorporated in the Program and Services Review (PSR)3 process in 2009, is aligned,
with institutional goals, initiatives, and available resources. All new faculty
positions are requested through the PSR process following the Strategic Planning
Framework for Institutional Effectiveness.4 Once a full-time faculty position is
recommended through the PSR process, the President’s Cabinet and the Dean’s
council establish a priority list based on the criteria for prioritization. The list then
goes to the President’s Cabinet, the institution’s governing group. President’s
cabinet membership includes all deans, vice-presidents team, both senate presidents,
307
and both bargaining unit presidents. Prior to advertising, the hiring criteria is
reviewed and updated by Human Resources staff, discipline experts, the
department coordinator, and the dean of the area to ensure that the process
identifies candidates who are qualified by appropriate education, training and
experience. All full-time faculty, adjunct instructors, and academic administrators
are required to meet the published Minimum Qualifications for Hire in California
Community Colleges, possess a Life Credential in the discipline, or possess
equivalent qualifications. Those who are interviewed typically meet many of the
desirable qualifications listed for the position. In addition to the minimum and
desirable qualifications identified in the position description, candidates are directed
to respond to the Faculty Profile5 which identifies key personal and professional
qualities that the institution is seeking in faculty to advance institutional goals and
initiatives.
To attract highly qualified candidates, the faculty and management recruitment
brochures6 were reviewed and completely updated in 2008. In accordance with the
Institutional Mission,7 the brochure provides diverse student and staff images;
includes direct quotes from full-time faculty speaking to the unique character of the
institution; and invite highly-qualified applicants to make a difference by teaching
or leading. The brochure now more clearly reflects the priorities of the institution: a
dynamic, diverse, and life-improving learning experience for students. Positions are
widely advertised through a variety of media and channels to reach the target
market of highly qualified, diverse applicants.
Classified Positions
Like faculty positions, classified staff employment needs are identified through the
PSR process3 and recommended based on the Strategic Framework for Institutional
Effectiveness4 through a process identified by the superintendent/president’s team
and the President’s Cabinet. With the economic downturn, an interim process has
been implemented whereby vacant positions are addressed through short-term
measures. In all cases, the recruitment for new or vacant classified positions is
evaluated by the vice presidents team and approved by the superintendent/
president.
The institution has been very proactive in addressing AB1200 which significantly
restricted the use of hourly personnel to ensure the hourly usage of personnel is
really “short-term.” Several new full-time classified positions were created and
funded with discretionary funds that were previously “hourly funds” which has
enhanced the institution’s ability to provide, serve, and support faculty, staff, and
students.
308
Management Positions
The need to replace management vacancies or fill new positions is evaluated and
identified by the appropriate vice president and approved by the
superintendent/president. Based on budget considerations several management
positions have been temporarily combined and only critical positions are being
replaced by interim appointments. The vice president of student services retired in
2009 and the vice president of instruction has taken over the responsibilities. Deans’
positions were also re-evaluated and re-configured with select deans taking on
additional schools such as the library and social and behavioral science.
Similar to full-time faculty positions, the hiring criteria for management and
classified staff is reviewed by appropriate staff and the Human Resources Office to
ensure that the results yield highly qualified and effective employees. For all
positions, employees are expected to meet or exceed the minimum qualifications
identified on the position announcements and to demonstrate sensitivity to and
understanding of the diverse community college population.
Part-time Staff
Part time faculty are hired based on the coordinators recommendation. There are
thirty-three coordinators at the institution. Part time faculty go through the same
process in regard to application. Part-time classified staff are hired by the program
manager based on department needs and an application process that addresses
these needs through the applicant’s qualifications.
SELF EVALUATION
The institution employs qualified faculty and staff who have appropriate education,
training and experience. The College Catalog 2008-20098 displays the names and
degrees of administration, management and faculty.
Understanding the importance of the hiring process, the former
superintendent/president identified hiring qualified faculty, staff, and
administrators as a priority. The total number of new employees in the past six
years is indicated in the recruitment analysis (all employees) on page 4. As can be
seen in the table, selection of new employees has decreased dramatically due to the
economic downturn in California.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.A.1
309
III.A.1.a. Criteria, qualifications, and procedures for selection of personnel are
clearly and publicly stated. Job descriptions are directly related to institutional
mission and goals and accurately reflect position duties, responsibilities, and
authority. Criteria for selection of faculty include knowledge of the subject
matter or service to be performed (as determined by individuals with discipline
expertise), effective teaching, scholarly activities, and potential to contribute to
the mission of the institution. Institutional faculty plays a significant role in
selection of new faculty. Degrees held by faculty and administrators are from
institutions accredited by recognized U.S. accrediting agencies. Degrees from
non-U.S. institutions are recognized only if equivalence has been established.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
As mentioned in III.A.1, staffing needs are identified through the Program and
Services Review3 Process which aligns prioritization of personnel with the
Institutional Mission,7 Institutional Goals/Ends Policies,9 and with the Strategic
Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness.4 The Human Resources Office
oversees the hiring processes for the institution’s personnel ensuring that the
selection procedures are equitably and fairly administered, criteria and
qualifications are clearly stated in the job announcements, and the process for
selection of personnel is explained.
The recruitment process for faculty, staff, and management positions is identified in
the selection procedures.10 Human Resources actively recruit diverse and qualified
personnel, processing an average of 2,061 qualified applications annually between
July 2004 and June 2008. On average, 89 full-time faculty, classified staff, and
managers were selected each year, 62% of whom were from underrepresented
groups.11 The process for selection of diverse, qualified full-time faculty is outlined
in the institution’s administrative procedures.12
Table 1. Recruitment Analysis (All Employees)
Fiscal
Year
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
Applicant
Pool
2,082
1,877
1,521
2,765
761
Underrepresented
Applicants
965
46%
960
51%
781
51%
1,500
54%
453
60%
Total
Selected
91
97
76
93
21
Underrepresented
Applicants
56
62%
55
57%
52
68%
57
61%
14
67%
Criteria for Selection of Faculty Positions
For faculty positions, announcements13 identify the California state minimum
qualifications, the local required qualifications, and the desirable qualifications, as
identified by the discipline experts. The institution demonstrates its commitment to
310
diversity by including requirements into both the job announcements and the hiring
process through questions and/or teaching demos. The application requires every
candidate to discuss their experience working with persons of diverse backgrounds
including academic, socioeconomic, cultural, disability, and ethnic differences. The
draft announcement is reviewed by members of the selection committee, the
discipline coordinator, the dean, and the Equal Employment Opportunity
representative from Human Resources.
Table 2. Recruitment Analysis (Faculty)
Fiscal
Year
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
Applicant
Pool
988
657
557
1,012
790
Underrepresented
Applicants
378
38.3%
224
34.1%
201
36.1%
448
44.3%
357
45.2%
Total
Selected
23
21
20
17
Underrepresented
Applicants
10
43.5%
7
33.3%
9
45.0%
11
64.7%
No Hires
Recruitment Criteria for Management Positions
For management and academic administrator positions, job announcement
components14 identify the State of California minimum qualifications, local required
qualifications, and the desirable qualifications, as identified by the subject matter
experts. The draft announcement is reviewed in the same manner as that for faculty.
Full-time faculty and academic administrator positions are usually advertised for six
to eight weeks (or as needed) in the California Community College Job Registry; the
institution’s website;15 the Chronicle of Higher Education; the Chancellor’s Office
Job Fair; specialized discipline journals; career fairs; conferences; local newspapers;
local colleges and universities; the institution’s job hotline; appropriate websites;
and other media as identified by discipline experts.
Criteria for Selection of Classified Positions
For classified positions, hiring criteria are reviewed by department managers and
the EEO representative to ensure that the results yield highly qualified and effective
employees. For all positions, employees are expected to meet or exceed the
minimum qualifications and are expected to demonstrate sensitivity to, and
understanding of, the diverse community college population.
Classified positions are usually advertised for two to four weeks in a variety of
sources, as appropriate, including the California Community College Job Registry;
local newspapers; appropriate external websites; and the institution’s website,15
employee email, the institution’s job hotline, and the institution’s marquee.
311
Selection Procedures
The selection procedures were developed jointly with the Faculty Senate and the
administration and are made available to all employees through the institution’s
shared database and provided to each selection committee member prior the first
meeting. At the first meeting, a summary of the procedures is reviewed, and staff
sign that they understand and agree to abide by the procedures. The selection
procedures have recently undergone significant review and revision: the revisions
to the faculty selection procedures12 were completed in 2006, and revisions to the
classified selection procedures16 were completed in 2009. The management selection
procedures17 are currently completing review by a representative governance
committee. The selection process for all employee groups is collaborative and
collegial, designed to identify diverse, highly qualified individuals who are
prepared to implement the Institutional Mission7 and initiatives.
Screening committee membership is determined by recommendations from the
hiring manager, which is then confirmed by the Faculty and/or Classified Senate, as
appropriate, and approved by the superintendent/president. Committee members
receive training at each stage of the selection process; the EEO representative
provides a review of the committee members’ responsibilities. Selection committee
members are required to adhere to selection procedures in the screening,
interviewing and evaluating of candidates. The EEO representative monitors the
process at each stage to ensure that procedures are appropriately and fairly
administered.
The committee reviews required and desirable qualifications before reviewing
application packets and then applies these criteria to determine which candidates
will be interviewed. The committee is also responsible for developing job-related
interview questions designed to clarify whether the candidate possesses the
discipline knowledge, scholarship, teaching ability, and potential to contribute to the
Institutional Mission. During interviews the committee may ask the candidates to
perform a teaching or skills demonstration to confirm their knowledge, skills and
abilities. In all cases, interview questions, teaching demonstrations, and role-playing
exercises are reviewed in advance by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Representative. Each candidate is provided with an equivalent time frame to
respond to and interact with the committee.
At the conclusion of the faculty and management interviews, the committee is
charged with evaluating candidates based on the established minimum and
desirable qualifications and to identify three unranked finalists for consideration by
the superintendent/president, or designee. As provided in the selection procedures,
the superintendent/president interviews the finalists with the appropriate
administrator and selection committee chair. Upon completion of the interviews,
312
reference checks are conducted and a candidate is recommended by the
superintendent/president to the Governing Board for appointment.
At the conclusion of classified staff interviews, the committee is charged with
evaluating candidates based on the required and desirable qualifications and to
identify three unranked finalists for interview and consideration by the vice
president or designee and the hiring manager. The EEO representative is also
present to monitor the process. As provided in the selection procedures, upon
completion of the reference checking, the vice president recommends a candidate for
review and tentative confirmation by the superintendent/president for Governing
Board approval.
SELF EVALUATION
In accordance with the Institutional Mission,7 employing a workforce that meets the
diverse needs of the student population is an important priority for the institution.
A multi-faceted approach has been used to attract a workforce sensitive to and
proficient in working with the diversity of the community college population. This
approach included the revision of the recruitment brochure6 as described above to
promote a diverse and invigorating work environment; the advertisement of the
Faculty Profile5 of personal and professional qualifications; the variety in recruiting
methods; the diversity writing component; the requirement that hiring committee
members will represent the broad diversity of the institution; the expectation that
committee members identify candidates who demonstrate sensitivity to and
understanding of the diverse student population; and the development of a more
interactive interview process. The result, as demonstrated in the Recruitment
Monitoring Report,18 is that over the past five years, the hiring of highly diverse
candidates has exceeded representation in the applicant pools.
Once candidates are recommended for selection in accordance with the selection
procedures, the Human Resources Office verifies qualifications by reviewing official
transcripts and letters verifying professional experience.
The Minimum
Qualifications Equivalency Determination for Faculty Applicants Procedure19 was
updated in 2009 with faculty playing a significant role in the update. The procedure
is used to determine whether applicants possess the equivalent to the state
minimum qualifications. Foreign transcripts are translated and evaluated for United
States standards using reputable companies such as American Education Research
Corporation and Western Education Services, Incorporated.
For vocational
disciplines, letters verifying work and/or teaching experience are required using the
state mandated minimum qualifications.
The selection processes are followed when selecting hiring committees,
representative group, or individuals. For example, the group includes a person in
313
the job category (or as close to it as possible if none exists), a selection of discipline
experts, and representatives from other key disciplines or departments the new
employee will interact with. The organizing manager confers with other managers
and selected individuals to ensure they agree to serve. Faculty and classified staff
are identified by their respective senates.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.A.1.a
III.A.1.b. The institution assures the effectiveness of its human resources by
evaluating all personnel systematically and at stated intervals. The institution
establishes written criteria for evaluating all personnel, including performance of
assigned duties and participation in institutional responsibilities and other
activities appropriate to their expertise. Evaluation processes seek to assess
effectiveness of personnel and encourage improvement. Actions taken following
evaluations are formal, timely, and documented.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Evaluations of employees adhere to the regulations of both bargaining unit
contracts20 and institutional guidelines. Evaluation of each category of staff is
systematic and conducted at regular intervals. For full-time tenured faculty,
evaluations are conducted every three years. For permanent classified/confidential
employees, evaluations are conducted every two years. Management evaluations
are conducted every three years. Supervisors are notified annually of all evaluations
that are to be conducted during the year. Managers supervising classified
employees receive monthly notification of upcoming and/or overdue evaluations.
Faculty
Full-time faculty are evaluated based on their overall performance as professionals,
including classroom instruction; direct student contact; participation in college,
district, school or area committees and meetings; special assignments; educational
enrichment activities; and maintenance of effective working relationships with
students and staff. Each faculty member of the institution has regular formal
evaluations.
As provided in the Chaffey College Faculty Association (CCFA)
21
Agreement, first and second year contract faculty employees are evaluated twice
each year. Third and fourth year evaluations of contract faculty are completed once
a year. Tenured faculty are evaluated once every three years.
Key components of the faculty evaluation process are recognizing excellent and
satisfactory performance in the areas of instruction, counseling, and other
educational services assigned by the institution; to identifying areas of performance
314
needing improvement; and documenting unsatisfactory performance of the faculty
member. If the faculty member requires improvement, a plan for improvement is
developed that specifies areas to be addressed, means of improvement, resources
available to the faculty member, and a timeframe within which the improvement is
to be accomplished. The faculty evaluation process is largely a peer review process,
but allows for one manager to participate. Participants describe the process as
mutually beneficial for both the evaluator and evaluatee.
The comprehensive evaluation for all full-time faculty is comprised of four distinct
components: peer evaluation, administrator evaluation, student evaluation, and
self-evaluation.
Faculty self-evaluations may include summaries of regular
department meeting attendance and activity; workshop attendance; webinars
participation; conference facilitation and or participation; committee involvement;
in-service participation at professional development activities (flex); involvement
with community activities or organizations; workshops; and involvement with the
new Faculty Success Center (FSC).
Classified Staff
The classified evaluation process has recently been updated and evaluation forms
were revised in 2007. The classified evaluation process, like the faculty evaluation
process, looks at the total performance of the employee including, but not limited to,
interpersonal behavior, teamwork, organization, communication, technology skills,
and decision-making. Probationary classified employees are evaluated every four
months during their first year of employment one year after probation, then every
two years thereafter. There is also an optional self-evaluation component. To
ensure that evaluations are conducted in a timely manner, monthly notification is
provided to the immediate supervisor, and reminder notices are provided to the
area vice president. If the evaluation is not submitted in a timely manner, the
immediate supervisor must provide an explanation of the reason for the delay on
the evaluation form.
If an employee receives a “Needs Improvement” or “Unsatisfactory” rating, then a
written improvement plan must be developed that includes the following: specific
areas of needed improvement, means of improvement, resources available to the
evaluatee, and a time frame within which the improvement is to be accomplished.
Written improvement plans are forwarded to the evaluatee, the appropriate
administrator, and the Office of Human Resources.
Managers and Confidential Staff
As outlined in the Management Plan,22 the major components of a manager’s
performance evaluation consist of the self-evaluation, the behavioral ratings (from
peers, self, and supervisor), and the supervisor’s evaluation. The behavioral ratings
consist of twenty-one factors of work behavior that are assessed by designated
315
managers, peers, students, faculty, and classified staff. Designees are chosen for
their familiarity with the manager’s work traits and are mutually agreed upon by
the evaluatee and his or her supervisor. In completing the evaluation, the
supervisor takes into consideration the self-evaluation, the performance of
responsibilities, the degree of success in completing management objectives, and the
evaluation of work behaviors as measured by the behavioral rating scales. The
results of the evaluation are used for planning, improvement, and clarifying
expectations.
As outlined in the Confidential Professional Development/Evaluation Plan 200710,23 confidential employees are evaluated every two years consistent with the
provisions of the Plan. The evaluation process includes a self-evaluation and a
performance evaluation conducted by the supervisor. The supervisor’s evaluation is
comprised of the following components: performance of responsibilities, areas for
professional growth, work behaviors, and other activities and responsibilities. The
evaluation forms the basis of recommendations for development or other activities
related to employment status and career development.
SELF-EVALUATION
The evaluation process is clearly defined in each of the collective bargaining
agreements.20 Consistent and frequent notification ensures timely submission of
evaluations. Criteria for evaluation is jointly developed by the faculty and classified
staff associations and the administration and measures effective work performance
while providing meaningful feedback to the employee to encourage improvement.
All actions resulting from evaluations are documented, adhere to timelines, and
follow a formal process.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.A.1.b
III.A.1.c. Faculty and others directly responsible for student progress toward
achieving stated student learning outcomes have, as a component of their
evaluation, effectiveness in producing those learning outcomes.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Faculty evaluations are conducted and adhere to the bargaining agreement between
the institution and Chaffey College Faculty Association (CCFA). It is understood
that faculty, tutors, apprentices, instructional assistants, and others are instrumental
in a student’s progress toward achieving stated student learning outcomes (SLOs24).
Consistent with this understanding in approaching SLOs, faculty are responsible for
316
ensuring that instruction reflects the objectives of Course Outlines of Record (CORs)
with appropriate support provided by instructional and Student Support Services
staff. Based on course objectives stated in the COR, faculty develop course outlines,
identify SLOs, gather data, and implement assessment. The evaluation of such
measures demonstrates the significant role faculty and other instructional staff play
in integrating student learning outcomes into college processes.
Since the last accreditation, faculty and staff have worked diligently on the
development of SLOs. Two faculty on reassigned time have taken a lead role in
training other faculty to develop and implement learning outcomes. The Program
and Services Review Process (PSR)3 process was updated in 2008 to incorporate
student learning outcomes and assessment across all disciplines in accordance with
the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness.4 The Labor
Management Committee has had extensive dialogue about the fundamental nature
of learning outcomes in the teaching process and in conjunction with the SLOs
Committee has developed a “best practice” statement regarding the promotion of
practices that facilitate learning outcomes. Based on the understanding that learning
outcomes are an intrinsic component of good instruction, faculty evaluations include
an assessment of the instructional connection to CORs and instructional activities
that support achievement of SLOs. Also, as part of the self-evaluation process,
faculty are encouraged to address their involvement in all SLOs processes.
SELF EVALUATION
The spring 2009 Labor Management Committee’s “best practices” statement
discusses use of student learning outcomes in faculty evaluations. Approved by the
Faculty Senate, it reads:
The Learning outcomes process is an important aspect of overall program
evaluation and improvement. The District expects that full-time faculty will
participate in the identification of appropriate learning outcomes, plan and
implement assessment, and evaluate the results of assessment. As
appropriate, faculty is expected to comment on their participation in
the student learning outcome process in their self-evaluation component.
The institution will not use student learning outcome data as performance indicators
in individual faculty evaluations. The thinking is that this is an antithesis to the
SLOs process which is designed to foster departmental and institutional dialogue.
There are other processes in place (dean oversight, PSR) that ensure SLOs are being
written, evaluated, and assessed. The Labor Management Committee has discussed
the issue of evaluating faculty involvement in the student learning outcomes
processes. While specific language will be mutually negotiated during the 2009-2010
negotiation sessions, the committee is in general agreement that faculty should
317
speak to their involvement in the student learning outcomes processes in their selfevaluation component. Additionally, in August 2008 the Labor Management
Committee agreed that a "best practice" regarding the participation of adjunct
faculty in SLOs24 is for full-time faculty to explain the importance of SLOs to parttime faculty and to encourage (not direct) adjunct faculty to participate in the
development and assessment of SLOs as appropriate. Full-time faculty were
encouraged to emphasize to part-time faculty the importance of demonstrating
familiarity in SLOs for adjunct faculty who are attempting to find full-time
employment at a community college. All full-time faculty are asked to remember
that adjunct faculty participation in SLOs development is voluntary and that their
contractual obligation does not include any such work.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.A.1.c
III.A.1.d The institution upholds a written code of professional ethics for all of its
personnel.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The Governing Board’s code of professional ethics is written in Policy 1.3 “Ethics
and Conflicts of Interest,”25 which states that Governing Board members are
expected to adhere to the highest standard of conduct. All faculty are held
accountable to the Faculty Ethics Statement26 as developed and revised in 2009 by
the Faculty Senate. The institution does not have a code of professional ethics for all
of its personnel. At the direction of the superintendent/president, the Office of
Human Resources is providing research and developing a task force to prepare a
recommended written code of ethics. During the spring 2009 Management Retreat,
discussions began with staff on the essential components to be included in the code
of ethics.
SELF EVALUATION
All employees are expected to uphold a high level of respect and professionalism for
fellow employees and students. Professional conduct is included as part of the
employee evaluation process. The executive director of the Office of Human
Resources is charged with the responsibility of investigating and responding to
instances where those ethics may have been violated. At present, an ethics
statement for managers and classified staff has not been formalized. However, the
superintendent/president has charged a governance committee under the
leadership of the Office of Human Resources to propose an ethical framework for
inclusion in the institution’s policies. The committee has identified model policies
318
for review and will begin meeting in fall 2009. In examining questions related to
ethical behavior in the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey,27 approximately 89% of
informed survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the institution
establishes and adheres to written policies that ensure fairness in all employment
practices. Approximately 91% of full-time faculty, 88% of adjunct faculty, 85% of
classified staff, and 97% of administrators and managers agreed or strongly agreed
with this statement.
PLANNING AGENDA
The institution will develop a written code of professional ethics for all personnel
beginning in fall 2009. The code will link the faculty ethic statement and the
Governing Board ethic statement, address ethical effective leadership, give meaning
to becoming an ethical human being/effective citizen and adhere to ethical
principles. It will address civility, diversity, and describe the willingness of
constituents to assume social responsibility.
III.A.2. The institution maintains a sufficient number of qualified faculty with
full-time responsibility to the institution. The institution has a sufficient number
of staff and administrators with appropriate preparation and experience to
provide the administrative services necessary to support the institution’s mission
and purposes.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Full-Time Faculty
The institution maintains a sufficient number of qualified full-time faculty. A total
of 237 full-time faculty members significantly contribute to the Institutional Mission7
through a variety of professional responsibilities. A total of thirty-eight full-time
faculty hold doctoral degrees, 179 hold master’s degrees, eleven hold bachelor’s
degrees, seven hold associate’s degrees, and two hold the equivalent qualifications.
Institution and department committees are well represented by faculty who provide
expertise on a variety of professional matters.
Each year, the institution meets or exceeds its required 75/25 faculty ratio.
Currently the institution exceeds the required ratio by twenty-three full-time faculty
over the obligation number due to vacancies. Due to the current economic
downturn the institution has made a decision not to hire full-time vacant positions;
at the same time, the institution is experiencing significant growth. The number of
part-time faculty employed has not proportionately decreased. Consequently, no
significant strides have been made in improving the overall ratio of full-time faculty
to adjunct faculty.
319
Programmatic sufficiency is determined largely by the faculty prioritization process
which is based initially on Program and Services Review (PSR)3 recommendations.
Thereafter, deans and the vice president of instruction identify priorities based on
the criteria for prioritization that is embedded within the PSR process. The review
process for faculty positions was expanded in 2008 to be more comprehensive and
collegial, using criteria established and updated by the administrative team and
Faculty Senate. The criteria for prioritization2 are aligned with institutional goals,
initiatives, and available resources, and in 2009 were incorporated into the Program
and Services Review process through the Strategic Planning Framework for
Institutional Effectiveness. The president’s cabinet ranks the final list for hire.
Managers and Classified Staff
The institution has significantly improved in its employment of staff and managers
with appropriate preparation and experience. A total of 285 classified staff members
and forty-seven managers are currently employed. A total of ten managers hold
doctoral degrees, twenty-two hold master’s degrees, eleven hold bachelor’s degrees,
two hold associate degrees, and two hold the equivalent.28
Similar to faculty, classified staffing needs are identified through the PSR process
and recommended through a process identified by the President’s Cabinet. With the
economic downturn, an interim process has been implemented whereby vacant
positions are addressed through short-term measures. In all cases, the recruitment
for new or vacant classified positions is evaluated by the vice president’s team with
approval by the superintendent/president.
The institution has also placed a hold on the hire of new administrators. For example,
one dean has assumed responsibility for two schools: Visual, Performing and
Communications Arts and Language Arts. Upon the retirement of the vice president of
student services, the vice president of instruction assumed responsibility for student
services. As discussed in Section III.A.1.a. (p. 310), the Human Resources Office verifies
qualifications through the review of official transcripts and letters verifying professional
experience. The Minimum Qualifications Equivalency Determination for Faculty
Applicants19 was updated in 2009 and is used to determine if applicants possess
qualifications equivalent to the state minimum qualifications. Educational institutions
are also verified using the Accredited Institutions of Postsecondary Education book29
that is retained in the Human Resources office. Foreign transcripts are translated and
evaluated for United States standards using reputable companies such as the American
Education Research Corporation and Western Education Services, Incorporated. For
vocational disciplines, letters verifying work and/or teaching experience are required
using the state mandated minimum qualifications.
320
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution continually strives to meet human resource needs. However, the
ability to maintain sufficient numbers of employees is greatly influenced by financial
resources. The financial problems of the State of California are reflected in the
institution’s solid budgeting processes which in turn affect institutional hiring
practices These same efforts are also influenced by a variety of associated and
sometimes competing issues such as requests for additional staffing through PSR,
input from advisory committees, transfer requirements for students, job market
information and demographic data provided from recognized sources. Future
faculty and classified staffing needs are evaluated through data collected, reviewed,
and analyzed by the Office of Human Resources.
PLANNING AGENDA
III.A.3. The institution systematically develops personnel policies and
procedures that are available for information and review. Such policies and
procedures are equitably and consistently administered.
III.A.3.a. The institution establishes and adheres to written policies ensuring
fairness in all employment procedures.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution has an effective process for the development of all policies and
procedure. For many years the policies and procedures developed by the
Community College League of California have served as the model for institutional
policy design. The Office of Institutional Services is responsible for making all
policies and procedures that are newly developed or amended available for review
through the share governance process. Any program, individual or group may
bring forward a request for policy/procedure development or develop a policy
procedure. Once received by the Office of Institutional Services, the shared
governance process begins and president’s cabinet serves as the final review body.
Personnel policies or any other policy may go through a legal review initiated by the
office of human resources.
The institution ensures that personnel policies are provided and adhered to on a
consistent and equitable basis as evidenced by a variety of resources and practices.
These include requiring regular nondiscrimination and harassment prevention
training, orienting new employees to the institution’s policies and procedures,
requiring in-service training for all hiring committees, and maintaining
321
confidentiality with personnel records. Since August 2008, Human Resources has
provided cross training within the department so that all procedures and priorities
are consistently applied throughout the College. These practices ensure the integrity
of employment procedures including compliance with institutional policy and with
state and federal regulations.
Based on the John Carver Model of policy governance,30 the institution’s policy
manual31 was developed and is adhered to in decision-making process. The
institution has developed and publicized its personnel policies in the Human
Resources section of the Policy Manual.31 Personnel policies are publicized in job
announcements, faculty and staff orientation, and Faculty and Student Handbooks.32
Governing Board members and the superintendent/president of the institution
review
and
implement
policies
throughout
the
year
and
the
superintendent/president reviews policy at annual Governing Board retreats. All
policies and procedures are reviewed by president’s cabinet. Personnel policies, as
all others, are reviewed by faculty, staff, management, vice presidents, and the
Governing Board through the shared governance process.
Various methods are employed to educate personnel about institutional policies and
procedures including new employee orientation, new hire processing flex activities,
and mandatory harassment and discrimination prevention workshops. For example,
the institution has hired eighty-one full-time faculty between 2004 and 2009 who
have attended workshops on a weekly basis during the fall semester. Some of the
topics included in these workshops are: ethics, professionalism, the role of Human
Resources and the roles and responsibilities of management, staff and Governing
Board Members. As mentioned earlier, faculty and staff attend one harassment and
discrimination prevention workshop every three years, and managers attend one
workshop every two years.
Employees are notified of new personnel policies by e-mail and/or hardcopy. When
a new policy or procedure is written or amendments are made, following
president’s cabinet approval the Office of Institutional Services sunshine’s the
policy/procedure on the institution’s web page33 for input from all constituents.
SELF EVALUATION
Institutional Policy is drafted and updated in the Office of Institutional Services,
which is responsible for seeing policy/revisions through the shared governance
process to the Governing Board. Policy is developed based on models from the
Community College League of California, an organization the institution been
affiliated with since 2000.
322
The Office of Human Resources is responsible for administering policies and
procedures equitably and consistently by facilitating the work of the screening and
interview committees to ensure that hiring committees are representative of all
employee groups and receives in-service training prior to reviewing applications.
This training includes attention to confidentiality, equal employment opportunity
laws, and selection processes. The Executive Director of the Office of Human
Resources appoints an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) representative to
serve on each hiring committee, monitors all recruitment activities to ensure
applicant pools meet expected diversity representation, maintains all selection
materials and records and follows appropriate personnel practices and procedures
to ensure fairness in all employment processes.
Collective bargaining agreements include identified evaluation timeframes. The
Office of Human Resources systematically notifies managers of the evaluation
timeframes and provides technical assistance to these managers. Consequently,
employees receive regular reviews of their performance and are permitted the
opportunity to submit self-evaluations and, at conclusion, may also submit written
rebuttals.
Employee needs and concerns are addressed at different levels depending upon the
nature of the concern. The executive director of the Office of Human Resources is
responsible to advise, investigate, resolve conflicts, and ensure fairness in areas of
hiring, discipline, and personnel related complaint resolution. Employees can also
voice their need/concern to their supervisor, senate, union, Classified Labor
Management Committee, Faculty Labor Management Committee, and Human
Resources. Grievances are filed with the union and are outlined in both the Chaffey
Community College Faculty Association Agreement21 and Chaffey Community
College California School Employees Association Agreement.34
Institutional Goals/Ends Policies9 specifically, “assures the integrity and quality of
programs and services by integrating human resource planning with institutional
planning, and systematically develops personnel policies and procedures that are
equitably and consistently administered.”
Subsections of this Institutional
Goals/Ends Policy specifically address the hiring of qualified personnel,
commitment to diversity, and employee agreements that, “…assure that employees
are treated equitably and evaluated regularly and systematically. Negotiated
agreements with employee groups shall be fair, equitable, and affordable.”
Institutional Goals/Ends Policies are regularly evaluated and updated and are
posted to the college website.
According to findings from the Fall 2008
27
Accreditation Survey, approximately 81% of informed survey respondents agreed
or strongly agreed that the institution’s Institutional Goals/Ends Policies9 are clearly
articulated.
323
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.A.3 and III.A.3.a
III.A.3.b. The institution makes provision for the security and confidentiality of
personnel records. Each employee has access to his/her personnel records in
accordance with law.
The institution ensures that all personnel records are maintained in a secure and
confidential manner by keeping records in a securely locked area. Keys to access
personnel records are limited.
Instructional classified and management personnel may view their personnel
records by appointment during regular business hours.
The employee is
accommodated with a designated common-area in the Office of Human Resources
to review their file. Only authorized personnel, such as supervisors and union
representatives, are allowed to view employee personnel records. The union
representative may do so with written authorization by the bargaining unit member.
The Office of Human Resources maintains a log of who has reviewed each
individual’s personnel file.
The official personnel record consists of the employee’s application, evaluation,
transcripts, benefit enrollment forms, and other miscellaneous employment
documents. Leave balance statements are considered part of the personnel record
but are scanned and maintained electronically. The Payroll Department maintains
other items that are considered part of the employees’ personnel file such as time
sheets, community service invoices, pay history reports, and miscellaneous
deduction forms.
Security classifications are requested by the first-level manager and are authorized
by the executive director of the Office of Human Resources and assigned by the
Information Technology (IT) department. Classifications are used to provide
electronic access to personnel information contingent on the role of the employee.
For example, managers have inquiry access to the necessary fields to process faculty
contracts.
SELF EVALUATION
As a measure for determining employees’ awareness of the institution’s
establishment of and adherence to written policies, ensuring fairness in all
employment practices, a statement was included on the Fall 2008 Accreditation
Survey27 to address this issue: “ The institution establishes and adheres to written
policies, ensuring fairness in all employment practices.” There were 396 valid survey
324
responses. The majority or respondents 77% agreed with the item, 13% of the
respondents answered “Don’t Know”, and 9.7% indicated that they disagreed with
the statement. In further examining “Don’t Know” responses by employee group,
10% of contract faculty responded “Don’t Know’”, 19.8% of adjunct faculty; 13% of
classified staff; and 6% of management/administration. To better inform employee
groups about Human Resources policies and practices, the executive director of the
Office of Human Resources provided a response that was distributed to all
employee groups on January 21, 2009 by the accreditation liaison officer. The
executive director of the Office of Human Resources directly addressed two
Accreditation Survey items:
•
•
Human Resources planning is integrated with institutional planning
The institution regularly assesses its record in employment equity and diversity
to ensure it is consistent with its mission
In addition to e-mailing this response directly to all administrators, faculty (contract
and adjunct), and classified staff, the responses were included in a second, more
expansive information piece on April 10, 2009. Both documents were subsequently
posted to and are available on the Office of Institutional Research website.35
PLANNING AGENDA
III.A.4. The institution demonstrates through policies and practices
appropriate understanding of and concern for issues of equity and diversity.
an
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
As provided in the institution’s non-discrimination policy,36 a system-wide
commitment has been made to build a community in which opportunity is
equalized and to create a college environment that fosters cultural and racial
awareness, mutual understanding, respect, harmony, and suitable role models for
all students. The non-discrimination policy promotes equal opportunity for staff in
all areas of employment, including recruitment, selection, orientation, training,
promotion, retention, and dismissal. The institution ensures that all new employees,
as part of their orientation to the institution, receive information on the laws
pertaining to harassment and discrimination as well as a complete copy of the
institution’s policies and procedures on harassment and discrimination.
Additionally, at the conclusion of training sessions such as harassment and
discrimination prevention, participants complete a training verification form37
certifying their understanding of their rights and responsibilities in adhering to
prohibition of harassment and non-discrimination laws and that the institution’s
325
local policies are understood by the employee. Participants are given the
opportunity to identify the need for additional training and/or information via the
training verification form. This data can then be used to identify the need for
additional employee training on policies and/or suggest revisions that are needed in
the policy.
The institution demonstrates concern and fosters an appreciation for diversity by
both supporting and establishing program goals to advance an understanding of
diversity issues. The institution offers support to student and staff initiated
programs such as AMAN/AWOMAN, the Black Faculty and Staff Association, and
the Latino Faculty and Staff Association. In addition, the institution supports
programs with goals addressing equity and diversity such as: the President’s Equity
Council; Disability Programs and Services (DPS), which sponsors Disability
Awareness Month; Extended Opportunity Programs and Services (EOPS); the
International Students Program; the Study Abroad Program (for example, Study Far
and Near Program); the Puente Program; and the Plus 50 Program. Academic
programs supporting diversity are also supported, including English as a Second
Language (ESL). The Theatre Arts Department supports programs such as the
Laramie Project, which dramatizing the brutal beating and murder of Matthew
Shepard; and The Vagina Monologues, which explores female sexuality. Wignall
Museum exhibits include: Girly Show, highlighting new wave feminism; and
Mammygraphs, the deconstruction of minstrel images in United States popular
culture. Various student clubs are supported including the Gay Straight Alliance,
Muslim Student Alliance, Global Dance Club, and the Together Plus Club, which
supports campus diversity in a variety of ways.
The infusion of equity and diversity is also addressed through programs and
workshops offered by the Faculty Success Center (a conference and technology
center established in 2008 at the Rancho Cucamonga campus) and the Professional
Development Program. For example, in 2008 the Faculty Success Center offered a
two-week summer institute program entitled, “Culturally Responsive Teaching.”
Forty-eight full-time and adjunct faculty participated in this program. In order to
sustain the results of their participation, participants subsequently took part in panel
discussions and poster sessions disseminating techniques they learned during the
summer. Additionally, the Professional Development Program has used flexible
calendar (flex) days to offer workshops aimed at increasing awareness of diversity
such as “What’s Race Got to Do with It?” The Faculty Success Center offers
sustained programs aimed at a long-term impact on teaching. The Professional
Development Program will continue to offer programs that address diversity issues
impacting the broader college community. As mentioned earlier, every three years
full-time faculty and classified staff are required to participate in interactive
harassment and discrimination prevention. Administrative employees are required
to participate in this training every two years.
326
In 1990, the then superintendent/president’s concern for issues of equity and
diversity resulted in the establishment of the President’s Equity Council. The
Council was established to design and implement an integrated equity program that
brings together the various interests, activities, and mandates related to diversity
defining equity as 'freedom from bias or favoritism.38 President's Equity Council is
the umbrella committee that advances institutional equity. The council works
closely with other programs, services, and committees that are concerned with
equity and multi-cultural issues. The council addresses the recommendations of the
accreditation team, legal mandates, and staff concerns related to diversity, student
equity issues, and other issues related to diversity and equal employment
opportunity.
The Council reports and presents suggestions to the
superintendent/president for review and action.
The President's Equity council was instrumental in revising the non-discrimination
and harassment policies and procedures and infusing the college culture with a
broader community perspective in supporting diverse organizations such as the
Latino Faculty and Staff Association and the Black Faculty and Staff Association.
The previous superintendent/president empowered the council to become the
oversight organization, ensuring that student equity goals were addressed by the
institution. The Student Equity Plan39 is based on five equity indicators: access,
course completion, ESL and basic skills completion, degree and certificate
completion, and transfer. The council is also responsible for assuring that the Board
of Governor’s policy on student equity are addressed by the institution. When
questions and concerns were raised by constituents of the institution or community,
the previous superintendent would consult with the council and work with areas of
concern for resolution of identified issues. The current superintendent/president
requested that all recommendations and evaluations made by the Equity Council
first be presented to his VP team for discussion prior to reporting out to constituents.
SELF EVALUATION
Evidence exists that the institution demonstrates through policy and practice, an
appropriate understanding of and concern for issues of equity and diversity.
Through the collective activities created to address President’s Equity Council goals,
recent evidence indicates that the institution has made significant inroads in
ameliorating student performance outcome differences by gender, ethnicity, age,
and disability. Evaluation of the institution’s most recent three-year Student Equity
Plan indicates that twenty-five of the twenty-nine evidence-based goals (86%)
established by the President’s Equity Council were met or partially met. Highlights
include:
327
•
•
•
•
•
•
Improved course success rates of African American, Native American,
Hispanic/Latino, and male students
Increased Honor Roll representation of African American, Hispanic, and male
students
Reductions in the percentages of African American and Hispanic students who
experience academic difficulty
Improved success rates in degree applicable math courses among male and
African American students following successful completion of basic skills math
courses
Increased faculty sensitivity to the needs of students: As identified on the
biennial Student Campus Climate Survey,40 a higher percentage of students
believe that their instructors are sensitive to the needs of students than in 2003
Decrease in student feelings of discrimination: Compared to 2003, a lower
percentage of respondents to the biennial Student Campus Climate Survey felt
discriminated against while at Chaffey College.
Evaluation of the Faculty Summer Institute41 also reveals that participating faculty
are embracing and favorably responding to pedagogical practices that address
equity and diversity. In responding to training presented on Culturally Responsive
Teaching (CRT), 95% of participating faculty thought the session was very or
somewhat relevant; 98% thought the session was very or somewhat informative;
and 95% thought the session was very or somewhat useful.
Examining findings from the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey,27 93% of survey
respondents believe that the institution demonstrates, through policies and practices
an appropriate understanding of, and concern for, issues of equity and diversity.
Selection procedures10 that promote diversity through equal employment
opportunity (EEO) training and committee composition are developed for all
classified staff, full-time faculty, and management employees. Selection committee
members are trained regarding EEO priorities and hiring results consistently
outperform recruitment data.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.A.4.
III.A.4.a. The institution creates and maintains appropriate programs, practices,
and services that support its diverse personnel.
328
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
As institutional programs are developed to meet students’ needs, personnel needs
for training and other forms of support for personnel are identified. The institution
creates and maintains appropriate programs, practices, and services that support its
diverse personnel through the Professional Development Program and the Faculty
Success Center. In August, 2006 the institution re-established a centralized
Professional Development Program after a period during which development and
training were offered and managed through individual departments.
The
Professional Development Program periodically conducts a needs assessment of
faculty and staff development. Assessment of training and professional support
needs were recently conducted in fall 200642 and spring 2009.43 The Professional
Development Program utilized the results of the 2006 college-wide needs
assessment to coordinate and deliver a variety of training and flexible calendar
programs.
In 2008 the Professional Development Program responded to previously identified
development needs by focusing on several competency areas for staff development
including a “Staff Support Certificate Program”44 that addresses student service,
communication skills, and cultural competence. The Staff Support Certificate
Program offered six two-hour classes open to all staff centering on customer service,
public speaking, conflict/resolution, and intercultural communication. Additionally,
during the spring 2009 semester, the institution conducted an institution-wide needs
assessment of classified staff to identify knowledge and skills for which they would
like to receive development training. The results of this assessment were used by
the Professional Development Program Committee to respond to professional
development needs and create training and support programs.
In addition to the Professional Development Program, support also comes from the
Faculty Success Center. The Faculty Success Center is an outgrowth of the
institution’s Student Success Initiative, designed in response to findings from the
institution’s comprehensive Basic Skills Initiative self-assessment. Through the
institution’s Student Success Initiative, the institution developed the Faculty Success
Center. The Faculty Success Center is responsive to the distinct training and
professional development needs of faculty and staff.
As discussed above, in 2008 the Faculty Success Center Survey45 provided a
comprehensive needs assessment of faculty and resulted in a large number of
faculty responses which guided the curriculum for the Faculty Success Center,
including issues specifically related to faculty competency in instruction and
meeting diverse faculty and student needs. Faculty participate in a variety of
programs including those aimed at culturally responsive teaching, syllabus
development, and teaching foundational skills. Beyond participation, through the
329
Student Success Initiative, the Faculty Success Center is working diligently to tie
FSC professional development efforts to documented research findings.
SELF EVALUATION
Both the Professional Development Program and Faculty Success Center establish
and achieve different goals for the institution and are led by committees
representing diverse employee classifications and cultures, college departments, and
tenure at the institution. These programs are responsible for coordinating
evaluation instruments to determine the type of support employees need, designing
programs to meet identified needs, and evaluating the success of these programs.
The Faculty Success Center was created by, for, and in support of its diverse faculty;
thus the center focuses on issues that impact teaching and learning. The center takes
a long-term approach to programming and develops methods for program
participants to integrate their learning into their teaching and to share their
experiences with their teaching colleagues. The center’s programs are informed by
student success needs as identified by the Student Success Initiative Committee.
This committee includes diverse representation of faculty, staff and managers who
evince understanding and concern for equity and diversity issues. Professional
Development is also led by a representative committee that uses needs assessment
results and ongoing consultation with institutional leadership and personnel to
deliver shorter term, intermittent programs to address broad institution issues
impacting all employee groups. The institution requires managers to participate in
harassment and discrimination prevention training every two years and requires
faculty and staff to participate in this training every three years. Additionally, staff
and faculty receive Equal Employment Opportunity training as an accompaniment
to the selection procedures training.
Organizations such as the Black Faculty and Staff Association (B.F.S.A.) and the
Latino Faculty and Staff Association (L.F.S.A.) have combined the expertise and
interests of diverse personnel at the institution to develop appropriate programs,
practices, and services to serve diverse faculty, staff, and students. Both the B.F.S.A.
and the L.F.S.A. have sponsored student scholarships, free health screenings, fund
raisers, and hosted guest speakers at the institution. Both associations address the
needs of faculty and staff with similar interests to support each other and the
institution.
The College provides orientations to new classified staff and faculty. Specifically,
new faculty are assigned a faculty mentor and have the opportunity to interact on a
continuous basis with their respective mentors and new faculty cohort. Personnel
are encouraged to serve on college-wide committees charged with responding to a
variety issues and needs. Finally, the College sponsors a variety of events that aim
330
at celebrating diversity including events connected with multi-cultural holidays and
events held by the Wignall Museum Gallery.
Workshops are open to all of the institution’s employees including classified staff,
full-time faculty, adjunct faculty, and management. However, classified staff have
enrollment priority for enrollment in the staff certificate program. This educational
program involves six, two-hour classes on topics such as public speaking training
and culturally sensitive teaching techniques. Participants intermittently complete
evaluations to assess the effectiveness of the training.
According to findings from the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey,27 approximately 93%
of informed survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the institution
creates and maintains appropriate programs, practices, and services that support its
diverse personnel, including 93% of full-time faculty, 90% of adjunct faculty, 94% of
classified staff, and 97% of administrators/managers.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.A.4.a
II.A.4.b. The institution regularly assesses its record in employment equity and
diversity consistent with its mission.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution conducts regular recruitment and selection analyses,11 which assess
the progression of qualified applicants from the point of application through final
selection. These analysis support the Institutional Mission to offer the community
equal access to programs. Equal access to programs extends to equal access to
employment opportunities. Specifically, annual analyses demonstrate that the
institution’s record reflects consistent consideration of applicants of varied
backgrounds throughout recruitment and selection processes.
The institution tracks demographic data collected through applicants’ self-reports.
This information is gathered at the time of application and reviewed throughout the
selection process. Data is maintained electronically and used in two specific ways to
assess compliance with equal employment opportunity regulations and to
determine whether hiring is consistent with the Institutional Mission.7 First, the
applicant tracking data is accessible to the assigned Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) representative for review throughout each selection process.
This
representative is responsible for reviewing the progression of applicants through the
selection process and evaluates the potential for adverse impact. The EEO
representative ensures that applicants are being considered on the basis of job-
331
related qualifications and not on the basis of categories protected by antidiscrimination laws.
An annual recruitment and selection analysis11 is prepared by the Office of Human
Resources. The analysis is a review of the applicant flow from the point of
application to the point of selection. Specifically, the analysis considers the
percentage of expected demographics (including underrepresented ethnicity,
gender, age, and disability status) of the initial qualified applicant pool for all
contract management, full-time faculty, adjunct faculty, and staff opportunities. The
analysis also accounts for the percentage of these demographics in the group of
individuals selected to fill positions and a comparison of existing employee
demographics to those of previous years to measure the consistent inclusion of
employees from varied backgrounds.
SELF EVALUATION
The recruitment and selection analysis is reported to the Governing Board on an
annual basis. The report is delivered to the Governing Board during an open
session meeting, usually during the month of September. The Governing Board and
meeting attendees are also provided with a printed summary of applicant tracking
and analysis.
According to findings from the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey,27 approximately 94%
of informed survey respondents, including 95% of full-time faculty, 89% of adjunct
faculty, 94% of classified staff, and 100% of administrators/managers, agreed or
strongly agreed that the institution regularly assesses its record in employment
equity and diversity to ensure it is consistent with the institution’s Mission
Statement.
PLANNING AGENDA
III.A.4.c. The institution subscribes to, advocates, and demonstrates integrity in
the treatment of its administration, faculty, staff and students.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution is committed to providing affirmatively equal educational
opportunity, and equal employment opportunity to its administration, faculty, staff,
and students. This commitment extends to educational policies; to personnel
policies and practices; and to the treatment of employees, students, and the general
public. The Student Handbook46 affirms that “the District and each individual who
332
represents the district shall provide equal access to employment and educational
opportunities without regard to race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, creed,
sex, age (over 40), physical disability (including HIV and AIDS) or mental disability,
marital status, medical condition (including cancer and genetic characteristics),
sexual orientation, or military status as a Vietnam-era veteran, or the perception that
a person has one or more of the foregoing characteristics.” In addition to freedom
from discrimination, the institution subscribes to, advocates, and upholds integrity
in its treatment of its faculty, staff, students, and administrators. The institution is
“committed to providing an educational environment free from harassment,
intimidation, or exploitation.”
To uphold integrity of treatment, employees are protected by the Grievance
Procedure47 as well as the Complaint Procedure.48 A grievance may be filed with the
employee’s specific bargaining unit in regard to a possible violation of rights
stipulated in the contract. Grievances may be resolved either informally or formally.
The informal procedure involves a conference with the appropriate first-level
manager and/or the person occasioning the grievance, who shall respond to the
grievant within five days. Formal procedures may be pursued if the grievant is
dissatisfied with the informal process. In that case, the grievant presents the
grievance in writing on the institution’s Grievance Form49 to the first-level manager
or the person occasioning the grievance.
Further procedures involve
communication with the superintendent/president or designee with the possibility
that the grievance may proceed to a binding arbitration of the dispute.
A complaint may be filed with the Office of Human Resources if a student or
employee alleges discrimination. An individual who believes he or she has been
discriminated against and/or harassed may make a formal or informal complaint
with the executive director of the Office of Human Resources or any administrator
of the institution. Whenever an individual believes that he or she has been
discriminated against and/or harassed based on a protected status, the institution
encourages them to inform the respondent that such conduct is offensive and
unwelcome. However, this is not a prerequisite to the filing of a formal complaint.
The institution strongly encourages all employees and students who believe they are
being discriminated against and/or harassed to report the matter. The institution
also strongly encourages the filing of such complaints within thirty (30) days of the
alleged incident. All complaints are taken seriously and will be investigated
promptly. All personnel have a mandatory duty to report incidents of
discrimination and/or harassment, whether complained of, reported, or observed.
Reporting also involves the existence of a hostile, offensive or intimidating work
environment; and acts of retaliation.
333
SELF EVALUATION
The institution disseminates the Prohibition of Harassment and Discrimination
policy,36 whistle-blower advisement, and collective bargaining agreements during
the orientation process at the time of employment. Further, these policies and
procedures are readily accessible on the institution’s shared drive system and the
institutional website33as well as in the Student Handbook,50 which is published and
disseminated each academic year.
The institution further demonstrates its commitment to equity through its
Retaliation Policy.51 According to this policy, it is unlawful to retaliate against
someone who files an unlawful discrimination complaint, who refers a matter for
investigation or complaint, who participates in an investigation of a complaint, who
represents or serves as an advocate for an alleged victim or alleged offender, or who
otherwise furthers the principles of this policy.
Additionally, the institution affords staff, faculty, and administration the
opportunity to respond to surveys with anonymity. These surveys have solicited
information regarding the employee’s knowledge of non-discrimination and sexual
harassment policies36 as well as feedback regarding the practical applications of
these policies. In sum, the institution maintains integrity in adhering to its stated
principles of equitable treatment by outlining multiple methods of reporting
discriminatory actions and/or harassment, protecting those who are participants in
the filing of a complaint, promptly investigating reported incidents and soliciting
anonymous feedback of these policies in practice.
As identified on the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey,27 approximately 91% of
informed survey responded agreed or strongly agreed that the institution subscribes
to, advocates, and demonstrates integrity in the treatment of administration, faculty,
staff, and students. Approximately 97% of administration/management, 93% of
full-time faculty, 82% of adjunct faculty, and 88% of classified staff agreed or
strongly agreed with this statement.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.A.4.c
III.A.5. The institution provides all personnel with appropriate opportunities for
continued professional development, consistent with the institutional mission
and based on identified teaching and learning needs.
III.A.5.a. The institution plans professional development activities to meet the
needs of its personnel.
334
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
In 2004 the Accreditation team recommended the institution “review the manner in
which staff development programs are offered in the interest of establishing a
comprehensive, unified program of services.” In 2005, with the guidance of the
then vice-president of instruction, the Professional Development Task Force (PDTF)
was formed with representation from administration, classified staff, and faculty.
The PDTF was charged with proposing a comprehensive plan52 to design and
coordinate future Chaffey College professional development activities that address
identified administrative training and professional development needs; resource
and facility needs; advisory committee format and charge; and effective institutional
partnerships. The task force was asked to establish program goals and scope of
service based on the needs identified. One of the recommendations of the PDTF was
that oversight of the professional development program and decision making
process be carried out by a standing committee. The Report on Establishing a
Comprehensive Professional Development Program for Chaffey College,53 was
presented to the previous superintendent/president and previous vice-president of
instruction and was approved in April 2005.
The institution reallocated travel funds to re-establish the Professional Development
Office. In 2006 the PDTF was charged by the previous vice-president of Instruction
with establishing a standing committee, and an interim director was hired as a oneyear temporary assignment. The director was responsible for providing oversight of
the Professional Development Program and implementing the goals and objectives
defined by the Professional Development Committee. The committee was formed
after the Interim Director was selected and was comprised of management, faculty,
and classified staff with diverse departmental representation, including
representatives from the original PDTF. Specifically, the director’s responsibilities
included implementation of committee decisions, oversight of the program’s daily
operations, coordination and delivery of programs, completion and application of
program assessment, integration of program resources through effective
partnerships, and administration of the program budget. It was the decision of the
administration to combine the professional development and distance education
programs. In 2007 the recruitment process for a permanent director was started and
a director was hired in September 2007 to oversee both programs. Combining both
programs proved unsuccessful. In 2008 the director resigned the position and
leadership was transferred to the Interim Dean of Instructional Support.
Distance Education is currently coordinated by two faculty coordinators and
Professional Development is overseen by the interim dean of Instructional Support.
Due to the budget crisis and other emergency projects, the future of the director
position is unknown at this time. However, the institution is committed to
335
supporting professional development under the leadership of the interim dean and
maintaining its focus on the professional development needs of the institution.
The institution provides all personnel with opportunities for continued professional
development through travel and conference funding, flex day activities/workshops,
the One College-One Book program, Faculty Summer Institute, Leadership
Academy, Management Retreat, Support Success Certificate Program, Health and
Wellness, ongoing pedagogical workshop/activities in the Faculty Success Center,
museum gallery exhibits, conferences/conventions, sabbatical leave awards, and
individual professional development. Sabbatical leaves are given for professional
growth activities, including activities which subsequently relate to the person’s
assignment. Ongoing individual and departmental professional development
activities are scheduled throughout the year.
The Office of Professional Development plans the comprehensive annual faculty flex
programs, as outlined in the 2007 – 2010 Faculty contract.21 The flex day programs
are consistent with the institutional mission and based on identified teaching and
learning needs as determined by the preliminary Professional Development Needs
Assessment conducted in 2005. For example, a four hour session was provided to
explain the Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs24) Initiative and the institution
dedicated a minimum of four hours of flex activities to SLOs workshops. These
hours support faculty needs by providing an opportunity to work on SLOs within
their respective schools and departments. Also, adjunct faculty orientation sessions
were offered within each school. Flex is held each year during fall and spring.
Information is shared in hardcopy and electronic format as well as being mailed to
faculty residences.
In 2007, the institution was granted Basic Skills/Student Success Initiative funding
to promote student success. The Basic Skills Initiative (now titled Student Success
Initiative) required a self-assessment of need to identify funding priorities. Results
of the self-assessment showed that the major priority for Professional Development
to address was teaching and learning related to working with historically underrepresented and under-prepared students.
The Faculty Success Center (FSC) was subsequently developed to support faculty in
addressing that need. The focus and emphasis of workshop(s) and programs
offered in the center is on preparing faculty to teach under-prepared students. The
FSC also provides a facility for training faculty to become more knowledgeable
about the Program and Services Review and Student Learning Outcomes processes.
In addition, workshops focusing on the PSR and SLOs processes are offered for
every flex program. Other activities include, but are not limited to, bi-monthly
faculty get-togethers, new faculty orientations, adjunct faculty training, open
discussions on teaching/learning styles, student learning outcomes, the student
336
success initiative, pedagogical workshops/discussions, and conversations with the
superintendent/president. The Faculty Success Center is a major milestone for the
institution in addressing the needs for professional development.
The Professional Development Office provides funding for travel and conference
requests that meet institutional and professional development goals and criteria.
Funding of up to $1,000 per year is awarded for purposes specific to professional
development. The program encompasses both faculty and staff and relies on their
recommendations for on-campus and off-campus presenters to meet identified
development needs. Professional Development travel and conference awards are
subject to institutional travel guidelines and recipients are required to share
information gained as a result of conference attendance. Recipients are required to
provide a summary of their conference/workshop attendance, address expectations
of the event, results of key sessions attended, ways the participant intends to
incorporate the information into instruction and service to students, and whether or
not he or she would recommend others attend the conference/workshop.
Summaries are posted on the Professional Development website.54 Some recipients
have also facilitated flex workshops to share information from conference
participation.
Full-time faculty members may also receive tuition reimbursement for educational
units that contain content that is likely to enhance the professional development of
the applicant and the educational programs of the institution.
The California School Employees Association agreement34 also provides professional
growth initiatives for bargaining unit members who meet the identified
requirements. The Professional Growth Initiative provides for a fifty-dollar ($50)
monthly allowance totaling $600 per year. As mentioned previously, in-service
training is also provided that includes: Sexual Harassment and Discrimination
Prevention Workshops; online Office Depot purchasing training; and technology
training such as Budget Lookup, Microsoft 2003 Outlook Email, Online Facility
Request using AdAstra, Requisition Training, SARS Training, and Student Lookup.
This training is provided during regular working hours with no loss of pay as a
benefit to employees.
The Professional Development Office, in cooperation with the President’s Office and
Classified Senate, provides professional development opportunities during
Classified Appreciation Week.
The institution encourages and supports
participation in Classified Appreciation Week that includes but is not limited to
workshops, keynote speakers, and teambuilding activities. Examples include Tips
and Techniques for Service Sanity, Journey of Change, Office Ergonomics Training,
Dealing with Change the True Colors Way, Financial Planning/Budgeting, Be Fit
337
While you Sit—Office Ergonomics, and Confidence Coaching and Self
Improvement.
In 2001 the institution hired a director of management development, planning,
training and services who assumed the responsibility for professional growth of
managers. Specific responsibilities included providing assistance to managers to
work with challenges related to their areas of responsibility and addressing a wide
range of issues. Working with the director improved working conditions through
collaboration, perfecting team building, mentoring new supervisors, acculturation of
managers to the community college environment, and managing stress. Entire
programs have benefited from this management development opportunity. When
the director separated from the institution, her responsibilities were transferred to
the interim dean of instructional support.
Management training often occurs in the area of expertise of the individual in
relationship to the institution. For example, the vice-president of business services
and the director of budgeting services attend the state Chancellors Office budget
workshops bringing back valuable information that they subsequently presented in
the 2009-2010 adopted budget to the Governing Board. Similarly, the director of
marketing and public relations is an active member of the Community College
Public Relations Organization (CCPRO) representing members from marketing,
public relations, and graphics. She served as CCPRO president representing both
the institution and organization on a local, state, and national level. The information
from annual conferences is implemented in the institution in various campaigns and
processes, using marketing techniques. For example, conference information on two
way communication on the web resulted in placement of such a communication link
on the homepage of the website.55 Today, the institution sends and responds to
approximately 50-60 requests a week.
Each year the institution hosts a one- or two-day Management/Confidential Retreat
designed to provide professional development to the management staff. This
institution-wide event improves team building, provides professional development,
and assists staff with current issues affecting both the institution and higher
education. Leadership and planning for the retreat is coordinated by a committee
that rotates to various managers across the institution. The retreats are held on the
Rancho Cucamonga campus, as well as the Chino Center.
During these interactive retreats, some of the items reviewed regularly by the
managers include core values, strategic planning, ethics in the workplace, the role of
community colleges in our community, and the existing partnerships between
managers, faculty and staff. The retreats are led by college staff, but often outside
professionals are invited to enhance the delivery of the subject matter.
338
The Chaffey Association of Management Professionals (CAMP) is a voluntary, dues
paying, professional organization that was formed in 2008 to provide eligible
managers professional opportunities. The association meets monthly off-campus
and is a forum for discussion of mutual concerns/problems through open dialogue,
sharing of resources and ideas, mentoring opportunities for new managers, and a
vehicle for exchanging information. CAMP was created specifically to provide a
forum for sharing information and receiving feedback related to ongoing day-to-day
interests and concerns to the management group. CAMP meeting topics address the
issues and challenges that the management group faces as they strive to operate
their program and services at the optimal level. This group promotes improved
communications and stresses the importance of building trusting professional
relationships.
All of the institution’s deans meet weekly with the vice president of instruction and
student services. In addition to discussing all academic matters related to college
operations, this group also engages in professional development. For example, the
executive director of human resources and the director of institutional research
regularly attend the meetings. Their participation allows the deans to collectively
explore topics such as effective management of academic programs collective
bargaining, grievance avoidance, institutional performance measures, and
leadership development.
The deans also routinely participate in campus
professional development activities and are active leaders in campus initiatives (for
example, STEM grant, Student Success Initiative, Perkins).
The deans also attend regional consortia meetings, conferences, and some belong to
professional organizations (for example, English Council of California Two-Year
Colleges, California Community College Association of Occupational Educators,
and the Association of California Community College Administrators). Through
these organizations, the deans attend conferences and professional development
activities to ensure currency and relevance in their leadership practices.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.A.5 and III.A.5.a
III.A.5.b. With the assistance of the participants, the institution systematically
evaluates professional development programs and uses the results of these
evaluations as the basis for improvement.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The Professional Development Committee (PDC) utilized the recommendations and
assessment results from the preliminary findings of the Professional Development
339
Needs Assessment Survey conducted in March 2005.56 The PDC held a half-day
planning retreat on November 17, 2006, to further identify professional development
programs and activities for 2007 and to evaluate needs. The outcome of the surveys
provided the basis for the establishment of the staff development office.
Professional development activities are very important for each school/department
to address the needs of faculty and staff. The institution engages in regular
assessment of professional development activities to ensure that the needs of fulltime and adjunct faculty are met. All fall and spring flex activities are regularly
assessed through the Office of Institutional Research (OIR).57 Content presentation,
management of the learning environment, and overall quality of each professional
development activity are routinely assessed to ensure that activities are effective and
are meeting the needs of participants. Participants are asked to state the degree to
which they agree or disagree with statements such as “I can use what I learned
immediately in my work assignment”; “The trainer related the material to my
current needs”; and “Participants had opportunities to learn from each other.”
The evaluation process is very rigorous and includes a required self-evaluation
component for faculty. The evaluation process is also beneficial to professional
development evaluators who learn new strategies and techniques when they are
observing their colleagues. The institution is currently revamping professional
development participation and evaluation forms in order to streamline these
processes for full-time and adjunct faculty. Beginning in fall 2009, the Professional
Development flex activity form58 and the Professional Development Activity
Evaluation Form will be synthesized into one web-based form.
The Faculty Success Center identifies and provides professional development
activities for faculty. As mentioned earlier, a comprehensive needs assessment,
collaboratively developed by faculty, staff and administrators, was administered to
faculty in the spring 2008 semester. Two hundred sixty-five faculty members
completed the Faculty Professional Development Survey. One hundred and thirty,
or 49.1% of those faculty identified themselves as adjunct; one hundred and twenty
nine or 48.7% identified themselves as full-time; and six or 2.3% did not specify a
faculty assignment type. In fall 2007 the institution had 206 full-time faculty; 129 or
63% completed the survey. The institution also had 610 adjunct faculty; 130 (21%)
completed the survey. Findings of this survey indicated there were no statistically
significant differences between full-time and adjunct faculty in perceived
professional development needs. Faculty felt that the primary role of professional
development was in helping to improve student learning and success. Critical
thinking skills and maintaining rigor and standards with under-prepared students
were also identified as being important professional development topics by all
faculty.
340
The institution also periodically engages in a systemic needs assessment of classified
staff. The most recent assessment was conducted in spring 2009. Supported by the
OIR, a sub-committee of the Professional Development Committee worked to
develop and administer the Spring 2009 Classified Needs Assessment Survey44 to all
classified staff. Through the survey, classified staff were provided with an
opportunity to identify their interest in and the perceived helpfulness of over eighty
potential professional development activities. Findings from the most recent survey
were shared with the Professional Development Committee and are available on the
Office of Institutional Research website.59
SELF EVALUATION
The institution encourages and recognizes the value of a workforce committed to
life-long learning and is committed to the professional growth of all employees
through staff development training, in-service training, and workshops. The
Professional Development Committee is currently reviewing findings in order to
plan future professional development activities that address the interest and needs
of classified staff.
Results from the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey27 suggest that most survey
respondents believe the institution plans appropriate and meaningful professional
development activities. Approximately 86% of survey respondents, agreed or
strongly agreed that the institution plans professional development activities to
meet the needs of its personnel, including 83% of full-time faculty, 94% of adjunct
faculty, 84% of classified staff, and 84% of administrators and managers.
PLANNING AGENDA
III.A.6. Human resource planning is integrated with institutional planning. The
institution systematically assesses the effective use of human resources and uses
the results of the evaluation as the basis for improvement.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Human resource planning is systematically linked to institutional planning through
the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness,4 embedded in the
Program and Services Review (PSR) process.
The Office of Human Resources is responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of its
program and service and submitting budget requests and resource needs through
PSR. The annual PSR ties every program in the institution into the institutional
341
planning process. Through PSR, Human Resources’ effectiveness is assessed and,
based on evidence, the results are used for planning and continuous improvement.
The Strategic Framework for Institutional Effectiveness requires that human
resources, as any other program, indicates it’s relationship to the institutional
mission and institutional goals/ends policies in the planning/assessment process.
Outcomes evidence based on AUOs (Administrative Unit Outcomes) and
assessment define the effectiveness of human resources. PSR subcommittees
evaluate budget requests and resource needs based on documented, data-driven
evidence and forward the requests to the PSR committee, or return the requests to
the originating department/school for lack of evidence. The PSR committee makes
recommendations to the superintendent/president who work with the president’s
cabinet. The president’s cabinet prioritizes the recommended faculty and staff
positions. The president responds to the PSR recommendations based on economic
indices.
In 2009 criteria for faculty prioritization2 were approved by the Faculty Senate and
the President’s Cabinet. A new prioritization step involving vice-presidents and
deans is being considered for inclusion within the Strategic Planning Framework for
Institutional Effectiveness. In addition, deans and coordinators are evaluating the
efficacy of the PSR process.
SELF-EVALUATION
The Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey results reveal that approximately half of the
institution agrees Human Resource planning is integrated with institutional
planning (48.8%), while almost half did not know how planning was linked (42.6%).
The percentages of those who responded “don’t know” were high for faculty and
staff (40% full-time faculty, 55.6% adjunct faculty, 45.3% staff) and low for managers
(9.1%). These results indicate that many faculty and staff, particularly adjunct
faculty, are unaware of the way Human Resource and institutional planning are
integrated.* To address this knowledge gap, the executive director of the Office of
Human Resources worked with the accreditation liaison officer and the Office of
Institutional Research to disseminate information on the relationship between
human resources and institutional planning and ways in which these processes
align. In January 2009 the accreditation liaison officer sent out an institution-wide
communiqué60 to all full-time and adjunct faculty, classified staff, and
administrators/managers describing this process. This process was reiterated in a
later e-mail in April 2009 and subsequently posted to the Office of Institutional
Research webpage.35
Since 2000, Human Resources has developed and modified its staffing plans to
balance the needs of the institution by prioritizing available resources. With the
development of the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness4 in
342
2008, Human Resource planning is now fully integrated with institutional planning.
Through the Program and Services Review (PSR)3 process, faculty requests must be
linked to program goals, which in turn are linked to institutional goals. In making
the faculty position request, programs must address the faculty hiring criteria. The
faculty hiring criteria, developed through a shared governance process that included
administrative, faculty, and staff representation, is hierarchical and ties in
departmental concerns such as hardship resulting from separation of full-time
faculty; and institutional considerations such as effects the availability of
prerequisite course offerings have on courses that support transfer or vocational
certificates. Adhering to the Institutional Effectiveness Process (IEP) that is at the
heart of the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness,4 programs
must provide evidence related to the stated hiring criteria and demonstrate that the
requested position supports program and institutional goals. After passing through
steps articulated in the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness
such as subcommittee approval, PSR Committee approval, and approval by the
superintendent/president, the loop is closed when faculty and staff requests move
to the President’s Cabinet for final acceptance/non-acceptance and evidence-based
prioritization.
PLANNING AGENDA
References – Standard III A. Human Resources
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Human Resources Staffing Plan
Interview with executive director of Human Resources, November 2008
Faculty Profile
Recruitment Brochure, Management; Faculty
College Catalog 2008-2009 pages 167-174
Administrative Procedures 7.1.2, 7.2.3C, 7.2.2/7.2.4 (Recruitment and Selection)
Recruitment and Selection Analysis 2004-2008
Administrative Procedure 7.1.2 Recruitment and Selection
Job Announcement, Faculty
Job Announcement, Management
Chaffey College Website, Human Resources, Job Postings
Administrative Procedure 7.2.3C Regular Classified Employee Selection Procedures
Administrative Procedure 7.2.2/7.2.4 Management Selection
Governing Board Monitoring Report, Recruitment Analysis
Administrative Procedure 7.1.12 Faculty Equivalency Determination
343
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Chaffey College Faculty Association (CCFA) Agreement 2007-2010; California School Employees
Association (CSEA) Agreement 2007-2010
Chaffey College Faculty Association (CCFA) Agreement 2007-2010
Management Professional Development/Evaluation Personnel Plan 2007-10
Confidential Professional Development/Evaluation Personnel Plan 2007-10
Governing Board Policy Manual, Section 1.4, Ethics and Conflict of Interest
College Catalog 2009-2010, pp. 167-171
Accredited Institutions of Postsecondary Education
Carver’s Policy Governance Model in Nonprofit Organizations by John and Miriam Carver
Governing Board Policy Manual, Policy Category 7, Human Resources
Faculty Handbook and Student Handbook
Chaffey College Website, Policies; Procedures
California School Employees Association (CSEA) Agreement 2007-2010
Governing Board Policy Manual, Section 3.4, Nondiscrimination
Training Verification - Non-Discrimination and Prohibition of Harassment
Definition of equity
Student Campus Climate Survey
Developing a Community of Practice-A Report of Innovations Inspired by the Chaffey College
Professional Development Fall 2006 Activity Evaluation
Professional Development Spring 2009 Activity Evaluation
Classified Needs Assessment Survey Results, April 2009
Faculty Success Center Survey 2008
Student Handbook
Grievance Procedure, 2007-10 CCFA Agreement, Article 13; 2007-10 CSEA Agreement, Article
XXI; 2007-10 CDC Agreement, Article XXI
2007-10 CCFA Agreement, Article 13; 2007-10 CSEA Agreement, Article XXI; 2007-10 CDC
Agreement, Article XXI
Grievance Procedure, 2007-10 CDC Agreement, pp. 35-37
Student Handbook, Prohibition of Harassment Policy, p. 75 and Nondiscrimination Policy p. 79
Governing Board Policy Manual, Section 3.4, Board Policy 3.4.2 Retaliation
Professional Development Comprehensive Plan
Report on Establishing a Comprehensive Professional Development Program for Chaffey College
Chaffey College Website, Professional Development, Travel Summaries
Chaffey College Website, Conference Communication
Professional Development Needs Assessment survey March 2005
Professional Development Activity/Evaluation Form
Professional Development Flex Activity Form
Chaffey College Website, Office of Institutional Research, Classified Needs Assessment Survey
Results, April 2009
Institution-wide Communiqué, Accreditation Liaison Officer 2009
344
Standard III B. Physical Resources
Physical resources, which include facilities, equipment, land and other assets,
support student learning programs and services and improve institutional
effectiveness. Physical resource planning is integrated with institutional
planning.
III.B.1. The institution provides safe and sufficient physical resources that
support and assure the integrity and quality of its programs and services,
regardless of location or means of delivery.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Chaffey College was founded on March 17, 1883 and operated at a number of
locations for the first seventy-six years of its existence. In 1960, the college moved
from Chaffey High School in Ontario to its current location, a 192-acre campus in
Rancho Cucamonga. The original facilities supported a student population of 5,200.
Nearly fifty years later, the district has grown to approximately 300 acres, has
expanded to two additional sites (Chino and Fontana), and supports a student
population of over 22,000.
To facilitate and sustain ongoing educational efforts and student learning programs
and services, the institution offers instructional and student services programs at
three primary sites: the Rancho Cucamonga campus, the Chino Center, and the
Fontana Center. Chaffey constituents and the community refer to all three sites as
“campuses.”
The Rancho Cucamonga campus (Rancho campus), located in the northeastern
portion of the district, offers the largest number of courses. The Rancho campus
consists of thirty-two main buildings and five modular buildings, as well as the
maintenance, warehouse, and central plant outbuildings. The thirty-seven main and
modular buildings provide more than 365,000 square feet of instructional and
support service space.1 The Visual and Performing Arts Building, the Music
Building, and the new Gymnasium are currently under construction, and two
original buildings – the Art Building and the Fashion Consumer Studies Building –
are undergoing complete renovations. In addition, a new campus center (replacing
345
the current Campus Center West), an arts and letters building, and an expansion to
the Library are in the design phase and will be built with Measure L2 bond funding
and state capital outlay funds.
Financed primarily through Partnership for Excellence funds, the Don Berz
Excellence Building opened in 2007 on the Rancho campus and provides space for
twenty-five faculty/staff offices; the Faculty Senate and Curriculum Committee
offices; a conference room; five small group instruction rooms; a large group
instruction room; storage space for instructional supplies; and the
Multidisciplinary/Reading and Language Success Center, which annually
accommodated over 15,000 students and over 120,000 visits. The institution has also
added the Marie Kane Center for Student Services/Administration, a two-story
structure that has improved the flow and access to student services. The first floor
offers students a “one-stop shop” layout of services including Admissions and
Records, Financial Aid, Counseling, and Assessment. The second floor houses the
administrative offices of three vice presidents and two executive assistants to the
superintendent/president, the Human Resources Department, and the Office of
Institutional Services, as well as a conference room and the institution’s governing
board meeting room.
To ensure that teaching and learning are continually supported, early in 2008 the
institution allocated space to create the Faculty Success Center.
This
working/teaching laboratory provides a physical location for full- and part-time
faculty to engage in dialogue on professional issues and participate in professional
development activities.
The Chino Center (Chino campus), situated on approximately 100 acres fifteen miles
southwest of the Rancho campus, is comprised of five buildings and two locations.
Three buildings are located at the College Park site (Chino Main Instructional
Building, Chaffey College Chino Community Center, and Chino Health Science
Building), and two buildings are located in downtown Chino approximately two
miles away (Chino Education Center and the Robert Pile Chino Information
Technology Center).
These buildings provide over 75,000 square feet of
instructional and support service space, greatly improving institutional effectiveness
and student support in a previously under-served geographical area. The Chino
campus was accredited in spring 2008.
The Fontana Center (Fontana campus) is located approximately twelve miles
southeast of the Rancho campus and sits on eight acres. The Fontana campus is
currently comprised of two buildings (the Fontana Center and the Ralph M. Lewis
Center), providing more than 14,500 square feet of instructional and support
services space. A third building is expected to begin construction in 2010. Current
346
space will be increased by approximately 140% with the completion of the 20,600
assignable square footage (ASF) Fontana Phase III building.
To improve institutional effectiveness, the Chino and Fontana campuses address the
needs of the rapidly growing population in the eastern and southern parts of the
district and provide opportunities for residents of the district who do not have
reasonable geographic access to the Rancho campus. These centers ensure equal
access to quality educational opportunities and student services and reflect the
institution’s commitment to providing quality higher education throughout the
district. Both of these campuses have assigned full-time faculty and staff and
provide parking, student success centers, counseling, student services staff,
technology resources, and bookstores.
To further meet the needs of the community, the institution offers classes at other
locations throughout the district. For students enrolled in classes that require
clinical hours, the health science programs provide training and learning
opportunities through classes offered in Upland, Colton, Chino, Ontario, Pomona,
Claremont, Fontana and Loma Linda.
The Radiologic Technology program is taught at the Rancho San Antonio Medical
Center in Rancho Cucamonga. The Radiologic Technology program facilities
include office space for faculty, a lecture classroom (combined with two simulation
x-ray units), a skills lab, and two x-ray producing rooms that are used for laboratory
procedures. Two full-time faculty members have offices at this location. There is
also an adjunct faculty office.
The institution’s Disability Programs and Services (DPS) offers an alternative
program for students with disabilities in the Learning Development Center (LDC).
This program includes job readiness and job placement services, offering classes and
hands-on lab experiences. Job readiness classes include interpersonal awareness,
money management, current events, basic computer skills, interview skills, and job
success skills. The Job Skills Practicum Lab is used as a means to teach and assess
appropriate work skills through a variety of hands-on simulated lab activities
including, but not limited to: food services, office skills, janitorial skills, and
retail/stocking. WorkAbility III3 is a cooperative program between Chaffey College
and the State Department of Rehabilitation based on an agreement that the LDC
assists in the provision of vocational rehabilitation services including job placement
to individuals with disabilities.
Physical resources support the institution’s 89 degree and 118 certificate programs
by providing an environment conducive to the learning process and using
traditional physical resources such as classrooms, laboratories, success centers,
health and safety facilities, vehicles, and technological resources and programs.
347
Integration of physical resources and learning are not limited to the traditional
modes of education. An example is the institution’s nature preserve, which was
established by the Governing Board action to dedicate this land as a learning
preserve. The preserve, located in the northeast corner of the Rancho campus,
houses many species of wildlife and plants and serves as a living laboratory for
students.
More recently, the institution also established the Agricultural
Demonstration Garden, located on the northwest corner of the Rancho campus, to
recognize the agricultural heritage of the community. The 2.5 acre vineyard and
citrus grove was developed in conjunction with Fillippi Winery, Newcomb Nursery,
San Bernardino County Flood Control, Rainbird Irrigation Products, and Rancho
Cucamonga Valley Water District. Tony Siebert of the University of Redlands
grafted and donated several citrus varieties that are not commercially available. The
citrus grove has seventy-two trees, incorporating eighteen different species. The
Agricultural Demonstration Garden is currently being used by the Biology
Department to achieve two of the institution’s core competencies and two of the
biology general education program’s student learning outcomes (SLOs).4 At the
garden, students in some general education biology courses are led through a series
of activities that teach them how to formulate scientific questions and apply the
scientific method to answering questions. Woven into these activities are directed
questions that address the environmentally friendly and sustainable approaches
being used to grow the grapes and citrus in the garden. Students are encouraged to
ask scientific questions about the biodiversity present in the garden and why certain
plants, animals, and insects are absent from the garden. These activities help
students achieve the institution’s core competency related to critical thinking skills
by teaching them an organized and intellectual approach to problem solving. This
also helps students achieve the institution’s core competency related to community
and global awareness by giving them a first-hand look at, and analysis of, an
example of sustainable agriculture. In addition, biology general education SLO # 1
(Identify questions that can be addressed scientifically and be able to identify basic
components of the scientific method) is being directly taught with this activity.
Finally, biology general education SLO # 2 (Effectively communicate unifying
theories and concepts in biology in an evolutionary context) is being taught by
directing the students to ask questions about biodiversity in the garden.
While the institution has expanded section offerings at physical locations
throughout the district, significant growth has also occurred in the offering of online
and hybrid sections. The institution’s distance education courses support learning
methodologies and opportunities for students, providing alternative learning
formats for a number of classes leading to a degree or certificate. Students have the
opportunity to take different kinds of distance education courses, including hybrid
and fully online courses. These offerings include full-credit courses, with flexible
schedules for students, and online certificates. This program also complements the
348
face-to-face class offerings by enabling the institution to provide access to education
while lessening the strain on physical resources that would be required in an
exclusively face-to-face learning environment.
SELF EVALUATION
The institution has improved its broad educational purposes using monies from a
$230 million bond (Measure L)2 – approved by the taxpayers in March 2002. The
bond money has been leveraged from a variety of sources – the single largest being
from State Capital Projects funding.5 These combined funds have been used to
maximum advantage to renovate and remodel existing facilities and to construct
new facilities to serve and support the instructional needs of the institution’s
growing student population. These funds are also used to address the infrastructure
changes in the power system, mechanical systems, and communications
technologies needed to support the new and renovated buildings. The institution
maintains a complete list of projects that are completed, in-process, in design, and in
planning, which are funded by Measure L monies.
Reflecting the institution’s commitment to providing sufficient physical resources
that support and assure the integrity and quality of its programs and services
regardless of location or means of delivery, significant section offering growth has
occurred at all physical locations and among distance education section offerings
since the last accreditation visit. In 2003-04, the institution offered 3,546 credit
sections. Among these 3,546 sections, 825 (23.3%) were offered at locations other
than the Rancho campus. In examining 2007-08 credit section offerings, 1,171 of the
4,328 sections offered (27.1%) were offered at locations other than the Rancho
campus. Furthermore, the growth in non-Rancho campus section offerings (825
sections in 2002-03, 1,171 sections in 2007-08, a 41.9% increase) outpaced institutionwide section offering increases that occurred over this period (3,546 sections in 200304, 4,328 sections in 2007-08, a 22.1% increase). Section offering growth was
particularly evident in distance education course offerings (130 sections in 2003-04;
287 sections in 2007-08, a 120.8% increase); at the Chino campus (221 sections in
2003-04, 347 sections in 2007-08, a 57.0% increase); and at the Fontana campus (131
sections in 2003-04, 277 sections in 2007-08, a 111.5% increase).6 When queried on
the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey,7 approximately 75% of informed survey
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the institution keeps up with the
growing needs of a multi-center district. Additionally, 81% of survey respondents
believed that, within the current economic climate, the institutional budget
effectively supports programs at all locations throughout the district.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.B.1
349
III.B.1.a. The institution plans, builds, maintains, and upgrades or replaces its
physical resources in a manner that assures effective utilization and the
continuing quality necessary to support its programs and services.
III.B.1.b. The institution assures that physical resources at all locations where it
offers courses, programs, and services are constructed and maintained to assure
access, safety, security, and a healthful learning and working environment.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution provides sufficient resources to offer quality in programs and
services and has a well-developed, consistent plan to build, maintain, upgrade, and
replace physical resources at all locations throughout the district.
The overarching 2001-2010 Chaffey College Educational Master Plan,8 the 2001
Chaffey College Educational and Facilities Master Plan,9 and the Chaffey College
Facilities Assessment Report10 were developed by faculty and staff, with the
assistance of consultants, and completed in 2001. These plans identified the need to
improve the physical resources of the institution. The external as well as the internal
data reviewed by the institution confirmed the need to repair/replace
old/deteriorating buildings; reduce overcrowding; improve nursing/health care
programs, teacher training, law enforcement, job training, and four-year college
transfer programs; improve campus lighting/security; remove asbestos/safety
hazards; construct, acquire, repair/upgrade classrooms, libraries, plumbing,
electrical systems, science/computer labs, and educational facilities; and qualify for
state-matching funds.
In order to accomplish the agenda to improve and align physical resources with
educational programs and services, the Governing Board authorized the institution
to place Measure L on the November 2002 ballot to solicit voter approval to issue a
$230 million bond. The proposition was approved by the voters, and the major
effort to upgrade existing facilities, construct new facilities, replace outdated
equipment, and purchase new state-of-the-art equipment was underway. From the
beginning, faculty was involved in determining the effective use of space to assure
quality in programs and services.
Initial priorities for the Rancho campus were set when plans were completed,
emphasizing improvements to infrastructure (for example, north parking lot,
College Drive relocation), which included the construction of the new central plant.
Included in the initial phase were the Aeronautics Building and the Automotive
Technology Building renovations. The interiors and exteriors were painted and
minor repairs completed.
350
The plans also identified the need for several new buildings in order to manage the
enrollment growth that the institution was experiencing. The institution completed
construction of eleven new buildings including: the Marie Kane Center for Student
Services/Administration; the Science Complex, which includes four buildings and
an aviary; the Don Berz Excellence Building; and the Central Plant. The institution
is also constructing three new buildings: the Visual and Performing Arts Building,
the Music Building, and the new Gymnasium. A fourth building is scheduled to
begin construction during 2010.
In 2004, the update to the Chaffey College Fontana Center Educational/Facilities
Master Plan (identified as the Fontana Center Focus Plan Addendum)11 determined
that Measure L could not support a 20,000 square foot building as planned. In
response, the institution decided to construct a 10,000 square foot building and
apply to the state for funding to complete a 30,000 square foot building (Fontana
Phase III). Phase III has been approved and is currently under review by the
Department of State Architect (DSA). A new parking lot was constructed during the
summer of 2009. Similar to the approach used at other sites, at Fontana the
institution incorporated the utilities infrastructure backbone.
The Chaffey College Chino Campus Master Plan12 included construction of three
buildings. The first building was the Chino Main Instruction Building followed by
the Chaffey College Chino Community Center in partnership with the City of Chino,
and the Chino Health Science Building. All three buildings have been completed
and are operational.
The Chino campus buildings in downtown Chino are leased from the city and there
are no planned changes in the utility infrastructure backbone for those buildings.
However, at the College Park location, the utility infrastructure backbone was
engineered to the same standards adopted and approved for the Rancho campus.
The buildings have been designed to be compatible with a future central plant for
that location to support quality of programs and services, regardless of physical
location.
The Chaffey Community College Build-out Plan,13 approved by the Governing
Board in September 2008, is consistent with the 2004 Chaffey Community College
District Building/Facilities Plan and represents the final stage ensuring that the
current master plan remains updated and within the mission and means of the
institution. The Measure L bond has funded a majority of the construction and
renovation. Some construction renovations have used, and will continue to use,
state matching funding (for example, scheduled maintenance, grant money, and
state bond funds). The institution has developed a Strategic Planning Framework
for Institutional Effectiveness and will begin development of an updated
351
educational and facilities plan. Through Measure L, the institution has created an
updated/improved utility infrastructure backbone in all areas, including the
addition of a reclaimed water irrigation piping system. This new utility backbone
extends to the new and renovated buildings, but is still required to be extended to a
number of the older buildings on the campus.
The institution contracted with an engineering firm
to evaluate the utilities serving the existing
buildings at the Rancho campus with the purpose of
identifying alternatives for improvement.
The
contractors made specific recommendations to
alter/upgrade/modify
the
existing
utility
infrastructure to support new buildings, major
renovations, and building retrofits. The systems
reviewed and evaluated included: domestic water,
reclaimed water, sanitary sewer, storm drain, fire
water, natural gas, heating, cooling, electrical
service and distribution, and telecommunications.14
The institution accepted and moved forward with
the implementations submitted by the engineering
firm and the utility backbone infrastructure
upgrade has begun. An important component of
the infrastructure upgrade recommended the
replacement of individual boilers and chillers at
each building location with a control plant located
in the maintenance and operations area. The central
plant incorporated the American Society of Heating
and Refrigerating Air Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) standards as well as state-of-the-art
designs to maximize energy efficiency.
An important part of the institution’s vision and
desire to maintain a conducive, sustainable learning
environment is that the grounds and landscaping
are professional and attractive in appearance, are
safe and supportive of access needs, and
incorporate current appropriate technologies for
water usage/conservation in the arid environment.
At all three locations, irrigation systems designs
have incorporated reclaimed water sources and
Rainbird Maxicon wireless irrigation controllers.
352
Beginning in 2005, to upgrade existing transportation, the institution developed a
formal Vehicle Replacement Plan,15 which includes all gasoline-powered vehicles
used to support the educational, athletic, maintenance and operations, and security
programs of the institution. The plan extends through 2014 and is updated
annually. Vehicles are placed in one of seven classes of “type of service.” Budget
dollar amounts are developed for all vehicles scheduled to be replaced (for the five
years), and those dollars are a line item inclusion in the institution’s annual budget.
This program is designed to utilize the newest vehicles to support the transportation
of students and faculty to off-site locations.
To meet safety and security needs, safety personnel are on duty throughout the day
at all three campuses. The institution maintains a campus police department of law
enforcement officers who patrol and provide security for the institution. Over the
past three years, the institution has increased police staffing at all sites, assuring the
safety of physical resources at all locations. However, as these positions have been
difficult to fill, the institution has contracted with private security firms to act as the
Campus Police Department’s "eyes and ears" throughout the institution. These
private security companies are hired as needed to supplement the Campus Police
Department and maintain adequate coverage at all of the institution’s sites. Both
Rancho and Chino campuses use a combination of campus police officers and
private security. The Fontana campus is staffed with a private security firm. For
non-Chaffey College sites, agreements between the institution and the owner of the
site stipulate that the site owner staff the site with security.
To further improve safety and security throughout the three campus sites,
emergency phones were installed and are located in parking lots and various
campus sites, providing employees, students, and visitors with immediate access to
the Campus Police Department. In 2008, the institution implemented an emergency
response system that equipped all classrooms with emergency telephones that
directly dial either campus police or 911. All staff telephones also have a direct line
emergency button to access campus police in the event of an emergency. Blue light
emergency telephone bollards have been placed in walkways and parking lots and
are monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, by campus police staff.16
To enhance the ability of the Campus Police Department to serve in an efficient and
proactive manner, the institution installed a new integrated access
control/security/video surveillance system at all three campus locations. Its head
end monitoring and control system are monitored in the campus police office. The
system’s primary function is to regulate access through specific doors, gates, or
barriers to secured areas of the campuses. This is accomplished through the
issuance of proximity access control cards or key fobs. Cards or fobs are issued to
staff to gain access into areas to which they are permitted. When a user presents a
proximity card or key fob to a card reader, the system verifies that the presented
353
card or fob is authorized for access through that door or area at the time the card or
fob is presented. If authorized, the door is released to permit passage. The system
includes the ability to arm and disarm selected areas, such as classrooms and
laboratories, through the use of the card reader. This feature allows any number of
predefined areas to be disarmed and the controlled door placed into an access mode
(unlocked). The area’s door contact switches and motion detection devices will be
disarmed while the controlled door is in the unlocked mode. The area(s) will remain
disarmed until the access reader is swiped again upon exit, causing the door to lock
and activating the door switches and motion devices. If alarm or user verification is
required, the system’s video surveillance system can be accessed from the same
screen to view activity in that or any other area monitored by video surveillance.
As new buildings were constructed and others modernized, new fully automated
fire detection and suppression systems were installed to provide detailed point
information on all fire alarms. They are centrally monitored at the campus police
office and a fire alarm monitoring company.
In the areas of walkways and outdoor lighting, much has been accomplished. Due
to the institution’s hilly terrain, providing ADA-compliant pathways is always a
challenge. The great majority of the areas and buildings are in compliance. Work is
required to replace deteriorated asphalt walkways with concrete and to ensure that
all ADA walkways comply with code requirements. A number of elevators have
been added in the new buildings and parking lots to improve ADA accessibility on
the Rancho campus. A Rancho campus ADA Walkway Master Plan is being
developed. There are some areas on campus where students, faculty, and staff have
chosen, as their desired way of travel, unpaved paths. Creation of permanent
walkways to address these needs must wait for available funds. With the new
construction, walkway lighting systems have been significantly improved.
Additional work is required around the older buildings, and walkways still require
renovation.
The institution’s Risk Management Department is responsible for evaluation of
safety and work with insurance underwriters to make recommendations to improve
campus safety. This department, in conjunction with the Health and Safety
Committee, evaluates programs, projects, and facilities to identify liabilities and
exposure, develop loss control programs, and implement risk avoidance programs
including staff training and development. The 504/ADA coordinator works with
the vice president of administrative services and conducts annual “walk-throughs”
to assure compliance for individuals with disabilities.17 The Health and Safety
Committee initiates, develops, reviews, and updates procedures concerning the
institution’s health and safety needs. The committee responds to new initiatives as
they arise and monitors the effectiveness of current procedures. Recommendations
to repair/remediate/correct hazards are provided to the responsible manager of the
354
area and forwarded to the Maintenance and Operations and Risk Management
departments for action.
The Maintenance and Operations Department handles safety concerns in a timely
fashion. Requests that are not emergencies or do not pose an immediate threat to
safety are prioritized and completed when staff and/or resources become available.
Due to budget restraints understaffing is an issue, and the department is unable to
complete some of the scheduled, necessary maintenance tasks in as timely a manner
as preferred by staff. Regardless, facilities personnel ensure safe and clean
campuses and support the integrity of the academic programs and staff needs of the
institution.
In 2008, the superintendent/president signed the President’s Climate Commitment,
which commits the institution to make significant strides toward sustainability and
being carbon neutral over time. The institution’s Green Earth Movement (GEM)
Committee, established in 2008 was given the responsibility to move the institution
forward on this commitment. The committee has chosen conservation/recycling,
environmental science curriculum development, determining the institution’s
carbon footprint, and alternative energy sources as the initial four goals. The
committee has an annual budget of $50,000 to make progress on the
superintendent/president’s climate commitment.
Reporting directly to the
superintendent/president and working closely with the Department of Maintenance
and Operations in concert with existing institution-wide groups, the GEM
Committee serves as a think tank/advisory board to the superintendent/president
and to the college-at-large, reporting on the challenges and opportunities that green
sustainability presents to the institution.
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution strives to plan, build, and maintain physical resources across all
locations to meet the educational demands of the communities it serves. Prior to the
passage of Measure L, the campus and center facilities were operating at full
capacity and were insufficient to meet the community’s growing needs. In
November of 2002, the $230 million Measure L bond passed, which established the
funding stream to address physical resources needs. The institution has leveraged
that funding with other sources. Based on build-out plans, these funding sources
have enabled the institution to move forward with its program to plan and
modernize existing facilities, replace and construct new facilities, and purchase
additional property and equipment.13
The Chaffey Community College Measure L Build-Out Plan guided the work that
has been completed at the Rancho campus, including a new state-of-the-art science
complex consisting of four buildings and an aviary, which opened in 2007. This
355
complex solved problems of inadequate laboratories and provided additional
assignable square footage for classrooms and offices. The institution has made
inroads on infrastructure development as identified in the plan, including
upgrading domestic water and natural gas piping; improving pedestrian routes
(including 504 compliance/ADA walkways); installing a reclaimed water purple
pipe backbone; upgrading sanitary and storm sewer lines; preparing
telecommunications for the future with the installation of a fiber network; and
upgrading the high voltage infrastructure.
The Chaffey College Fontana Center Educational/Facilities Master Plan,18 which
included the purchase of additional property, is well underway. A second building
and parking lot were added, allowing the institution to expand the services and
classes offered to students. The 10,000 square foot building doubled the number of
classrooms; provided additional office space for full-time faculty members; provided
a faculty workroom for adjunct faculty, which houses a computer, copier, mailboxes
and work table; and added student services areas that model the Rancho campus
“one-stop shop” where students can handle most of their student services needs in
one setting. Students receive most of the same services regardless of which
administration office they visit. A third, 30,000 square foot building (Fontana Phase
III building) will provide additional classrooms, science labs, and a library resource
center. Funding to complete the Fontana Phase III building has been approved by
the state, and the plans are currently under review by the Department of State
Architect (DSA). This addition will allow the institution to offer a full complement of
graduation requirements at all three of its locations. With the Inland Empire, and
Fontana specifically, being one of the fastest growing regions in the state, new
facilities allow the institution to keep pace with the needs of the eastern portion of
the district.
The Chaffey College Chino Campus Master Plan,12 which included the acquisition of
100 acres of property, was completed. The institution obtained certification for
official center status from the California Postsecondary Education Commission
(CPEC). Since the last accreditation report in 2004, the institution has renovated its
Chino Education Center, opened the new Robert Pile Chino Information Technology
Center, and opened three new buildings at its College Park site. These include the
Chino Main Instructional Building, the Chino Health Science Building, and the
Chaffey College Chino Community Center. The new facilities have not only
expanded the institution’s opportunity to provide educational opportunities to
students in a previously under-served geographical area in the southern portion of
the district, but also increased services by bringing science labs, a nursing program,
an enhanced bookstore, two student success centers, faculty offices, and expanded
student services capabilities.
356
A challenge for the institution with these new/renovated physical resources is
having less than optimum staffing levels and budgets to properly support the
buildings and areas. In a period of budget reductions at the state and national
levels, due to the current economic concerns, all institutional departments have risen
to the challenge to provide the necessary support to the new/renovated facilities,
but at a cost of “stretching” employees and the spending budgets “very thinly.”
With the institution’s increase in students, there is a growing shortage of on-campus
parking. Students are most frustrated with parking, complaining to faculty, and
staff. In a recent article in the student newspaper The Breeze, a student stated,
“Many things can be said about the way Chaffey deals with its parking services, but
one thing is certain, it is not the best place to park during the first few weeks of any
semester.”19
Through Measure L, 365 spaces were added to the north parking lot, and 164
additional spaces were created in Parking Lot 6 during the current new Gymnasium
construction project. Omnitrans, the local community bus transit company, has
committed $3 million to construct a new end-of-line facility in Parking Lot 6 to
encourage the increased use of bus transportation by students, faculty, and staff.
While these improvements most certainly have helped, they have not eliminated the
need for additional on-campus parking. The institution is actively finding ways of
dealing with the parking challenge and has just finished the draft for the 2009-2015
Parking Lot Maintenance Plan.20
The Chaffey College Central Plant and Utility Infrastructure Project received an
honorable mention award at the UC/CSU/CCC Sustainability Conference in 2008.
The central plant promotes energy efficiency and is expected to save the institution
an estimated $1.3 million over the next twenty years in both operating and
maintenance costs. In addition, the plant saves more than 5,000 tons of CO2
emissions. Specifically, the central plant project qualified as a best practice of
potential interest to other campuses because it offers the following benefits:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reduced operating and maintenance costs
Reduced peak electrical demand
Lower emissions—improved environmental impact
Reduced electrical capacity requirements at each of the future buildings
Maximized assignable space utilization for new buildings
Improved overall facility operational efficiency and quality of service
Greater opportunity for control optimization including chiller load management
and optimal sequencing to substantially reduce long-term energy costs.
In order to maintain healthy and safe facilities, the institution abides by specific
federal, state, and local agency safety standards, which include: 1) mandated air
357
`quality levels in the buildings; 2) inspection of safety vessels; 3) operation and
inspection of automatic devices; 4) local fire department inspection of facilities; and
5) storage of hazardous materials. Planning for institutional needs includes
following the facilities safety standards mandated by California Occupational Safety
and Health Act (Cal OSHA); meeting National Fire Protection Association
standards; meeting county and federal standards for the Child Development Center,
ADA, laboratories throughout the campuses, and health services. To ensure that
these standards are considered during planning, the planning process includes
communication with the institution’s risk management office and the Health and
Safety Committee.
These two groups are responsible for developing and
disseminating institutional safety standards and policies.
The majority of administrators, faculty, staff, and students believe that the
institution plans, builds, maintains, upgrades, and replaces physical resources in a
manner that assures effective utilization and the continuing quality necessary to
support its programs and services. As the table below illustrates, the vast majority of
respondents to the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey21 responded favorably to
questions posed about the institution’s physical resources, specifically the
accessibility, safety, and health of the learning/working environment. In all
instances, survey respondents who indicated that their primary work assignment
was at a location other than the Rancho campus were even more favorable about the
institution’s ability to manage and plan physical resources.
Percent of Survey Respondents Who Agree/Strongly Agree with Survey Statement
Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey Statements
The District meets the physical resource needs of programs and
services
The District regularly assesses physical resources and uses the
results of the evaluation as the basis for upgrading and replacing
physical resources
I have adequate space to perform my job duties
I have adequate hardware/resources to perform my duties
Physical resources are physically accessible for all students, faculty,
and staff
The District provides a safe and secure learning/working
environment
The District provides a healthy learning/working environment
All Survey
Respondents
Non-Rancho
Campus
Respondents
79%
85%
83%
89%
68%
84%
85%
73%
87%
93%
90%
92%
88%
97%
In examining data from the spring 2005 and the spring 2009 Student Campus
Climate Surveys, students reported an increased sense of safety. In examining
normed responses on a four-point Likert Scale (4 = Safe, 1 = Unsafe), the mean
response of spring 2009 survey respondents (3.38) was statistically significantly
higher than the mean response of spring 2005 survey respondents (3.07). Findings
358
from the most recent survey also suggest that the institution is providing course
offerings consistent with student needs. In spring 2005, 66.2% of students agreed or
strongly agreed that a high priority of the institution should be to offer more
distance education/online courses. Examining spring 2009 survey findings, 72.0%
of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. To respond to
student need, the institution increased its distance education section offerings by
48.7% over this time period (287 in 2007-08, 193 in 2004-05). 22
PLANNING AGENDA
The institution will continue to expand and improve parking lots in accordance with
the 2009-2015 Parking Lot Maintenance Plan.
III.B.2. To assure the feasibility and effectiveness of physical resources in
supporting institutional programs and services, the institution plans and
evaluates its facilities and equipment on a regular basis, taking utilization and
other relevant data into account.
III.B.2.a. Long-range capital plans support institutional improvement goals and
reflect projections of the total cost of ownership of new facilities and equipment.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The 2001-2010 Chaffey College Educational Master Plan,8 the 2001 Chaffey College
Educational and Facilities Master Plan,9 and the Chaffey College Facilities
Assessment Report10 formed the basis for a ten-year capital improvement plan.
Recognizing the dynamic nature of institutional improvement requirements, the
institution addresses changing needs by annually reviewing and updating the Space
Inventory Report 171 document, the five-year capital outlay program,23 and the
development of initial project proposals. The process for managing the capital
improvement throughout the institution has been accomplished through a threetiered approach.
Executive Management Construction Planning Team
The executive management construction planning team includes: the
superintendent/president, the vice presidents, and the Measure L program
manager. The directors of purchasing and facilities development serve as resources
to this team.
Facility development projects are defined by parameters of budget, timeline, and
scope as determined by adherence to space allocation models. In some cases,
sequencing is dependent upon the interrelationships between projects.
359
Responsible Manager
When a project has been defined and is ready to begin the initial planning stages, the
appropriate vice president is designated by the superintendent/president as the
responsible manager for the project. Depending on the scope of the project, the vice
president may designate a manager(s) (dean or director) as the assistant responsible
manager for some or all components of the project. The responsible manager is the
liaison between the architects, executive management construction planning team,
project management team, and users of the space.
User Groups
User groups include full-time faculty, managers and supervisors, and staff who
work in the space. These groups are kept informed about the progress of the project
at all phases. They are consulted about adjacencies, space layout, and furniture in
the spaces in which they have a function. When the project includes special
technical aspects, the faculty and staff who have the most knowledge of those
technical aspects will be involved in planning. Meeting schedules for user groups
are developed in advance and adequate notice is provided so that participants are
able to attend.
The primary work and involvement of user groups takes place between the initial
phases of planning and the completion of design. At that point, the project moves
into approval, bid, and construction phases, which are managed by the institution’s
program manager and coordinated with the executive management construction
planning team.
The project development for the Fontana Phase III building is an example of the
shared governance collaboration effort to improve the learning environment. The
Chaffey College Fontana Educational/Facilities Master Plan18 and the Fontana
Center Locus Plan Addendum11 identified the educational programs and services
for the Fontana Phase III building project. The project was submitted to the
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Facilities Department in
accordance with the state’s capital outlay program, and the initial project proposal
was approved in 2004. The project funding source was split 70% ($8,754,784) state
and 30% ($3,756,386) district. The final project proposal was approved in 2005.
Subsequent changes to the scope of the project have increased the projected cost to
$19,081,096, which will be funded from Fontana lease revenue bonds.
Institutional management continually evaluates the Maintenance and Operations
Department to ensure that the necessary quality of services is adequate to support
the goals of the institution. The institution maintains more than 365,000 usable
square feet of facility space, including all the campuses and centers, and
approximately 300 acres of grounds. The current staffing to maintain the existing
360
facilities and grounds is at base level, providing basic services to ensure the
institution’s maintenance needs are met.
The Chaffey Community College Five-Year Construction Plan23 describes a variety
of building plans that are consistent with and support the projects identified under
the Measure L Capital Improvement Plan13 as reviewed and recommended by
President’s Cabinet. The construction plan and the Space Inventory Report 171
include the capacity/load ratios, which are based on current and projected
enrollments. These figures are developed in the web-based FUSION system (Facility
Utilization, Space Inventory Options Net), which is a framework designed for the
California Community Colleges (CCC) that streamlines the CCC’s current facilities
planning process and works in conjunction with the California State Department of
Finance. The statistics in the plans show evidence of available square footage
compared to utilization. The Facilities Development Department is responsible for
the annual update of these plans.
To assure effective utilization and manage classroom use, past patterns of student
enrollment in each section have been evaluated to decide which disciplines will have
access to specific classrooms. Full-time instructors have established enrollment
forms through their normal class loads; student demand is tracked through
automated enrollment data and then appropriately-sized classrooms are assigned.
Some classrooms are designated to specific disciplines mainly due to the types of
materials and equipment that are available in those rooms.
Individual project groups have spearheaded the process of long-range capital
planning for Measure L capital improvements with leadership and guidance by the
superintendent/president, vice president of administrative services, and director,
facilities development. The Educational Facilities Master Plan offers the basis for
continuing work on institutional goals to meet the mission of the institution. This
long-range planning has allowed the institution to improve its physical resources in
areas that were identified as having the greatest need.
The institution reviews its facility plans and accomplishments on a monthly basis
through updates to president’s cabinet on facilities planning and development in
general and the build out plans specifically. Additionally, the institution meets
regularly with its Citizen’s Oversight Committee, maintaining an ongoing process of
communication with the community and ensuring that the community’s needs are
being met with the facilities planning process.
SELF EVALUATION
The institution determines physical resources using information generated from
FUSION reporting software provided by the Chancellor’s Office, the analysis of
361
capacity load ratios, anticipated program needs, and input from the program and
services review process. Based on the capital priorities of the institution, Cambridge
West Partnership, in consultation with the Facilities Development Department,
prepares a Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan,23 which is submitted annually to the
Chancellors Office. From this list, the Facilities Development Department, in
conjunction with Cambridge West Partnership, prepares initial project proposals
and/or final project proposals for those projects where state funding is being
requested.
The institution establishes a users’ group for design review at the time of initial
program development. The institution has also become more proactive with respect
to environmental issues surrounding new and renovated construction. In all of its
current projects, the institution has directed its architectural teams to incorporate
conservation of resources and sustainability in their final designs. Sustainable
design, planning, architecture, indoor/outdoor environment, and leadership of
energy in building design are strongly encouraged.
The master plan, designed to ensure facility and infrastructure development at all
campus locations, has enabled the institution to provide adequate facilities thus
supporting the institution’s educational programs and services. There are shared
governance committees that meet at regular intervals throughout the semester to
discuss and evaluate facilities needs (Way Finding Committee, Maintenance Repair
Projects Committee, Health and Safety Committee for example). Reviews that focus
on facilities needs, annual space inventory, and facilities conditions are used to
assess the utilization of the institution’s facilities. Additionally, the institution
routinely reviews the Educational and Facilities Master Plan9 and the Educational
Master Plan.8 There is also a yearly review of major capital projects that are required
to maintain the condition of the existing buildings. The scheduled maintenance
process allows for an ongoing review and prioritization of the needs of the
institution. The state funding available through the community college scheduled
maintenance program was used in accordance with the state program requirements
to support repair renovation projects identified and constructed through the
Measure L program.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.B.2 & III.B.2.a
III.B.2.b. Physical resource planning is integrated with institutional planning.
The institution systematically assesses the effective use of physical resources and
uses the results of the evaluation as the basis for improvement.
362
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The Educational and Facilities Master Plans and the Technology Plan24 are used to
evaluate and prioritize the need for physical resources. When determining
equipment replacement for program and services needs, the institution reviews
federal, state, and county code regulations while abiding by institutional purchasing
policies. In addition, the institution ensures that it is effectively using its physical
resources by monitoring enrollment trends and evaluating facilities and equipment
for efficient usage. The institution also reuses salvageable equipment in order to
keep advanced technology costs at a minimum while planning for future growth in
technology. The Technology Committee reviews and evaluates the effectiveness of
the Technology Replacement Plan25 as well as evaluating state-of-the-art technology
options.
Driven by physical resource planning documents such as the Five-Year Capital
Outlay Improvement Construction Plan23 and the Space Inventory Report 17,1 the
institution has organized projects into six unique categories: new construction
(group 1); major remodel/renovation (group 2); major renovation/use change
(group 3); renovation (group 4); site improvements (group 5); and other (groups 6
and 7). The first group of seven projects deals with the planned new projects. The
second group expands and modernizes three existing deficient buildings. The third
group of ten projects renovates and modernizes existing buildings for new uses.
The fourth group of 12 projects completes needed renovations on the remainder of
the existing campus facilities whose use remains unchanged. The fifth group of nine
projects is for site related projects, new roads, parking, site signage, and
infrastructure. The sixth group is for the Environmental Impact Report, swing
space, satellite center expansion and renovation, site acquisition, and refinance of
lease/purchase of equipment and construction. Group seven covers the initial phase
of a second campus proposed in the southwestern part of the district. All projects
are built into the framework of the Educational and Facilities Master Plan9 and are
regularly assessed and reviewed at a number of levels. These reviews are the basis
for updated planning models developed to ensure that the institution is meeting its
goals to provide quality educational programs and services to students. These
statistics are updated annually by the Facilities Development Department and vice
president for administrative services to provide evidence of available square footage
compared to utilization.
SELF-EVALUATION
The assessment of physical resources occurs through several mechanisms. The
Measure L Bond Citizens’ Oversight Committee meets biannually to review
construction projects. The charge to the Citizens' Oversight Committee is to monitor
and report to the public on an annual basis the proper expenditure of bond
363
revenues. Specifically, the committee provides oversight that the bond revenues are
expended only for projects identified in the Chaffey College Facilities Assessment
Report.10
As part of the institution’s Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional
Effectiveness,26 the Governing Board has adopted a formal monitoring report
process. Consistent with the Institutional Effectiveness Process,26 monitoring
reports to the Governing Board describe how the monitoring reports and/or
planning documents relate to the Institutional Mission and Goals/Ends Policies.
The Governing Board Planning Schedule,27 adopted in October 2008, calls for a
quarterly Facilities Development Monitoring Report28 (provided in September,
January, April, and June), an annual Citizens’ Oversight Committee Report29
(usually presented in October), an annual Measure L Audit Report30 (usually
presented in October), an annual Center Report (Chino and Fontana, usually
presented in March), and an annual Five-Year Capital Project Report23 (usually
presented in June). Adhering to the model, all monitoring reports provide a means
of assessment and evidence that physical resource plans and construction projects
are integrated into institutional planning. Furthermore, in prescribing that evidence
and results are used as the basis for future planning, the results of the Institutional
Effectiveness Process serve as the basis for continual improvement.
As part of the monthly governing board consent agenda, a list of contracts, purchase
orders, and warrant lists are presented for the Governing Board’s review. Contract
number, vendor, description of services, amount, funding source, and responsible
officer are identified on the list. This transparent process informs the Governing
Board, college constituencies, and the public about changes to contracts, purchase
orders, and warrants on a monthly basis.
The effective use of physical resources is based on extensive dialogue with faculty
and staff for all building involving instruction and student services. A number of
committees comprised of administrators, faculty, staff, and students provide
significant input regarding physical resource planning. Among the committees that
provide input on physical resources planning are: the 504 Compliance Committee,
Art Committee, Classified Senate, Citizens’ Oversight Committee, Distance
Education Committee, Enrollment and Growth Management Committee, Faculty
Senate, Green Earth Movement (GEM) Committee, Health and Safety Committee,
Instructional Equipment Committee, Maintenance Repair Projects Committee, Sign
Committee, Student Success Initiative Steering Committee, Technology Committee,
and the Trees, Plants, and Grounds Committee. Working with the president’s
cabinet, these committees assist in shaping the future physical resources planning
agenda.
364
Examining findings from the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey,21 approximately 81% of
informed survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that physical resource
planning is integrated with institutional planning. However, approximately onethird of all respondents indicated on the survey that they did not know how
physical resource planning is integrated with institutional planning. To address this
disconnect, the executive director of facilities, maintenance, and operations prepared
a statement about the process, which was included in a document disseminated by
the accreditation tri-chairs in March 2009. As the response states,
Institutional planning and physical resources planning are linked through the
Educational and Facilities Master Plan, the Facilities Assessment Report, the
Facility Construction Plans, and other physical resource planning documents.
Constituencies involved in the planning process include faculty, staff,
students, and administrators.
To broaden the planning perspective,
discussion also occurs with community representatives and the Chaffey
College Governing Board. All facilities plans – district-wide and location
specific (for example, Chino Campus Master Plan; Fontana Center
Educational/Facilities Master Plan) are developed through the shared
governance process with the goal of meeting the District’s current educational
mission and future enrollment demands. All plans are flexible and are
revisited regularly to address the changing needs of the District.
PLANNING AGENDA
The institution will dialogue the maintenance challenges for rapidly growing
facilities at all locations, develop a plan addressing physical resources, and identify
and/or improve methods of keeping campus constituencies informed about the
relationship between physical resource and institutional planning.
References – Standard III B. Physical Resources
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Space Inventory Report 17
Chaffey College Website, Measure L
WorkAbility III
Programs and Services Review (PSR) Biology
State Capital Projects funding
Chaffey College Office of Institutional Research, OLAP Cubes, Chaffey College District, Course
Offering Data
Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey, Question # 34
Chaffey College Educational and Facilities Master Plan 2001
Chaffey College Facilities Assessment Report
Fontana Center Locus Plan Addendum
Chaffey College Chino Campus Master Plan
365
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Chaffey Community College Measure L Build-Out Plan
Utility Infrastructure Master Plan Report
Vehicle Replacement Plan
Security Precautions Interview with David Ramirez Sept 2009
Annual "Walk through" 504/ADA reports
Chaffey College Fontana Center Educational/Facilities Master Plan
The Breeze, “Parking is a Frustration for Everyone”
Parking Lot Maintenance Plan 2009-2015 Draft
Chaffey College Student Campus Climate Survey, spring 2005
Five-Year Capital Outlay Improvement Construction Plan
Technology Plan
Technology Replacement Plan
Governing Board Planning Schedule for Reports
Governing Board Monitoring Report, Facilities Development
Citizens' Oversight Committee Report
Governing Board Monitoring Report, Measure L Audit
366
learning
Standard III C. Technology Resources
Technology resources are used to support student learning programs and services
and to improve institutional effectiveness. Technology planning is integrated
with institutional planning.
III.C.1. The institution assures that any technology support it provides is
designed to meet the needs of learning, teaching, college-wide communications,
research, and operational systems.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The primary governance body addressing technology issues is the Technology
Committee, which was originally formed in November 1988 as the Computer
Advisory Committee and reformed as the Technology Committee in 1994. The
Technology Committee is a regular, standing college committee, meeting monthly
during fall and spring semesters, consisting of ten faculty (two from each school and
two from Student Services), ten classified staff, two confidential staff and four
managers. To ensure that various types of technology needs are met, including
support of teaching and learning, research and institutional wide communication
and operations, the Technology Committee is chaired by the Director of Technical
Services, a Computer Information Systems faculty member, and a staff member.
Equally important, provisions for technology resources are decided collaboratively
among the Datatel Colleague Steering Committee, the Web Working Group, and the
Program and Services Review Committee through the Strategic Planning
Chaffey College Information Technology Services (ITS) supports students, faculty,
and staff to facilitate the learning process for students as outlined in the Chaffey
College 2003 Technology Master Plan2. This plan exists within the comprehensive
framework of college-wide strategic planning and represents an elaboration of the
Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness and the institutional
effectiveness process. The Institutional Goals/Ends Policies3 contain twenty-three
institutional goals, two of which influence the deployment of technology at the
institution:
Goal 8.1.4, Continuous Improvement, states “The district will
continually assess and improve operational process, including educational
367
programs, support and administrative services which support learning…” Goal
8.3.2 states “District information systems will be efficient and effective, providing
timely and accurate information to college constituent groups as needed, and
support student learning outcomes. Academic and administrative technology will
be maintained at appropriate currency, providing students with the opportunity to
succeed in technology fields and administrative staff with tools necessary to perform
their work. Technology planning will be integrated with institutional planning.”
To meet the needs of teaching and communication in support of student learning
programs, the institution has invested in a Faculty Success Center (FSC), which
opened in fall of 2008. The FSC is available to faculty throughout the year and is
equipped with desktop and laptop computers, printing/scanning stations, and a
smartboard. The hardware and software provided to faculty at the center assist with
learning industry applications, as well as application and communication
procedures for using campus hardware, software and communications systems.
The Faculty Success Center facilitator is available to assist instructors in finding and
inserting applicable technology into the classroom. In addition, through the
Distance Education Program, instructors learn how to design, set-up, and maintain
online courses.
Instructional Support of Distance Education
The Distance Education Committee ensures that faculty who are teaching in this
format have the necessary expertise to provide an effective learning experience for
students. All faculty who are teaching through a distance education format are
required to participate in the college’s online training program called Online to
Excellence,4 which is supported by one of the Distance Education coordinators. This
program was developed by the Distance Education Committee, and successful
completion is reported to the instructional deans for scheduling purposes.
In addition to this support, in fall of 2009 the flex program5 provided a thematic
program of 6 workshops devoted to successful online instruction. Instructors who
wished to earn certification for online instruction were required to complete 4 of the
6 workshops. Of the choices, one workshop was mandatory: “Communication in
the Online Environment and Creating a Collaborative Community.” This workshop
reinforced the need for regular effective contact in the Distance Education
environment.
Furthermore, using the results from the Basic Skills/Student Success Initiative SelfAssessment,6 the Faculty Success Center (FSC) has developed a diverse set of
learning opportunities for faculty at the institution. The FSC has offered a series of
short workshops to introduce faculty to simple and helpful techniques, has provided
weekend seminars, and has developed an online orientation during flex for adjunct
faculty. In addition, the FSC is also exploring the development of distance
368
education support for professional development as well as the purchase of DVDs on
targeted topics such as student learning outcomes and classroom management.
The special needs of technology-driven courses are addressed in a number of ways.
Support and maintenance for classrooms providing student technical training and
technology access have been addressed through cooperative efforts between
instruction and Information Technology (IT). Specifically, technology instruction in
the classroom is determined by the instructional departments. Students receive
training and instruction in applicable technology from faculty and instructional
staff. Classrooms and labs are appropriately equipped and staffed to facilitate
student learning outcomes.
Awareness of industry standards, academic
requirements, and field currency, as well as ability to anticipate student needs, are
key to integrating appropriate instructional technology as widely varied as
multimedia courses, English, and Accounting, all of which use technology in
instruction.
The Information Technology Services department also employs short-term,
temporary workers (lab apprentices) to provide technology support to students in
instructional labs. Currently, nineteen apprentices provide approximately 369 hours
of support to the instructional labs each week. In a standard term (fall or spring),
between 3,000 and 4,000 students visit the instructional labs, where lab apprentices
are available to assist them.
Online support services for students are available in the Success Centers at all
campuses, Admissions, the Library, the Transfer Center, and a tutorial for
ChaffeyView.7
The institution assures technology support in the classroom by involving
instructional faculty and staff in decisions regarding technology in the classroom.
Department dialogue is based on currency in participants’ particular fields,
assessment of students’ needs, and budgetary considerations. For example,
additional Photography Program classes, like hybrid classes, have been developed
and added to the program to accommodate evolving technology. Beginning Digital
Photography, PHOTO 7, is offered in both a traditional classroom environment and
as a hybrid class, with one weekly class session held in a classroom and the second
weekly session offered as an online lecture/tutorial available to students online at
any time during the week.
The institution supports technology resources through the Program and Services
Review (PSR) process. In addition, students enrolled in online courses can also
receive help from the Distance Education Program which encourages enrollment
and helps students with successful learning.
369
Internet connections in the classroom have become an integral part of instruction
and student learning. For example, art instructors can have immediate access to a
museum or artist site that provides artwork applicable to a particular class or
assignment. The number of instructors who are utilizing online components, such
as Blackboard, to augment their in-class instruction has increased by over 280%
since 2004. Using online components allows students and instructors continual
access to course materials and interactive technology such as discussion boards, chat
rooms, and online assessments.
Needs for cameras, computers and printers to facilitate student learning are
requested through the Program and Services Review (PSR) process. The hardware
and software technology are installed as a workflow, tested, and refined to optimize
student success. The curriculum and workflow are consistently refined to reflect
anticipated industry and student needs as technology evolves.
In addition to the classroom, support and maintenance of technology are also
provided to the library. For example, the library recently designed and presented
workshops online using video cameras and Apple software to assist students with
developing media projects for specific courses. The Library has also purchased
several video cameras and Apple computers for student use.
Since the last accreditation review in 2004, the institution has embarked on a major
period of technological development and growth. During this period, the institution
engaged in the following technology-related activities all of which speak to assure
that technology is in place to support the institution and improve institutional
effectiveness:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Major improvements to the institution’s network Infrastructure
Major upgrades to the institution’s enterprise data base systems
Modernization of computer laboratories
Increased use of technology in the classrooms
Extensive improvements to the technology used to deliver distance education
Major improvements and upgrades to the institution’s desktops computers and
desktop applications
On-going technology projects enabling the institution to take advantage of future
technology improvements and enhancements
Development of an effective planning process in setting and matching
technology priorities and matching priorities to the Institutional Mission8 and
Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness1 which includes all
segments of the institution through the shared governance process
Major improvements to My ChaffeyVIEW; such as the Early Alert Program to
identify at-risk students and the option for faculty to email rosters to themselves
370
•
Installation of a broadcast (pop-up) message server to reach all student and staff
computers within the institution, providing Campus Police with the ability to
send a message to all the computers on campus during an emergency
Ongoing efforts to improve the institution’s Data Center and technology service
have resulted in several changes. The new Data Center was built as part of the
Central Plant Measure L project, was outfitted with a new Uninterruptible Power
Supply, a 250KVA natural gas generator, redundant cooling systems, and fire
suppression. These components increase the reliability of all systems and limits the
downtime in the event of an emergency. Following the Cabling Master Plan,9 all
new buildings are connected with twelve strands of single-mode, and twelve
strands of multi-mode air blown fiber, as well as twenty-five pairs of copper cabling.
As part of the Data Center upgrade, the institution replaced the HP network
infrastructure with new Cisco networking equipment. Cisco catalyst end switches
and a redundant Cisco 6509 core switches were installed in the spring of 2005.
These changes and upgrades moved all buildings on the Rancho campus to a
redundant gig connection, and provided 10/100 switched access to every desktop.
This means better performance for network services to students, faculty, and staff.
SELF-EVALUATION
While the institution has made major progress in its technology capabilities and in
the support programs and services using technology, significant improvements in
the following areas are continually evaluated:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Increased the functionality and usage of Colleague Datatel
Strengthened organization, policies and procedures, and support within the
Information Technology Services (ITS) department
Expansion and enhancement of educational technology
Updates to the Technology Plan,2 Technology Replacement Plan,10 development
of the Disaster Recovery Plan, Information Protection and Security Policy
Evaluation of current staffing in Information Technology Services and Distance
Education
Expanding the use and functionality of Colleague and updating several of the
technology-related plans have been identified as Administrative Unit Outcomes
(AUOs) in the Program and Services Review (PSR) document for Information
Technology Services11
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.C.
371
III.C.1.a. Technology services, professional support, facilities, hardware, and
software are designed to enhance the operation and effectiveness of the
institution.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution has integrated information technology into instructional curricula via
multi-media classrooms, labs, and online student resources. Faculty, staff, and
students have access to information technology services including, as appropriate,
the campus information system (Datatel), WebAdvisor, Web-based resources for email (MS Exchange), room and event scheduling and analysis (Ad Astra), a
curriculum database (CurricUNET), an online faculty and staff directory12 on the
institution’s website, an online course management system (Blackboard), online
student orientation and assessment, online advising, an Information Technology
Help Desk, maintenance service requests, network security, and wireless access.
To enhance the operation and effectiveness of its technology resources, the
institution maintains a large user base of workstations and servers over a wide area
network accessible at the Rancho, Chino, and Fontana campuses. During the 20062007 academic year, the wide area network, consisting primarily of point-to-point T1 lines, was upgraded to the Verizon Transparent LAN Service (TLS) to further
enhance the technological services at the institution. TLS allows for up to a one
gigabyte connection to each of the Chaffey campuses. These upgrades allow high
bandwidth applications residing on the SQL servers to be installed at all of the
institution’s sites. Higher bandwidth allows software applications to be operated at
the Success Centers and instructional labs. Without these upgrades, software
applications could only be operated on the Rancho campus. This project also
provides higher speed access to existing software applications such as Datatel,
email, and the Internet providing a faster and more reliable application
performance. The institution’s network consists of approximately 3,320 computer
systems and approximately 80 server systems. As of June 2009, the institution has
17 instructional labs and 90 classrooms in addition to the Library, and the eight
Success Centers including the Chino Institute for Women (CIW).
To effectively support the operations of the institution and enhance the level of
technical services provided to faculty and staff, the Information Technology Services
department maintains a Technology Help Desk. The Help Desk is staffed from 7:00
am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Help Desk Coordinators respond to both
hardware and software support requests. In the event the Help Desk Coordinators
are unable to resolve an issue, the matter is escalated to other ITS staff as
appropriate (for example system administrator, network administrator, system
specialists and technical support specialists). In addition to phoning the Help Desk,
372
faculty and staff may also submit requests for technical assistance to the Help Desk
via email or online repair request form.13
Professional support addresses the structure and content of the college website and
is regularly reviewed by the Web Working Group, a sub-committee of the
Technology Committee. The top level web interface is updated on a continual basis
to reflect user preferences. Design changes are based upon tracking14 (hits) and
continual evaluation of website usage.
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution continues to follow the Technology Replacement Plan (TRP),10
implemented in March 2003. This plan identified a replacement and rotation cycle
that is similar to the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) model developed by the
California Community College Chancellor’s Office, a model the institution has been
following since approximately 2001. The TRP enhances the operation of the
institution by allowing the Technology Committee to project technology
replacement and associated costs over multiple years. This projection includes
equipment for full-time faculty and staff, equipment for instructional computer labs
and classrooms, and equipment needed to support the institution’s administrative
information system and its supporting technology applications. Consequently, the
institution is able to consistently maintain and enhance institutional effectiveness.
The following is an illustration of ways the TRP continues to support institutional
effectiveness10 through technology support. During the fall semester of 2005 the
institution advertised a request for quotes for the purchase and installation of a
Cisco Voice Over IP telecommunications solution. The contract was awarded to
Verizon Business Services, and a twelve month implementation project began in
February, 2006. This project provided for the removal of the aging Nortel PBX
system, replacing it with a redundant Cisco Call Manager. By September 2006, all
1800 phones across each of the campuses had been replaced with the Voice Over IP,
which converges voice, video, and data on one network infrastructure.
The institution receives “mixed” input and review of both the structure and content
of the institution’s website. The Programs and Services Review committee used an
outside vendor, CurricUNET, for their web-supported database because there was
dissatisfaction with the institution’s web support. In July 2009, renewed discussion
ensued in the President’s Team meetings regarding the institution’s website. The
team supported the purchase of a content management system that would enhance
institutional effectiveness.
373
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.C.1.a.
III.C.1.b. The Institution provides quality training in the effective application of
its information technology to students and personnel.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
To make the application of information technology effective to students and
personnel, the institution provides training through three major components;
training for faculty and staff, support services for training students, and technology
instruction in the classroom.
Specifically, training for faculty and staff is
multilayered and takes place both in person and online. Workshops are provided
during flex days and ongoing Professional Development workshops available to
faculty and staff are provided throughout the academic year.15 For example, during
the fall 2008, semester training was provided during flex week to both faculty and
staff on the use of the Data Information System at the institution (DISC). Also
known as OLAP (Online Analytical Processing) cubes,16 DISC provides a simple
method for viewing data and information that is frequently requested by end users.
DISC is a web-based application that allows end users to easily create
multidimensional tables. End users are able to browse, query, and summarize data
in an efficient, interactive format. Because the multidimensional tables are dynamic,
end users can easily move data among rows, columns, and layers to create reports
that are specific to their unique needs and support the institution’s culture of
informed decision-making. Training for use of DISC has consistently occurred both
formally and informally since 2004, when DISC was first introduced.
The staff of the Information Technology Services (ITS) “Help Desk” provide training
and support over the phone. ITS provides Help Desk support for hardware and
software issues that arise in a classroom or service area. ITS has integrated the
former Audio/Visual Department into the ITS structure, providing instructional and
service area support for audio/visual components. One-on-one training can be
requested for any presentation issues. For example, ITS has implemented the
technology to convert VHS tapes to DVD format. The ITS staff will train faculty and
staff to perform these conversions on request. Group training by ITS staff in
presentation technology also takes place during flex week. In addition to the “Help
Desk,” ITS holds monthly scheduled training sessions.17 Training is available for the
Colleague administrative software and for other administrative applications,
including ImageNow, SARS, and AdAstra; and campus use software, such as
Microsoft Word, Excel, Powerpoint and email. Data Security Training is mandatory
for all users . A detailed training schedule is provided monthly.
374
In fall semester 2008, Distance Education implemented the district mandated
training program for instructors teaching Distance Education courses for the first
time at Chaffey. The program consists of a series of six modules covering Distance
Education issues such as using Blackboard, accessibility, laws and regulations
governing distance education, and services for online students. The modules are
accessible via a course on Blackboard and require potential DE instructors to
demonstrate what they have learned through pre-tests, post-tests, and assignments
included in the course. For fall flex 2009, an entire track of workshops taught by
Chaffey faculty and DE staff was devoted to Distance Education topics such as
communication in the Online Environment and Blackboard Basics.18 This was
offered as another way for Chaffey faculty to meet the requirement for Distance
mandated training to be eligible to teach Distance Education courses. Faculty who
participated in the Communication in the Online Environment workshop and also
took three additional workshops in the DE fall flex track received a certificate of
eligibility to teach Distance Education courses her at Chaffey College.
The Professional Development Office and the Faculty Success Center provide ongoing training with the objective of improving the overall effectiveness of the
institution by providing professional development opportunities that encourage
innovation, stimulate continued professional growth, and enhance the learning and
working environment of the institution. This is accomplished by providing ongoing
opportunities to improve the knowledge, skills, and well being of all employees of
the institution. Professional Development advertises and funds opportunities for
technology-related training for faculty and staff. For instance, with the support of
Professional Development, the institution has for the past two years purchased a
blanket general registration for the Tech Ed conference held each spring at the
Ontario Convention Center. This registration has enabled any of the institution’s
staff, full-time, or adjunct faculty to attend this conference, which showcases
educational technology trends and provides several “hands-on” workshops without
charge.
SELF-EVALUATION
During the last six years, the institution has consistently assessed the need for
information technology training. Every year during flex, faculty and staff evaluate
the effectiveness of the professional development sessions19 that they attend.
Additionally, in spring 2005 a Professional Development Needs Assessment Survey
was conducted.20 The results indicated that classified employees were more likely to
see technology training as an important topical area than were full-time faculty. In
fall 2008 a subsequent survey21 was conducted to identify faculty development
needs as they related to the Chancellor’s Office Basic Skills Initiative. In response to
the open-ended question asking about additional professional development needs
for instructors, the third most common suggestion was to provide more training in
375
the use of classroom technology. A year later, in spring 2009, a survey22 was
conducted to assess the professional development needs of classified staff. Two of
the technological training areas that classified staff felt would be most helpful were
advanced training in Excel and advanced training in Outlook.
To support the efforts of the ten Accreditation Standards Committees, the
Accreditation Steering Committee disseminated the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey
to all of the institution’s contract faculty, adjunct faculty, classified employees, and
administrators.23 A total of 396 valid survey responses were received, sufficient to
generalize to the total Chaffey College employee population with a 95% confidence
interval. The results indicated that 88% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed
that appropriate technology training and resources are available on campus. In
addition, the technology training question had the second highest average
agreement rating indicating that the institution’s employees believe that the
technology training provided at the institution far exceeds the fifty-eight other areas
that were rated.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.C.1.b.
III.C.1.c. The institution systematically plans, acquires, maintains, and upgrades
or replaces technology infrastructure and equipment to meet institutional needs.
III.C.1.d. The distribution and utilization of technology resources support the
development, maintenance, and enhancement of its programs and services.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution has a systematic technology planning process within the shared
governance process. The technology planning process provides the structure for
making informed decisions concerning technology services, facilities, hardware and
software consistent with the institution’s Technology Replacement Plan10 and
Technology Plan.2
Maintenance, upgrades, acquisition, and deployment of technology are also the
responsibility of Information Technology Services (ITS).
While individual
departments are responsible for making requests for purchase of technology
equipment through Program and Services Review24 (PSR), acquisition of equipment,
hardware, and software is coordinated through the ITS Department to ensure items
meet campus standards and have appropriate currency.25 ITS keeps an inventory of
equipment and maintains a list of equipment standards to ensure that hardware
purchased is viable and efficiently deployed. ITS also routinely assesses the
376
effectiveness of equipment and software placement throughout the institution. In
consultation with the Technology Committee, ITS redeploys technology resources as
needed to better support institutional goals. For instance, over 100 administrative
staff and Success Center computers were replaced last year with newer models that
became available as a result of replacements in other locations in the institution. To
assure that technology is efficiently maintained, faculty and staff can request repairs
and services from ITS through an electronic form on the Help Desk section of the ITS
website.26 ITS keeps track of work orders and routinely follows up on open work
orders to make sure they have been resolved satisfactorily.
The institution continues to invest in upgrades to improve the reliability and
security of technological infrastructure to support institutional needs, moving from
the Nokia Firewall 1 to Cisco PIX in fall 2004. The institution purchased the upgrade
to move to Cisco ASA, the next generation in security applications. Previous to this,
the network for the institution was housed solely on one system, with no redundant
systems to rely on in case of failures. Replacing the equipment and moving to these
newer security systems have resulted in more system redundancy and increased
system reliability. New spam-filtering software was installed in 2007, and in the
summer of 2008, a new full security suite was also installed. The new security
software is much more proactive in notifying the ITS staff about potential threats to
the network. In 2007, the institution installed a secondary redundant internet
connection in conjunction with the State Chancellor’s Office, increasing the
reliability of the college Internet connection and creating a secondary presence for
the institution’s web pages in case of emergency. In 2008, Chaffey acquired
equipment to expand the use of the Storage Area Network and purchased additional
drive space for use with multiple production servers, significantly upgrading
storage capability.
The institution provides backup and emergency backup systems through power
failure redundancy, HVAC, fire safety, and backup redundancy. Power failure
redundancy is achieved through core servers and switches on battery backups
capable of maintaining power in the event of a power failure. The time they will
hold varies depending on load, but each telecom closet has been sized to have
approximately eight hours of battery life. Next, the HVAC Data Center is equipped
with redundant twenty ton chillers to maintain the correct temperature and
humidity levels. These units can work independently or in tandem in case of
extreme temperatures. During normal operation, the units alternate between
primary and back-up modes to ensure a uniform life expectancy. Additionally an
FM200 system has been installed in the data center for fire safety. In the event of a
fire, the system is automatically triggered upon detection. These systems are
monitored by an outside UL rated agency, with a secondary notice going to Campus
Police. Finally, backup redundancy is achieved through the Data Center servers,
which have been migrated into a virtual environment running on VMware that
377
facilitates the ability of the systems to maintain connections and provide higher
availability and redundancy. In many situations, a server no longer has to be taken
offline while the underlying hardware is maintained. User connections can remain
active on these systems while they are migrating them across physical systems. If a
physical system fails, the virtual server can be restarted on another physical server,
either automatically or manually depending on the configurations in place. Storage
of the virtual machines themselves and their environment is placed on SAN storage
which provides high-speed fault tolerant connections as well as hot-spare failover
capabilities in the event of hardware failure of disks, processors or network and
fiber connections. The VMware servers are also configured with redundant
hardware components in the event of failures of disks, network or fiber optic
connections. The few remaining physical servers are configured as redundant
systems as well (clusters) which have the ability to failover the resource (email,
databases, file shares, or printers) in the event of a physical failure. At some point
all of these resources will probably be virtualized onto the new environments.
Equally important, backup processes for servers are run every day. Full backups are
run on a weekly basis for most systems; databases (SQL and email) are usually
backed up fully each day. Each Friday a full backup is run, and the data is stored to
disk on the SAN. Each Saturday, that data is backed up to tape by means of LTO
tape drives. Every Monday the tapes are pulled and sent offsite for one week,
providing safe storage in the event of catastrophic events in the server environment.
The previous week’s tapes are then put back into rotation allowing overwrite for the
next week. On the last weekend of the every month, an end-of-month back-up is
run, and those tapes are pulled out for a monthly rotation cycle going back into the
system every third month. Quarterly tapes are removed and stored for each quarter
and rotated on that basis, and yearly tapes are pulled for each year and rotated as
needed.
Enhancement of programs and services is supported through technology resources.
The institution works to expand existing services and resources to students, staff,
and faculty, and to implement new technologies that enhance programs and
services. For instance, the institution email accounts were expanded to include parttime staff and faculty during the 2005-2006 academic year, and by May 2006, over 50
percent of the part-time faculty and staff had signed up for email accounts. Another
example is the development of a Wireless Area Network (WAN) project. Starting in
2007, ITS designed and acquired equipment to pilot a WAN to increase student,
staff, and faculty internet access. The wireless project has been expanded to include
most of the buildings on the Rancho campus and the Chino Main Instructional
Building (MIB) at the Chino campus. Work is in progress to expand the institutions
wireless to the other two buildings at the Chino-College Park location and the
Fontana campuses. In 2006, the institution also implemented AdAstra to facilitate
room scheduling and event planning, increasing the efficiency of room usage
throughout the institution. In addition, installation of equipment for Voice Over IP
378
(VoIP) also began in 2006 and has been completed and new Cisco multimedia
players were added to the ChaffeyVision (information channel) system. This system
has now been expanded to include the Chino and Fontana Centers. A Chaffey
Library project that has been able to move forward due to increased bandwidth and
installation of the Cisco multimedia players is Internet Protocol Television (IPTV),
where videos and DVDs owned by the Library have been digitized and placed on a
server, enabling automated streaming of this collection onto the institution’s
networked computers. Upgrades to Colleague, the administration information
system for the institution, have enhanced services for students, staff and faculty.
Recent improvements include enabling students to print statements and change
address information themselves, thus saving the institution staff time and money by
eliminating the need to accomplish these tasks by mail. The Datatel Colleague
Steering Committee in consultation with ITS was responsible for addressing
technology-related issues to the institution’s plan to implement fiscal independence,
developing a timeline and project plan, as well as purchasing equipment to support
the necessary upgrades to Colleague.
SELF-EVALUATION
Technology resources support the development of programs and services. The
institution continues to explore and implement ways to increase the effective
utilization of technology for its constituents. In response to increased numbers of
students waiting for open computers, the institution’s library increased the number
of networked terminals in the Information Research Area from thirty-two to fiftyfour in 2006. Additionally, there are twelve non-networked computers with
Microsoft Office Suite available for use in the east wing of the library at the Rancho
campus. An authentication system was also added in 2006 to the networked
computers in the library to ensure access solely to Chaffey students, staff and
faculty. To serve the increased numbers of students at the Chino campus, the
Chaffey Cybrary (Cyber-Library) in the new Chino MIB building has been
established. The Cybrary opened in summer of 2008 and has thirty computers with
Internet access and the Microsoft Office suite available for student use. The number
of computer terminals for the use of Disability Programs and Services students in
the labs at all three campuses, as well as the library has increased from nineteen in
2003 to twenty-six in 2008. The Success Centers and labs have benefitted from the
installation of smart classroom equipment in their workshop rooms at the Rancho
and Chino locations. For instance, having wall projectors designed for smaller rooms
installed in these areas has made presentations smoother and easier for the Success
Center staff. New report functionality has been added to Colleague, the student
record system used by the institution, to support positive attendance collection in
the computer labs and centers.
379
Changes in the distribution of technology resources have been deployed to better
support distance education. In the summer of 2008, the institution moved over to an
upgraded version of the Blackboard Learning Management System. Prior to 2008,
the institution supported two Distance Education platforms: WebCT and
Blackboard. Moving exclusively to Blackboard has allowed the institution to
provide an unlimited number of seats for courses on the distance education
platform. The move over to Blackboard exclusively has reduced the burden on both
the Distance Education (DE) and ITS staff to maintain and support two separate
platforms. Because of the differences among the new version of Blackboard,
WebCT, and the previous Blackboard version, there has been a learning curve for
the affected DE staff, faculty, and students. This has substantially increased the time
that DE staff has had to devote to technical support regarding Blackboard.
The institution integrates technology planning with institutional planning. The
process and plans for technology replacement provide for a three- to four-year
turnaround on staff and faculty computers. To ensure that best practices are
maintained, the Technology Replacement Plan10 is currently being reviewed and
will be updated accordingly.
In July of 2009, representatives from Datatel, the vendor for the institution’s
administrative system, “Colleague”, conducted an action-planning site visit,
wherein mangers and key faculty and staff from departments who use Colleague on
a frequent basis were interviewed. From the information gathered during those
interviews, a three-year action plan27 that included recommendations for
enhancing/maximizing the use of the Colleague system to facilitate the delivery of
instruction and services to students was developed and presented to the
superintendent/president and vice-presidents. The action plan is in the process of
being reviewed, in conjunction with other technology-related needs, to identify
which of the recommendations can and will be implemented. It is anticipated that
some of the recommendations will be incorporated into a strategic technology plan
for the institution. Satisfaction levels in surveys relating to support offered for
technology-related issues are mixed. The Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey23 results
were positive concerning the availability and maintenance of technology. Almost
eighty-three percent of the faculty and staff that responded either agreed or strongly
agreed with the statement: “I have adequate hardware/resources to perform my
duties”. Seventy-eight percent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that
technology is available and updated appropriately at the institution. However,
there are concerns over the level of staffing and support for ITS and distance
education. In a Distance Education Student Survey conducted in spring 2007, one of
the lowest rated items was technical support.28 Currently, there is one full-time staff
member in the Distance Education office, meaning that technical support for
distance education students and faculty is limited to the hours that the employee is
in the office. Because the economic downturn does not allow for the hiring of
380
additional staff, the Distance Education Committee has implemented an online 24/7
Help Desk sponsored by Presidium. The institution continues to assess satisfaction
levels among the institution’s constituents regarding technical support for
maintenance and upgrades among the institution’s constituents. Planning and
budgeting for hardware and software maintenance as well as staffing for technical
support, remain a challenge in this present climate with concerns for funding being
complicated by changing technology demands.
PLANNING AGENDA
The institution will develop robust strategies to ensure that the equipment and
technology infrastructure continue to meet institutional needs and support the
development, maintenance, and enhancement of institutional programs and
services.
III.C.2. Technology planning is integrated with institutional planning. The
institution systematically assesses the effective use of technology resources and
uses the results of evaluation as the basis for improvement.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution’s technology decisions are guided by the Chaffey College Strategic
Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness1 the Institutional Goals/Ends
Policies,29 the Chaffey College 2003 Technology Plan,2 and state guidelines. All
major technology projects are integrated with the institutional planning process. As
mentioned previously, two of the twenty-three Institutional Goals/Ends Policies3
relate to the deployment of technology for the operational process, for educational
programs, and for administrative services in support of learning. Goal 8.1.4
addresses the assessment and improvement of operational processes, including the
support of educational programs and of administrative services that support
learning. Goal 8.3.2 addresses the efficiency and effectiveness of the institution’s
information services (IS) and the provision of accurate information to the
institution’s constituents in support of student learning outcomes. There is a clear
commitment by the institution to maintain academic and administrative technology
at appropriate currency, providing students with the opportunity to succeed in
technology fields and providing staff with the tools necessary to perform their work.
A number of objectives and strategies to implement these goals are detailed in the
Technology Plan, and in the Program and Services Review (PSR) 2008 Report.24
The provisions for technology resources are decided through a collaborative effort
among the Technology Committee, the Datatel Steering Committee, the Web
Working Group, the Distance Education Committee, and the Program and Services
Review Committee. All of these committees meet regularly throughout the academic
381
year and makeup of the committees is inclusive of all constituents. The institution
relies on its shared governance process to review and provide input into all plans,
including technology decisions. The respective committees ensure that all
governance decisions are based on the institutional needs and resulting goals as
addressed in the annual Program and Service Reviews (PSR). PSR is the vehicle that
links technology to the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional
Effectiveness,1 systematically addresses the effective use of technology resources,
sets criteria for evidence, collects a summary of evidence, and requires the use of
assessment for future planning and improvement.
SELF-EVALUATION
The Technology Plan2 is greatly influenced by the expectation of future technology
trends, the future needs of the institution as a whole, and demands placed on it by
students, faculty, administration, and the community. The institution’s vision of the
future, as outlined in the Technology Plan,2 includes the increasing demand for
online education, access to information and services for students and staff through
the web, including WebAdvisor, and consistent service across multiple locations and
technology-enhanced smart classrooms.
The institution uses evaluation as a basis of improvement to link technology
planning with institutional planning. The management structure that oversees
planning of various technology components was evaluated and changed to better
serve the institution.
For example, changes in the Technology Committee
membership and Distance Education reporting structure have increased the
effectiveness of communicating institutional needs in these two areas. While
members of the Technology Committee are fewer in number, attendance and
participation by the membership are higher than in past years. Representatives are
more focused on planning for technology resources at the institutional level rather
than at the department level. Changes in management of Distance Education and
the reporting structure in Distance Education have also occurred. In fall of 2007,
distance education became part of the school of instructional support and was
briefly led by the distance education director who resigned in 2007. In the fall 2008
the leadership for distance education shifted to the interim dean of instructional
support. The dean is one of the tri-chairs of the distance education committee which
is also supported by two faculty coordinators and distance education support
specialist. As a result, both planning and communication for Distance Education
have become more effective within the Strategic Planning Framework for
Institutional Effectiveness.1
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.C.2.d.
382
References – Standard III C. Technology Resources
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Technology Master Plan 2003
Governing Board Policy Manual, Policy Category 8, Sections 8.1.4 and 8.3.2
Online to Excellence Training, Blackboard (login required)
Chaffey College Student Success Action Plan
My ChaffeyVIEW Tutorial
Cabling Master Plan
Technology Replacement Plan
Program and Services Review (PSR), Information Technology Services
Chaffey College Website, Employee Directory
Information Technology Services, Help Desk Email Address
Chaffey College Website, Usage Tracking (login required)
Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) Cubes
Information Technology Services, Monthly Training Schedule
Flex Schedule Fall 2009, Blackboard Basics
Professional Development Flex Evaluation Form
Professional Development Needs Assessment Survey Preliminary Findings
Faculty Success Center Quantitative and Qualitative Survey Results
Classified Needs Assessment Survey Results, April 2009
Chaffey College Equipment Standards
Chaffey College Website, Information Technology Services, Help Desk
Datatel Action Planning Executive Summary
Distance Education Student Survey, spring 2007
383
384
Standard III D. Financial Resources
Financial resources are sufficient to support student learning programs and
services and to improve institutional effectiveness. The distribution of resources
supports the development, maintenance, and enhancement of programs and
services. The institution plans and manages its financial affairs with integrity
and in a manner that ensures financial stability. The level of financial resources
provides a reasonable expectation of both short-term and long-term financial
solvency. Financial resources planning is integrated with institutional planning.
III.D.1. The institution relies upon its mission and goals as the foundation for
financial planning.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution plans and manages to ensure financial stability using the
Institutional Mission1 and Institutional Goals/Ends Policies2 as part of the
foundation for institutional and financial planning. Each year, during their annual
retreat, the Governing Board determines which Institutional Goals/Ends Policies
have already been established and approved through the shared governance process
and will be emphasized during the budget development process. These Institutional
Goals/Ends Policies are included in the Budget Development Handbook3 that is
presented at the faculty and staff budget workshops and used throughout the
institution during the budget development process. These same goals are also
included in the superintendent/president’s transmittal letter in the adopted budget,4
along with the evidence that the resources to reach these goals are included in the
budget.
SELF-EVALUATION
Chaffey College relies on its Institutional Mission and Institutional Goals/Ends
Policies for all planning. The Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional
Effectiveness,5 the institution’s planning vehicle, is driven by the Institutional
Mission. All programs and services, in their annual Program and Services Review
(PSR),6 base their goals and objectives on the Institutional Mission and Institutional
Goals/Ends Policies, design appropriate assessment, and use the evidence collected
385
for future planning. Other planning vehicles based on the Institutional Mission are
the monitoring reports7 presented to the Governing Board based on an annual
planning cycle. These reports are also developed using the Strategic Planning
Framework for Institutional Effectiveness. Whereas in the past these reports were
“brag sheets” they are now evidence based. The Governing Board is very clear
about the importance of the Institutional Mission in planning and in community
relationship building.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.D.1.
III.D.1.a. Financial planning is integrated with and supports all institutional
planning.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The adoption of the Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness5
has strengthened the relationship between financial resource planning and
institutional planning, integrating both to improve institutional effectiveness.
During the budget development process, each manager identifies goals for her or his
area for the year and also reports on how she or he met the goals from the prior
year’s administrative unit outcomes.8 These goals and accomplishments are
included in the adopted budget that is presented to the Governing Board in August
and integrated into the Program and Services Review (PSR)6 process as
administrative unit outcomes. Financial planning supports the annual budget,
which is linked to institutional planning efforts. The institution has incorporated
into the planning process the obligations and needs identified in the annual budget,
Facilities Master Plan,9 Educational Master Plan,10 and annual Program and Services
Review (PSR) into the planning process. The institution develops priorities for
competing needs through input from several processes, including the Program and
Services Review (PSR) process, discussions within the President’s Cabinet and vice
presidents’ meetings, the Budget Advisory Committee, the Technology Committee
and the Instructional Equipment Committee. In addition, the Weekly Construction
Status Committee reviews and forwards recommendations on capital projects and
facilities issues. This process allows all constituents the opportunity to provide
input into plans and budgets.
SELF-EVALUATION
Financial planning supports all institutional planning. It addresses the Institutional
Mission1 by supporting student learning and assuring that all decisions are based on
386
the Institutional Goals/Ends Policies2 designed to develop and enhance programs
and services.
The institution has successfully planned for financial resources to support human
resources and the instructional and service components of the institution. The
success of its planning is evidenced in its compliance with the ratio of full-time to
part-time instructors as well as with the requirement to spend 50% of the expenses
of the institution on instructional salaries and benefits (50% calculation).
Table 1. History of 75/25% Faculty Obligation
Fiscal
Year
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
Obligation
Number
207.0
215.8
223.8
195.8
200.8
Chaffey College
Number/Percent
210.6 (50.92%)
215.8 (52.07%)
229.00 (51.07%)
230.53 (50.07%)
236.04 (50.50%)*
* Estimate
As identified in the Fall 2008 Accreditation Survey,11 approximately 85% of
informed survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that financial planning is
integrated with and supports institutional learning. However, approximately onethird of all survey respondents did not know how financial planning was integrated
with and supported institutional learning. To improve upon this finding, the
director of budgeting services prepared a response that was disseminated to all
employees by the accreditation liaison officer in March 2009. The statement
reiterates many of the processes outlined in the descriptive summary.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for for III.D.1.a.
III.D.1.b. Institutional planning reflects realistic assessment of financial resource
availability, development of financial resources, partnerships, and expenditure
requirements.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
A realistic assessment of the resources available to the institution is regularly
presented to the superintendent/president’s team, President’s Cabinet and College
Council. Since the economic downturn, the Business Services office has been in
frequent contact with state analysts and the Chancellor’s Office to analyze and
387
develop predictions for the institution. The superintendent/president regularly
conveys this information to administrators, faculty and staff through regular
updates and open-session forums.12
Individuals involved in institutional planning receive information about financial
resource availability in the Budget Development Handbook,13 budget development
workshops and the annual budget. These three information resources outline the
procedure used to develop the next year’s annual budget and to detail the current
annual budget. Widespread dissemination of the Budget Development Handbook
and campus-wide open budget development workshops involved all interested
parties in the process.
Financial resources for the institution are allocated among several funds. Each of
these funds has a separate fiscal and accounting structure that supports different
categories of activities that contribute to the Institutional Mission,1 Institutional
Goals/Ends Policies,2 and overall operation.
The unrestricted general fund is the primary operating fund for the institution.
Revenues from this fund support the institution’s primary foundation for
instruction, services to students, fiscal and business processes, maintenance and
operations, and institutional services and allow for the attainment of the
Institutional Mission.
The table below shows that the institution was able to balance the budget during all
years except 2005-06. Statewide, during 2005-06, California community colleges
experienced an unanticipated decline in enrollment and a corresponding decline in
revenue.
Table 2. Unrestricted General Fund 2004-200914
Fiscal
Year
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Actual
Revenue
67,056,045
64,384,413
74,394,440
76,898,622
78,742.208
84,513,363**
Actual
Expenditures
66,329,325
65,587,961
69,990,701
76,836,454
77,347,260
84,513,363***
Surplus /
(Shortfall)
726,720
(1,203,548)
4,406,739
62,168
1,394,948
0
**Includes prior year savings of $7,800,988.
***Proposed adopted budgeted amounts; budget has not yet been set for 2009/2010.
The restricted general fund consists of categorical programs, grants and contracts
that are allocated and used in accordance with regulations stipulated by federal law,
state law, and other funding agencies or entities. The restricted general fund
388
supports Community Services, Student Health Services, the Vocational Technical
Education Act, Matriculation, Disability Programs and Services, Equal Opportunity
Programs and Services, Parking, Federal Workstudy, Staff Development, Staff
Diversity, CalWORKS, TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), State
Instructional Equipment grants, Physical Plant and Instructional Support grants,
Transfer and Articulation, Economic Development grants, Career Technical
Education grants and Nursing grants. The institution’s Title V and STEM grants are
two of the many specially funded programs administered according to guidelines,
rules and regulations that are aligned with the core competencies15 and Institutional
Mission.1
The restricted funds must be used for specific expenditures specified by the funding
source. Grant funds are included in this area. The institution is actively pursuing
grants and the executive assistant to the superintendent/president is assigned
responsibility for obtaining $1,500,000 per year in grants.16 Through the
procurement of grants, the institution has been able to support instructional
programs by purchasing needed equipment, instructional materials and other items
that could not otherwise have been obtained.
Between 2004 and 2009, the institution applied for grant funding and received funds
from grants for a total of $14,420,007. These grants come from a variety of sources.
For example, Chaffey College is a member of a consortium of two-year and fouryear public and private colleges and universities that have been partnered with the
University of California, Riverside since 2003-2004 in a five–year, $11 million grant
(the Copernicus Grant) designed to increase the number of science and math
teachers. Through this grant, improved instructional supplies have been purchased
to support science and math education at the institution. In addition, the
Copernicus Grant has funded the Summer Academy, which focuses on high school
and community college students with the intent of stimulating increased interest in
science and in teaching careers in the sciences. Additionally, in October 2008, the
institution was awarded a $2 million grant to form a 2+2 program in engineering
and engineering technology. California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, is a
partner in the grant. The main goal of this grant is to improve the enrollment in and
the transfer rate of minority students in engineering and engineering technology. In
addition, the grant will provide funding to those science and math disciplines that
support engineering and engineering technology. The institution’s instructional and
service programs have also been supported by fifteen years of one Title III and two
Hispanic Serving Institutions Title V grants. The most recent Title V grant ends in
September 2009.
To meet the costs of new and renovated space construction cost and other selected
major projects, the institution has obtained taxpayer-supported bonds and entered
389
into partnerships. Without these resources, some goals of institutional planning
could not be accomplished. These financial resources are addressed individually.
Measure L is a $230 million multi-year bond that provides the financial resources to
improve the instructional environment through new buildings, renovated buildings,
and providing funds for instructional equipment and materials throughout the
institution.
Partnerships also allow projects to be completed that benefit both the institution and
its partner. One such partnership was formed between the institution and the city of
Chino. The instructional site in Chino was made possible through this partnership.
The land was donated to the institution by the state of California, and funding for
the new buildings was supported in part by the Measure L bond funds and
$3,309,973 in part by the city of Chino. One of the buildings will be used by the
institution during the week to hold classes and the building will also be used by the
city of Chino as a community center on weekends.
Another partnership was formed with the San Bernardino County Board of
Supervisors, which donated $4,000,000 to assist in the development of the Chino
Health Sciences building. This building will focus on the development of nursing
education programs to address the community need for health professionals as
reported on Congressman Gary G. Miller’s fiscal year 2007 Appropriations Request
Form.
A partnership was also developed with OmniTrans to build a new transit center on
the Rancho campus. OmniTrans provided $3,000,000 to the project to improve
student access to public transportation.
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution’s planning processes are realistic and have been so both prior and
subsequent to the last accreditation in 2004. The institution’s planning takes into
account the inconsistent financial resources available from the state. The annual
budget recognizes the anticipated expenditures, prepares for unanticipated
expenditures and equitably distributes financial resources through the shared
governance process. Currently, $1 million of bond funds are set aside annually for
instructional equipment. Board Policy17 states that the institution must maintain a
7% unrestricted general fund reserve. The institution actively pursues additional
financial resources through grant procurement and partnerships with the
community. Constituents involved in institutional planning use the disseminated
information about financial resource availability, anticipated and unanticipated
expenditures, and the development of new financial resources and partnerships to
set and accomplish the goals of the institution.
390
Each year the institution has successfully adopted a budget on time and maintained
the state recommended 5% reserve.4 The budget, finances, and investments are
reviewed throughout the year, including presentations on the quarterly financials,18
investment reports,19 and budget reports20 to the Governing Board for review. Since
2004, the institution has had sufficient financial resources to function within budget
limitations based on the economic health of the state and its ability to support
student learning programs and services.
The economic downturn in the state has affected the institution, requiring that
planning
occur
through
the
shared
governance
process.
The
superintendent/president and Budgeting Services have kept all constituents
informed of the steps taken in dealing with statewide budget cuts. The
superintendent/president and college administrators held two budget forums on
May 13, 2009 and July 8, 2009. Various email communications are sent to faculty,
staff, and students through the superintendent/president’s college update21 and
budget reports, and the institution’s bi-monthly newsletter, “In the News.”22
As part of its financial planning strategy, the institution strives to maximize
available growth funding and mitigate unfunded FTES. As Table 3 below indicates,
with the exception of the 2005-06 fiscal year, the institution has consistently achieved
these goals. Over the past five years, the institution has achieved base
apportionment and capitalized on available growth funding. Furthermore, full
growth funding has not occurred at the expense of unfunded FTES (for example,
applying too much FTES to a given fiscal year). To maximize available FTES
funding, the institution begins most of its summer school sessions in May or June
and ends them in July or August. As long as a section’s census date and the last day
of instruction occur in different fiscal years, the FTES can be counted in either fiscal
year. This allows the institution to monitor the FTES and the state funding for FTES
throughout the year. If it is determined that the state will not fund all the current
year’s FTES, then it can be counted in the next fiscal year where it may be funded.
The result is that the institution does not have large amounts of unfunded FTES and
captures full growth funding.
Table 3. FTES Growth (additional FTES funded) and Unfunded FTES
Fiscal
Year
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Base
13,525
13,924
13,924
14,063
14,287
14,283
Funded
13,924
12,901*
14,063
14,287
14,841
14,283**
Growth
399
(1,023)
139
224
554
0
* Restoration Year
** Estimate
391
Unfunded
FTES
18.00
0
0
33.36
0
400**
PLANNING AGENDA
The institution will continue to clearly identify discretionary expenses and the
annual budgeted costs compared to the estimated available revenue to determine
whether sufficient resources are available. If sufficient resources are not available,
the institution will identify other possible resources, or reduce the estimated
budgeted costs.
III.D.1.c. When making short-range financial plans, the institution considers its
long-range financial priorities to assure financial stability. The institution clearly
identifies and plans for payment of liabilities and future obligations.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Long–range planning, such as enrollment planning, is integrated with budget
development and financial planning throughout the year. Budgeting Services, the
Office of Institutional Research, and the Office of Instruction (and others as needed)
meet and discuss the state budget as it relates to state funds available to support
student learning. The amount of state funds available for current year and future
year growth is analyzed, and the appropriate recommendations are made for the
appropriate number of sections to be offered, the amount of attendance to be
reported, and the timetable of when to maximize funded FTES for student success.
Any recommendations are sent to the superintendent/president for consideration.
Enrollment management information also flows to and from the Enrollment
Management Committee.
The long-term plans and priorities for the institution are reached through the
Strategic Planning Framework for Institutional Effectiveness,5 the Educational
Master Plan23 and the Facilities Master Plan.9 A short-term assessment of needs is
accomplished through the Program and Services Review (PSR)6 process. Financial
planning and budget development take into consideration both the short-term and
long-term needs in relationship to the availability of financial resources. As a result
of this process, the annual budget is conservatively developed with an estimation of
both available financial resources and anticipated expenditures. This process often
results in a surplus to be carried forward in the following year’s budget.
Over 60% of the institution’s unrestricted general fund revenue comes from the
state. The institution is currently financially stable and has been since prior to 2004.
Because of the unprecedented and unexpected state financial difficulties, the
institution is expected to draw on part of its reserves to cover expenditures in the
2009-10 fiscal year. The institution will still maintain the Governing Board’s policy
of a 7% reserve17 (which includes the state recommended 5% reserve.) The use of
financial reserves to meet on-going expenses cannot, however, be maintained on a
392
long-term basis; it does give the institution some time to plan for future year state
revenue shortfalls.
The institution began planning for the state economic downturn in December 2008
during 2008-09 budget development.24 Approximately $2.8 million in reductions
were included in the 2008-09 adopted budget25 and then continued in the 2009-10
budget. The state economy continued to deteriorate and the institution reviewed
and implemented further reductions for the 2009-10 budget.4 The institution will
continue to review the budget in anticipation of possible state 2009-10 midyear
reductions and another economically troubled year in 2010-11.
The institution has included reduced revenues in the 2009-10 budget for the
workload reduction implemented by the State Chancellor’s Office. The institution is
also reviewing the reductions to the state categorical program funding and planning
for those reductions. Estimated reductions for the state categorical budget
reductions are included in the 2009-10 budget.
In addition, since fall 2008, the institution has been carefully reviewing any vacant
positions. The 2009-10 budget includes 22.15 fewer permanent positions than the
2008-09 budget. Vacant permanent classified positions are being filled with
temporary reassignments or budget relief staff instead of filling the positions
permanently. All temporary support staff are only being approved for six months,
pending further review of state funding availability.
The institution has also taken a proactive approach to managing expectations of
faculty, staff and students through communication to assist them with a realistic
assessment of resource availability. The superintendent/president, vice president of
business services and the director of budgeting services spoke numerous times to
different groups on campus within the past year, including President’s Cabinet,
College Council, dean’s meeting, Classified Senate, classified labor management,
faculty labor management, and two college-wide budget forums.
The
26
superintendent/president has sent several campus wide e-mail advisories to
clarify state budget issues and the impact on the institution.
As mentioned earlier, the unrestricted general fund is the primary operating
financial resource for the institution. Approximately 83% of the unrestricted general
fund budget is set aside for salaries, benefits, utilities, insurance, and contract
obligations. This leaves approximately 17% of the unrestricted general fund budget
for continued operation such as institutional supplies, utilities, insurance, contract
obligations, audit and legal costs, capital outlay and other required costs.
The institution’s Budget Services office continually monitors information from the
state and is prepared to adjust the budget mid-year if state financial support is
393
reduced. State resources are predominately based on Proposition 98 and formuladetermined funding base. Proposition 98 provides a minimum guaranteed amount
of funding for K – 14 education. Up until this year, Proposition 98 has been a stable
financial source. Although the formula used to determine the state funding base has
changed since 2004, the state has consistently provided a funding base of
approximately $6 million per year. The exact amount varies from year to year. Both
of these sources have been a stable financial base since prior to 2004. As a result of
the current economic conditions, however, both of these financial sources face
uncertainty. To keep constituents informed about changing state financial resources,
information is disseminated to individuals involved in institutional planning by
email and in meetings. Faculty Senate distributes up-to-date information funding
issues to all faculty by email.
Individuals involved in financial planning determine how to best allocate funding to
ensure that allocation is equitable and meets the most pressing needs of the
institution. Unanticipated expenditures that must be made immediately may
require shifting of funding from one budgeted area to another to prevent unmet
expenditures.
The institution is actively expanding its financial resource base. The State
Chancellor’s Office recommends maintaining a 5% reserve to meet yearly expenses
that cannot be accurately predicted. An example of this type of expense is yearly
enrollment. If the institution does not meet state determined enrollment caps, the
institution will face financial repercussions. Based on Board Policy,17 the institution
maintains a 7% reserve which includes the recommended 5% reserve. One benefit of
this Governing Board policy is that the institution is able to withstand economic
downturns and reduced financial support with less impact on students.
To assure long-term financial stability, the institution has a clear and comprehensive
outline of its future obligations and has identified how they will be met. This
outline is contained in the annual financial audit,27 which stipulates the future
obligations of the institution and the related funding sources. Some of the liabilities
and future obligations include capital leases, building construction and renovation,
bond obligations, vacation accrual and other post-employment benefits (OPEB).
Capital leases are equipment purchases and were part of the annual budget until
2007 when all capital leases were paid. Currently, there are no capital lease
obligations. In general, capital leases are short-term budget items that are used
temporarily and financially planned to be paid for within a specified time period.
Building construction and renovation costs are both short-term and long-term
obligations. Short- and long-term expenses are met through the same financial
resources. Those costs, funded through Measure L (general obligation bonds), are
394
paid by taxpayers with financial arrangements handled by San Bernardino County.
Redevelopment funds are provided by the cities in the college district and are listed
as redevelopment agencies in the annual audit. The state provides Capital Project
Funds and Scheduled Maintenance Funds.
Vacation accrual obligations are met by more than one method. In the short-term,
all vacation expenses are covered by the employee’s annual salary and this
obligation is met on a “pay-as-you-go” basis. Over the long-term, the Vacation
Liability Fund28 is an established fund that is reviewed annually by outside auditors.
The annual audits over several years confirm that there are sufficient funds to meet
annual needs, a cost that can be estimated since there is a maximum allowable
vacation accrual. Since the vacation needs are met through the annual salary,
vacation liability funds are not used and the interest generated is allowed to accrue.
Expenditures for other post-employment benefits (OPEB) are continued for eligible
retirees until age 65. In the long-term, the institution sets aside funds in the Self
Insurance Fund to meet this obligation. Since 2004, 68 employees have retired and
an estimated 54% of faculty, staff and management are expected to retire before the
next accreditation in 2016. In compliance with Government Accounting Standards
Board 43/45,29 (GASB 43/45), an actuarial study is undertaken every other year by
the Total Compensation Firm. The Total Compensation Firm has completed the last
several actuarial studies and is familiar with the financial condition of the
institution. This actuarial study is required every two years. The most recent study
was completed in June 2009.30 As per required regulations, in June 2008 the
institution contracted with Futuris31 and established a public entity investment trust
program for the provision of retiree health and welfare benefits to participating
employees. The Futuris plan is an irrevocable trust set up to meet future obligations
of the institution, but currently the institution is not required to place funds in this
trust. This liability will not appear until the 2008-2009 audited budget.
The Internal Service Funds Group accounts for the long-term liability and risk
related issues of the institution. These areas are generally mandated by the
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and require the institution to
address future debts on current year financial statements. This group includes the
Self Insurance Fund and the Vacation Liability Fund.28 The institution has
consistently paid into the Self-Insurance Fund. The vacation liability fund no longer
requires contributions because that obligation has been met.
The institution has insurance policies to cover various areas of liability and a
property management policy, which are discussed in III.D.2.c. The institution is a
member of the Southern California Schools Risk Management Joint Powers
Authority (SCSRM JPA) public entity risk-sharing pool for property/liability and
worker’s compensation plans; and the Southern California Schools Employee
395
Benefits Association Joint Powers Authority (SCSEBA JPA), a public entity risksharing pool for employee benefit plans.
Reserves have been set aside for a technology replacement budget to replace, repair,
and upgrade technology equipment, and the institution is committed to keeping a
7% reserve as a contingency fund for unexpected costs. The 7% reserve is especially
important because of the budget crisis in California and the anticipated funding
reductions to community colleges.
SELF-EVALUATION
To assure financial stability, the institution has clearly identified its future
obligations for short-range and long-range priorities as detailed in the descriptive
summary. Both short-term and long-term obligations and liabilities have been
addressed in a thoughtful and comprehensive manner. The budgeting process is
designed to take into account both the anticipated needs and the future obligations
associated with those needs. In addition, the unrestricted budget currently has an
enrollment reserve for state budget uncertainties and a GASB 45 reserve for other
post-employment benefits (OPEB). These are in addition to the funds set aside to
meet other future obligations, such as the Self-Insurance and Vacation Liability
funds. The Annual Financial Report27 and the yearly Independent Auditor’s
Report27 indicate current compliance with the GASB requirements as well as
compliance for prior years.
The institution’s annual audit report and Annual State 31114 financial report are
presented to the Governing Board annually. Fianancial reports18 are also presented
to the board quarterly.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.D.1.c.
III.D.1.d. The institution clearly defines and follows its guidelines and processes
for financial planning and budget development, with all constituencies having
appropriate opportunities to participate in the development of institutional plans
and budgets.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Allocation of funds to the instituion follows a district-wide funding process that has
been in place prior to 2000. The financial planning and budget processes are
documented in the annual Budget Development Handbook,32 the Adopted Budget4
and other reports such as the Institution’s Investment Policies.33 The Budget
396
Development Handbook provides a consistent process for the development of the
annual budget, future budgets and financial planning.
The Budget Development Handbook is distributed at the staff budget workshops
and is available to all faculty and staff on the institution’s Z drive. This handbook is
developed by Budgeting Services, with input from adminstrators, and then
reviewed and edited by the Budget Advisory Committee. The committee is trichaired by the vice president of business services, the faculty senate president and a
classified staff member. This handbook contains a brief overview of the state
budget, guidelines for developing the budget, the institution’s budget philosophy,34
the Institutional Mission,1 Institutional Goals/Ends Policies,2 budget roles and
responsibilities, the budget development calendar35 (which is board approved),
considerations for permanent positions, information on fixed costs and discretionary
costs, a chart of acccounts and a glossary.
Additional financial planning is done throughout the fiscal year through the review
of periodic budget and financial and investment reports. In addition, during the
2008/2009 fiscal year, the Superintendent/President’s Office, Office of the Vice
President of Business Services, and the director of budgeting have made numerous
presentations on the state and institution’s budget to all governance bodies and have
solicted information from these constituents.
Financial planning and program planning are integrated through the annual
Program and Services Review (PSR) process.6 All of the institution’s programs and
services participate in the PSR process, writing a brief self-study addressing the
program’s relationship to the Institutional Mission1 and the Institutional
Goals/Ends Policies2 including outcome statements (SLOs36 and AUOs8) that are
assessed for institutional effectiveness. A summary of evidence determines planning
for the next year. The annual Program and Services Review Committee includes
representatives from all areas of the institution. The committee’s responsibilities are
to review each PSR report and to make recommendations for the funding of
requests. All funding requests must be linked to the Institutional Goals/Ends
Policies.2 The PSR Committee recommends additions, increases, or reductions to
program
budgets.
These
recommendations
are
forwarded
to
the
superintendent/president and to all governing bodies for prioritization and funding
considerations. Recommended requests for instructional equipment are forwarded
to the Instructional Equipment Committee, whose members prioritize the items to
maximize funding. Recommended requests for computer items and software are
forwarded to the Technology Committee where members prioritize and fund
requests based upon the Technology Replacement Plan.37 Supply requests are sent
to the Budget Advisory Committee for prioritization and funding consideration.
During the 2006/2007 fiscal year, the institution began identifying a small funding
source for recommended supplies. This amount was increased in 2007/2008.
397
Requests for permanent faculty and classified staff positions recommended by
program and services review are forwarded to the President’s Cabinet for review
and discussion. This group determines how many permanent positions can be
added for the next year’s budget based on prior discussions by the
superintendent/president, vice presidents, Human Resources, Budgeting Services,
and the deans. Positions are prioritized accordingly. The number of faculty
positions authorized includes consideration of the 75/25% faculty obligation. The
75/25% faculty obligation requires districts work toward improving the ratio of fulltime faculty (75%) to part-time faculty (25%). The State Chancellor’s Office sets the
annual goals for each institution for the full-time faculty obligation. The regulations
for this obligation indicate that the requirements can be waived if inadequate COLA
is provided. The obligation has been waived for 2009/2010. The 50% law is
considered for both faculty and classified positions. The 50% law requires that 50%
of institutional expenditures in certain categories must be spent on salaries and
benefits for classroom instructors and other instructional faculty and staff.
SELF-EVALUATION
The Institutional Mission1 and the Institutional Goals/Ends Policies,2 which are
annually reviewed and updated by the Governing Board, are the foundation for
budget development. The institution’s Program and Services Review6 process
provides recommendations for additional full-time faculty and staff, equipment,
facilities modifications and other budget augmentations.
The Governing Board and the administration are committed to the open budget
concept; access to the budget and to the development process being available to all
faculty and staff. It is the responsibility of the Budget Advisory Committee, the
President’s Cabinet and administration to review the priorities and make
recommendations accordingly.
This year, the state is experiencing unprecedented economic struggles and
uncertainties. California community colleges are not only dealing with budget
shortfalls for the 2009/2010 fiscal year, but also the current 2008/2009 fiscal year. In
addition, the state is experiencing cash flow issues which may also affect the
institution’s cash flow. The state budget is projected to be in the deficit $41.6 billion
by the end of 2009/2010 if changes are not implemented.
The institution is reviewing its budget to explore possible options for reductions to
the 2008-2010 budgets. Should the state fiscal situation and the proposed state
budget change, these changes will be incorporated during the budget development
process.
398
Additionally, the institution has 59 campus-wide committees not including
subcommittees of the Faculty Senate/Curriculum committees or task forces that are
constituted on a short-term basis. A committee book38 is maintained in the Faculty
Senate office and updated throughout the year with an annual update in June. The
committee structure allows for input from all constituents on planning issues the
institution values.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.D.1.d.
III.D.2. To assure the financial integrity of the institution and responsible use of
financial resources, the financial management system has appropriate control
mechanisms and widely disseminates dependable and timely information for
sound financial decision making.
III.D.2.a. Financial documents, including the budget and independent audit,
reflect appropriate allocation and use of financial resources to support learning
programs and services. Institutional responses to external audit findings are
comprehensive, timely, and communicated appropriately.
III.D.2.b. Appropriate
institution.
financial
information
is
provided
throughout
the
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution utilizes a computer based integrated financial management system
database (Datatel) that includes a student services module, financial module and
human resources/payroll module. The financial module allows the institution to
monitor budgets and to track expenses and revenue. The annual budget is
developed within the budget management section of the financial module. Once the
annual budget is adopted by the Governing Board, it is rolled over from the budget
management section into the general ledger, making funds available for use. The
system has built in controls in that specific budgets are accessible to the budget
manager assigned to the program or department. Budget managers are able to
review their budgets and expenditures, give input, and approve their requisitions
online. Furthermore, the system does not allow requisitions to be entered unless
sufficient funds are available.
The institution contracts with an outside certified public accounting firm each year
to perform annual audits27 for the institution. The Chaffey College Foundation is
also included in the audit; although it is a separate entity, it is considered a
component unit of the institution. The audit is conducted in accordance with
399
auditing standards generally accepted in the United States and the Governmental
Auditing Standards applicable to financial audits. The auditors express an opinion
on the institution’s financial position by examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. When the
auditors conclude that in all material respects, the institution’s financial statements
fairly present the institution’s financial position and changes in financial position
and cash flows, the Governing Board has an indicator that management has
conscientiously performed their responsibilities.
Upon conclusion of the audit, the Annual Financial Report27 for the institution is
prepared. The report, including any findings, is presented to the Governing Board
in an open public session for review. No significant audit exceptions have been
identified since the 2004 accreditation. For example, in 2007/2008, the institution
received an unqualified opinion (clean) on both its financial statements and federal
awards. The institution did receive one state award audit exception that was not
considered to be a material weakness. This was a finding that no procedures existed
to monitor the number of concurrent students enrolled in certain courses claimed for
apportionment. The institution has created procedures to correct this finding and it
is expected that in the 2008/2009 audit,39 this recommendation will be considered
implemented. The institution has consistently responded in a timely manner to
minor audit recommendations it has received.
Since 2005, the institution has worked towards fiscal independence from the County
of San Bernardino. In order for the institution to obtain fiscal independence, an
independent auditing firm was hired by the county in 2007 to evaluate the
management and accounting controls of the institution. The objective of the
procedures was to determine the effectiveness and the efficiency of the institution’s
financial management and accounting controls related to human resources to
evaluate the newly implemented payroll module within the institution’s current
Datatel system. Upon review of the auditors’ report, the San Bernardino County
superintendent of schools and the San Bernardino County auditor/controller sent a
joint letter40 to the Chancellor’s Office recommending that the Chaffey Community
College District be granted fiscal independence status.
As of July 2008, the institution is responsible for processing payroll checks, cash
management with the County Treasurer's Office and maintaining its own financial
books. In 2007/2008, the institution established an Internal Audit office and hired
an internal auditor. The internal auditor conducts both financial and program
audits throughout the year and assists in implementing any necessary changes in
processes.
Based on its shared governance philosophy, the institution disseminates financial
information to the Governing Board, budget managers, faculty and staff throughout
400
the fiscal year. The Budgeting Services office prepares investment reports,19 budget
monitoring reports41 and financial statements42 on a quarterly basis and presents the
information to the Governing Board at their monthly board meeting. The
institution’s investment policy,33 which describes acceptable investments, maturity
parameters and credit quality and concentration restrictions, is updated annually
and presented to the Governing Board as well.
As mentioned earlier, the Budgeting Services office begins the budget development
process in January. Two budget workshops are held, and all staff and faculty are
invited to participate in open dialogue. Budget documents such as the Budget
Development Handbook,43 chart of accounts, budget forms, and a listing of all
budget managers and their areas of responsibility are located on the institution’s
shared drive (Z drive), which is available to all employees. A tentative budget is
approved by the Governing Board in June to allow spending in the subsequent fiscal
year, and the proposed budget is typically adopted in August.
The institution’s Budget Advisory Committee meets on a monthly basis and has
representation from faculty, staff, and administration. In addition, the director of
budgeting services gives periodic budget updates to College Council, President’s
Cabinet, deans’ meetings, the Enrollment Management Committee, and other
committees as requested. The superintendent/president holds “Q & A” sessions
open to all staff and faculty to attend. Open dialogue is encouraged, and various
topics are discussed such as facilities and budget updates. Budget managers receive
communication by email regarding their monthly expenditures and account number
changes.
SELF-EVALUATION
The annual independent audit findings27 are addressed by an internal auditor who
works with the appropriate department to ensure that any findings are corrected
accordingly. The department writes a response with the corrective action that will
be put into place to remedy the finding. The internal auditor performs periodic
reviews of the area to ensure that the new procedures are in place.
The cost of carrying out the institution's annual operating objectives is summarized
yearly in the Annual Budget Report.4 The final budget is adopted dependent upon
state and local funding, which in turn is dependent upon student enrollment. The
budget covers the hiring of new and replacement full-time faculty as well as new
and replacement classified staff, the development of competitive salary schedules
and fringe benefits, and some budget requests approved for funding through the
Program and Services Review (PSR)6 process.
401
The California Community Colleges Annual Financial and Budget Report (CCFS-311
Report)14 appropriately reflects the revenues and expenses of the institution,
including the college's compliance with the 50% law for direct instructional
spending.10 The annual CCFS-311 Report reconciles with the audited financial
reports of the institution and provides the operating framework for the institution’s
annual adopted budget.
The annual adopted budget4 and financial reports are presented to the Governing
Board on both a quarterly and annual basis. The Budget Development Handbook44
provides detailed information regarding the budget development process and
timelines to ensure completion. Management, faculty and staff attend the budget
development workshops each year to receive updates and learn about necessary
changes.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.D.2, III.D.2.a. and III.D.2.b.
III.D.2.c. The institution has sufficient cash flow and reserves to maintain
stability, strategies for appropriate risk management, and realistic plans to meet
financial emergencies and unforeseen occurrences.
Given the uncertainties of the state of California’s current economic condition,
careful financial planning is vital to ensure fiscal stability. The current situation has
created major challenges for the institution and all other California community
colleges. With the late passage of the state’s 2008/2009 budget, the changes in the
apportionment payments, and the anticipated reductions to this year’s budgets, the
institution has been forced to take action to ensure they are able to meet both its
current and future financial obligations.
The institution’s primary funding source is based upon apportionment received
from the state of California. In addition to apportionment, the institution also
receives categorical and some restricted funds through the state. The institution
receives its share of local property taxes through San Bernardino County and
student enrollment fees are paid by the students during the registration process.
In 2002, the Governing Board adopted policy17 and risk management strategies to
maintain a 7% unrestricted general fund reserve, 2% above the California
Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office’s recommendation (see Table 4 below).
This conservative approach has positioned the institution well to endure the current
crisis. Yet even with the healthy reserve, other measures will be taken to ensure the
institution’s cash flow needs are met.
402
Table 4. Unrestricted General Fund Reserves 2004-2010
Fiscal Year
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Reserve
11,245,395
10,041,846
14,445,610
14,507,753
15,902,701
8,101,713
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Budgeted
The institution has planned to cope with potential financial emergencies by
providing for reserves that have been sufficient to assist with current year
expenditures, balancing the budget while still maintaining the board’s mandated 7%
reserve. Development of the 2008/2009 budget included reductions of $2.8 million
in anticipation of the state’s budget reductions to community colleges. Because of
the late passage of the state’s budget, the college’s apportionment for July, August,
and September were withheld until the first week of October 2008. During this time,
Accounting Services and Budgeting Services prepared and reviewed cash flow
reports. The institution was able to meet all its obligations during this time without
borrowing any funds, but if the funding was withheld any longer, additional
measures such as temporarily borrowing between funds and/or a constitutional
advancement from the County of San Bernardino would have become necessary.
The passage of the 2008/2009 budget included a new deferral of apportionment
payments to community colleges. The state will withhold $250 million in general
purpose apportionments, which normally would be paid in January, February, and
March until April, May, and June.
In the past and in 2009-2010, to assist with cash flow needs, the institution has
participated in a pooled Tax Revenue Anticipation Program (TRANS) with the
California Community College League. This has allowed the institution to secure
short-term financing up to $5 million at competitive rates. (The county did not grant
the institution a constitutional advance.) In addition, the institution has a resolution
that authorizes interfund borrowing between all funds held by the San Bernardino
County Treasurer for the 2009-10 fiscal year. Clearly with the present economic
uncertainty any prediction on sufficient cash flow may be obsolete the next day.
Appropriate risk management strategies for the institution are detailed in the
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP),45 which was developed and implemented in
June 1996. The EOP was written by a subcommittee of the institution’s Health and
Safety Committee and is currently going through the annual review process.
The institution is a member of the Southern California Schools Joint Powers
Authority (SCSRM JPA) public entity risk-sharing pools for property and liability
insurance. For 2008/2009, the institution’s limits for property and liability are
403
$100,000 and $500,000 respectively. The institution also has additional property and
liability coverage through independent carriers.
The institution’s worker’s
compensation coverage is provided through California State Association of Counties
(CSAC)46 and the institution’s limit is $125,000. The institution’s limits are reviewed
annually and they have increased from year-to-year as deemed necessary by the
institution. The limits that have been established appear to be sufficient as the
institution has not had excess claims over the years, and most of the institution’s
claims have been paid through the Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The institution’s
Risk Management department prepares an annual report of all claims submitted to
the institution, which is submitted to the Governing Board as an item of information.
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution has sufficient cash flow of funds and reserves to meet the
institution’s financial obligations, emergencies and unforeseen occurrences.
However, economic times are uncertain as indicated in the open letter to the
community47 from the superintendent/president stating, “Under the direction of the
Governing Board, the administration, faculty, and staff of Chaffey College have
worked collaboratively to mitigate the cuts to the college stemming from the
unprecedented state budget crisis. Because of the millions of dollars in budget cuts
we have sustained, our goal has been to stretch existing resources as far as possible
to serve as many students as we can. In spite of these efforts, the severity of the cuts
has also forced us to reduce direct service to students, including:
•
Fewer numbers of available classes in which students can enroll
•
Reduced service hours for essential functions such as Admissions & Records,
Financial Aid, and Counseling
•
Increased student traffic in academic support areas such as Library and Success
Centers
•
Longer processing time for routine requests such as counter service, transcript
requests, and financial aid processing
We know these efforts have created frustration for everyone—especially our
students. We will continue to provide as much service as our funding permits, and
we are using this time to review processes and procedures to see if there are creative
alternatives that would work more efficiently during this difficult time. Proof of this
can be seen in the fact that we have reached an all-time high with our enrollment—
we are serving more students (in excess of 22,000) with fewer classes and less
support than ever before.
We are confident we will weather this crisis and emerge a better, stronger college
because of it. In the meantime, we ask for your patience and understanding with the
404
reductions we have made. Rest assured that we will restore classes and services as
soon as additional state resources are made available.”
Since its inception in 1996, the Emergency Operations Plan45 has been implemented
for all emergency incidents including utility shutdowns, emergency evacuations and
emergency planning drills. The most recent use of the plan occurred during the
October 15, 2009 drill when the institution participated in the Great California
Shakeout,48 the annual statewide earthquake drill.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.D.2.c.
III.D.2.d. The institution practices effective oversight of finances, including
management of financial aid, grants, externally funded programs, contractual
relationships, auxiliary organizations or foundations, and institutional
investments and assets.
III.D.2.e. All financial resources, including those from auxiliary activities, fundraising efforts, and grants are used with integrity in a manner consistent with the
mission and goals of the institution.
DESRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Board Policy and administrative procedures specify the delegation of authority and
responsibilities and identify individuals charged with specific responsibilities.
The Vice President of Business Services has primary responsibility for the
management and control of the fiscal resources of the institution. The vice president
works closely with Budgeting Services and Accounting Services, as well as with
outside professionals, to ensure that the institution adheres to all legal and policy
guidelines. The institution provides effective oversight of all areas of finance.
In addition, when the institution became fiscally independent in July 2008,49 the
institution hired an internal auditor to assist in developing and implementing a
comprehensive internal audit plan for the institution that tests and evaluates
compliance with federal, state and institutional policies and regulations, and
determines the accuracy and reliability of accounting, financial, and software
systems and other operating controls. The internal auditor conducts internal audits
and performs special audits as directed by senior management or the Governing
Board to discover and prevent fraud resulting from misappropriation of assets or
funds.
405
Fiscal management of the financial aid program is shared by the Accounting
Services, Budgeting Services, and the Financial Aid office. The Financial Aid office
works with the Accounting Services and Budgeting Services offices to develop and
maintain the budgets for the financial aid program. While the Financial Aid office
prepares the awards for student financial aid, the Accounting Services office draws
down and reconciles funds. Accounting Services, budgeting Services and Financial
Aid also work collaboratively to ensure that funds are spent in accordance with all
federal and state requirements.
The Financial Aid Office procedures are written in accordance with federal and state
regulations regarding financial aid application procedures and deadlines, student
eligibility, payment procedures, overpayment recovery, account requirements,
default prevention, and satisfactory academic progress. The procedures are located
in the Financial Aid Policy and Procedure Manual in the Financial Aid Office.
Since the last accreditation visit in 2004, the financial aid awards nearly doubled as
did the number of students served.
Table 5. Financial Aid Awards and Students Served, 2004/2005 to 2008/2009
Academic Year
Aid Awarded
Students Served
2004/2005
$7,553,791
3,546
2005/2006
$7,898,141
3,823
2006/2007
$8,895,710
4,153
2007/2008
$11,232,851
5,190
2008/2009
$14,525,116
7,340
The grant application process is administered by the institution’s executive assistant
to the superintendent/president in the Office of Institutional Services. This office
works closely with the Office of the Vice President of Business Services, the director
of budgeting services, the disbursing officer, and the internal auditor to insure that
all grants are approved by the Governing Board and that the expenditures of grant
resources are consistent with the terms and conditions of the grants. All grants are
subject to annual audit by the granting agencies and require annual grant reports to
the funding agencies.
Grants and externally funded programs follow grant administrative procedures
developed by the Office of Institutional Services. These internal procedures for grant
administration are designed to ensure that all externally funded programs follow
the established procedures and support the Institutional Mission.1 The procedures
address both program and budgeting issues, and support Institutional Goals/Ends
Policy 8.4.3,50 which states, “The District will seek and obtain a minimum of $1.5
million annually in external grants.” The Office of Institutional Services monitors all
grant funding and presents an annual grant monitoring report to the Governing
Board.
406
The Budgeting Services and Accounting Services offices provide fiscal oversight for
grants and externally funded programs such as federal and state
categorical/restricted programs. Each externally funded program has its own
unique budget code to assure that income and expenditures can be tracked specific
to that program. Each program is assigned an account representative from the
Accounting Services or Budgeting Services office to review grant requisitions and
monitors the grant. Any reports for the externally funded program are completed
and reviewed by staff in one of these offices. The Budgeting Services and
Accounting Services staff work closely with the program coordinator to ensure that
program funds are spent according to the grant agreement and that all grant and
categorical/restricted program reporting is done in a timely manner.
Auxiliary organizations, foundations, and student clubs including the bookstore, the
cafeteria and the auxiliary donation accounts follow the institution’s general
investment policy to provide oversight for auxiliary services. The Foundation has a
separate investment policy51 and finance committee that reviews funding and
investments for the Foundation. The Foundation is held as a separate entity from the
institution and has a formal, written agreement with the institution articulating roles
and responsibilities of each.
The Foundation has been very successful in its fundraising efforts by raising over $1
million in the past five years from telethons. These resources are used to fund
student scholarships, the scholarships for the Online to College program and Fund a
Dream Program and many other student scholarship programs and activities.
The Accounting Office performs the bookkeeping for auxiliary services, which
including the bookstore and cafeteria, as well as the auxiliary donation accounts for
the Foundation. There is separation of duties within the Accounting Services and
Budgeting Services offices in order to provide appropriate internal controls.
Student clubs follow the financial guidelines in the Student Club Handbook,52 which
was developed over the years with the assistance of independent auditors and is
updated annually. This handbook is reviewed with the clubs at the start-up meeting
held by Student Activities at the beginning of every year. Accounting Services
performs the bookkeeping services for the clubs and assists the clubs in complying
with the handbook guidelines and generally accepted accounting principles.
A report of institutional investments and assets for unrestricted and restricted
general funds is provided by the San Bernardino County Treasurer’s Office as part
of the county’s investment pool, with a small remaining amount of funds in local
banking institutions. The institution’s General Investment Policy33 and Construction
Funds Investment Policy53 delineate acceptable investments and percentage
limitations to ensure portfolio diversification. The construction funds are invested
407
with Morgan Stanley and Payden Rygel based on policy guidelines. The vice
president of business services presents to the Governing Board a quarterly
investment report19 that describes changes in the market value of investments by
fund and the annualized yield for the quarter ended.
SELF-EVALUATION
By monitoring program expenditures and revenues and ensuring that all required
reports are submitted on time, Accounting Services and Budgeting Services have
successfully monitored financial aid, grants and externally funded programs,
Auxiliary and Foundation programs, and investments by monitoring program
expenditures and revenues and ensuring that all required reports are submitted on
time. The online approval and requisitioning processes in the Datatel software have
enabled Accounting Services and Budgeting Services staff to monitor program
expenditures efficiently and effectively.
The institution prepares quarterly financial statements42 and quarterly investment
reports19 on all investments for review by the internal auditor, the
superintendent/president and the Governing Board on all investments to ensure
that the institution is in compliance with all government and Education Code
guidelines regarding investments.
The institution uses all financial resources in a manner consistent with the
Institutional Mission and Institutional Goals/Ends policies of the institution,
including financial resources from auxiliary activities, fund raising efforts and
grants. The Institutional Mission1 is supported by Institutional Goal/Ends Policy
8.4,2 which holds the institution accountable for providing appropriate fiscal
strategies integrated with institutional planning to address growth, facilities,
technology, changing economic conditions, and other external environmental
factors. The institution organizes key processes and allocation of resources to
effectively support student learning.
Monitoring reports are prepared and reviewed by appropriate senior managers to
assure compliance and are presented to the Governing Board based on an annual
schedule. These reports link financial resource integrity to the Strategic Planning
Framework for Institutional Effectiveness.5 Goals related to the Institutional Mission
are assessed, and evidence is collected and evaluated for next year’s planning. All
financial resources (auxiliary activities, fundraising efforts and grants) are included
in the institution’s annual independent CPA’s audit27 of the institution’s internal
controls, revenues and expenditures and financial statements to ensure that all
resources are used with integrity in a manner consistent with the Institutional
Mission and goals of the institution.
408
As of the last accreditation in 2004, the institution has been approved through the
Program Participation Agreement process by the U.S. Department of Education to
administer federal funds for the highest approval period of six years. In addition,
the institution has also been approved by the California Student Aid Commission
through the Institutional Participation Agreement process to administer state
funding for its highest approval period of four years. The high approval standards
are issued to the institution based on the integrity of its Financial Aid Office and
programs. The Financial Aid Office assists students in applying for financial aid;
promotes financial aid awareness; awards aid in an honest, fair, and equitable
manner; and administers the financial aid programs to ensure compliance with
federal, state and institutional policies. The institution offers a variety of federal and
state programs, including but not limited to BOG (California Board of Governors)
Waivers, FSEOG (Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant) and
Federal Workstudy.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.D.2.d. and III.D.2.e.
III.D.2.f. Contractual agreements with external entities are consistent with the
mission and goals of the institution, governed by institutional policies, and
contain appropriate provisions to maintain the integrity of the institution.
DESRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution enters into a wide variety of contractual agreements, including but
not limited to legal, architectural, and professional services; facilities leases; and
construction, field, independent contractor, and grant contracts.
The
superintendent/president and the vice-president of business services are authorized
to execute all contracts. Additional signing authority has been designated to various
individuals by contract type. The Governing Board has designated authority to the
superintendent/president, vice president of business services, the director of
purchasing services, and the purchasing contracts manager for contracts up to
$50,000. All contracts greater than $50,000 must be Governing Board approved.54
Public works contracts greater than $15,000 are publicly bid. Materials and
maintenance service agreements are publicly bid when the estimated purchase is
greater than $76,700. The institution typically uses standardized contractual
agreements, approved by legal counsel, that allow for control of the terms and
conditions as well as the execution of the agreements. The director/manager of
purchasing serves as the institution’s resource to interpret policies and regulations
related to purchasing, and assures legal compliance, risk management, and good
business practices that maintain the integrity of the institution. When necessary, the
institution seeks legal advice from an independent legal firm or San Bernardino
409
Office of County Counsel’s Office. Grant contracts ensure compliance with legal and
program guidelines.
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution’s contractual agreements reflect the integrity of the Institutional
Mission1 and Institutional Goals/Ends Policies,2 based on the fact that all external
contracts are administered according to contractual goals and that conditions and
are in compliance with Governing Board policies and procedures. In the annual
audits27 by an outside CPA firm, which include a review of purchasing procedures55
and statistical testing of expenditures for contracts, there have been no exceptions to
contractual agreements with external entities noted.
Additionally, contractual agreements are governed by institutional policies.56 The
institution continues to follow appropriate federal, state, and local laws as well as
institutional policies when entering into contractual agreements with external
entities. Contracts may be terminated by the institution for convenience or cause.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.D.2.f.
III.D.2.g. The institution regularly evaluates its financial management processes,
and the results of the evaluation are used to improve financial management
systems.
DESRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution’s Accounting Services and Budgeting Services offices and the Office
of the Vice President of Business Services work together to review the expenditure
requests of every department and program. No requisitions are approved without
the approval of a manager and Budgeting Services office confirmation that funds
are available.
On October 15, 2007, the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools and the
Office of the San Bernardino County Auditor/Controller-Recorder recommended
to the California Community College Chancellor’s Office that the institution be
granted fiscal independence status effective July 1, 2008.40 Attaining fiscal
independence status required the institution’s full utilization of its integrated
software system. This change improves the effectiveness and efficiency of the
institution’s financial management systems by having all human resources and
payroll information on one system and eliminating double entry of data.
410
The institution developed a checklist to evaluate successful implementation of the
process, which was approved by the California Community College Chancellor’s
Office. The evaluation tools used by the institution are used by the state as a model
for achieving fiscal independence.
Results of the evaluation encompassed in the Fiscal Independence Plan49 identified
the needs for new hardware and Datatel software to support the fiscal
independence implementation process, including but not limited to two new
servers, additional check printers, and a Human Resources/Payroll Data Marts
module. Four new positions were also identified and approved. The positions are
system specialist, human resources administrator, payroll administrator, and
internal auditor. All equipment and software were purchased and new positions
filled as a condition of approval for fiscal independence.
Additionally, the institution evaluates its management process by contracting with
an independent accounting firm to conduct an annual audit. The institution is also
subject to periodic audits performed by outside agencies such as the Internal
Revenue Service, the State Board of Equalization, and other local, state and federal
agencies.
In conjunction with the audited financial statements,27 the independent accounting
firm provides the institution with an Independent Auditor’s Report27 with
recommendations for operational enhancements and improvements.
SELF-EVALUATION
The financial management systems were improved by the successful
implementation of fiscal independence. The institution’s annual independent audit
has consistently stated that the financial statements fairly and accurately, in all
material respects, reflect the financial position of the institution. In addition, the
internal auditor performs routine and periodic audits of programs and ensures that
the programs and financial management processes are operating as designed.
Evidence is used for planning for the future.
PLANNING AGENDA
No specific plan for III.D.2.g.
III.D.3. The institution systematically assesses the effective use of financial
resources and uses the results of the evaluation as the basis for improvement.
411
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The institution uses several tools to systematically assess the effective use of
financial resources, as shown in the following examples.
The Carver Model for Policy Governance,57 which was adopted by the institution in
2000, guides all processes of governance for the institution. An important aspect of
the model is the systematic assessment of all processes, programs and services to
make evidence based decisions for the future. Since 2008, the vehicles used are
monitoring reports presented to the Governing Board by managers. Budget
monitoring reports58 are presented for the assessment of financial resources. Every
monitoring report addresses the Institutional Mission1 and the Institutional
Goals/Ends Policies2 related to the topic presented. The manager identifies criteria
for assessment gathers evidence, and suggests applications of the evidence for
future planning. Financial resources are also assessed on a more immediate basis.
The Budgeting Services office reviews and reports budget minus balances to the
appropriate department managers monthly. All of these reports assist in assessing
the financial health of the institution.
Systematic assessment comes also through the institution’s Program and Services
Review6 process, completed by every program and service annually. In effect the
process links financial resource assessment through the Strategic Planning
Framework for Institutional Effectiveness5 by tying resource requests by each
program and service to the Institutional Goals/Ends Policies of the institution.
Financial resources are also evaluated through a comprehensive audit system that
allows for the use of results for improvement.
Financial Audits
The institution undergoes a series of both external and internal financial and/or
compliance audits throughout the year. The California Education Code requires the
institution to contract with an outside independent certified public accounting firm
to conduct an annual audit. This enables the institution to address any findings that
may affect the effective use of financial resources. In addition to the annual audit,
the institution is subject to periodic audits performed by outside agencies such as
the Internal Revenue Service, the State Board of Equalization, the County of San
Bernardino and other state, local, or federal agencies. In addition, in 2007/2008, the
institution established an Internal Audit office and hired an internal auditor.
Annual Audit
The annual independent audit27 is completed before December 31 of each year for
the prior fiscal year. The CPA firm conducts an interim visit in the spring and then a
final visit in the fall for the prior fiscal year. The firm may also conduct follow-up
412
work during the summer. Any findings and recommendations are addressed in the
audit exit interview with Business Services staff. The institution’s responses to these
findings are included in the final audit report27 that is presented to the Governing
Board in January.
The CPA firm conducts an extensive audit of the institution’s financial statements
and reviews internal controls over such functions as payroll, human resources,
accounts payable, the disbursement process, accounts receivable, cash handling
procedures, cashiering, associated student funds and other auxiliary accounts. In
addition, the Chaffey College Foundation is a separate legal entity, which is required
to have an external audit annually.59 The audits of the Foundation have found that
its financial statements are fairly stated and that it is operating in accordance with its
bylaws and policies. There have been no significant findings from the audits
conducted for the Foundation. The CPA firm is also required to review the
institution’s categorical programs, performing specific tests to ensure that the
program requirements are being properly followed. In prior years, auditors’ reports
have stated that the institution’s operations and cash flows have complied with
generally accepted accounting principles. The few findings have not been
significant, and all findings have been addressed and corrected as recommended.
Review for Fiscal Independence
In 2008, as a requirement for fiscal independence status, the County of San
Bernardino contracted with an independent CPA firm to conduct a review of
management and accounting controls to assure that the institution was prepared to
become fiscally independent. The study’s objective was to determine the efficiency
and effectiveness of the institution’s financial management in the following areas:
Governing Board policies and procedures, Accounting Services procedures and
systems, control environment, payroll/personnel and procedures, data processing
control procedures and internal audit staff. After the successful review,60 the county
recommended that the institution be granted fiscal independent status on July 1,
2008.
Internal Audit Office
As one of the requirements for fiscal independence, the institution established an
Internal Audit office and hired an internal auditor. The internal auditor conducts
financial and program audits and works with faculty and staff to improve processes.
The internal auditor also works as a liaison to the independent accounting firm and
other outside auditors.
SELF-EVALUATION
The institution has made significant efforts to link the use of financial resources to
the Institutional Mission1 an

Chaffey College - California Competes

Transcription

Similar documents

Bulgarian Accreditation Services CERTIFICATE OF ACCREDITATION

Vital Signs week 2 - Love God

Please tag my deposit account to my new card.

A Whole New World: Welcome to Michigan Tech

sistema cetys universidad - Imperial Valley Renewable Energy Summit

TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 13 REGULAR

(2 pm) A. CONVENE IN OPEN SESSION

LPU Batangas vicinity map - Lyceum of the Philippines University

Campus SBB

open space master plan, university of toronto, st. george campus