HLC Self-Study Steering Committee

HLC Self-Study Steering Committee

Minutes

March 14, 2008

1:30 p.m.

Boardroom, Metro Campus

The following committee members were present.

Steering Committee Chairs:

Mary Cantrell

Lynn Greene

Mary Walker

Recorder:

Helen Barlow

Subcommittee Co-Chairs:

Terri Alonso

Amanda Blackman

Jan Clayton

Marvin Cooke

Carol Carr

Randy Dominguez

Paula Eggert

Nikki Givens

Gary Hunt

Pam Kannady

Valerie Pratt

Jona Schweinberg

Sharon Wright

The following members were not present:

Leanne Brewer

Carol Messer

The steering committee tri-chairs have received some subcommittee draft report addenda already and expect to receive the rest during or after spring break. Their goal is to have a complete first draft of the report available for review by the steering committee members by the last meeting on April 18. If the complete first draft is not ready by then, the tri-chairs will need to determine a way to seek input about the first draft during the summer. The tri-chairs need steering committee input on the draft before sharing it with the entire college by late June.

The subcommittee chairs were asked to comment on strengths and challenges relating to their criterion and core components found during the course of their research. The steering tri-chairs want to be aware of these to be sure to include them in the draft report. Also, if known, the tri-chairs can include in the report any new initiatives developed to address the challenges.

Criterion 1: Amanda Blackman reported for criterion 1 that systemizing communication within the college remains a constant challenge. Also, though work on adopting a shared governance policy has begun, there is a challenge with determining how classified staff will fit into it. A big problem for the criterion has been getting anyone to talk about procedure changes instituted after the Northeast Campus grade scandal. Amanda has been unable to get any piece of evidence or documentation relating to how the college improved record security immediately afterward. She would like to have a copy of the instructions given to supervisors on the procedural changes that were instituted. She knows that Web for Faculty began near that time so that faculty would be the only ones responsible for grade assignment and tracking of grade changes could be done electronically. Amanda will continue to seek documentation or evidence of changes in procedures regarding this matter. Jan Clayton suggested that Gary Crooms may be able to discuss when transcript audits began; Jan said there are regular audit reports and protocols for all directors of enrollment services to follow. Mary Cantrell indicated that because the challenge of a lack of communication has been identified now and also in previous self studies, it will be cited as a challenge again in the first chapter of this report.

A strength discovered in the investigation is that the college used a very inclusive process in developing both its mission and core values. The Vision Committee membership that did the work included faculty, professional staff and classified staff. Also, there is a commitment by the college to regularly revisit the mission and core values to reevaluate them if needed. Another strength discovered is the expansion of services to underserved populations by the Dean of Diversity and Civic Engagement.

Criterion 2: Carol Carr noted that an original challenge for the criterion was being unable to identify how the college arrived at starting new initiatives and projects. After interviewing a number of people including Dr. McKeon, they were able to see how new projects link back to previous projects, previous planning initiatives and previous surveys. Planning has not been as unstructured as was thought and is tied to the budget with improvements in APB. Improved communication could allay fears about how new initiative are developed and funded. While the college’s funding is tied to the state budget and FTE, a great strength is that the college also has a local funding base. When state funding drops, we still have local funding to support us. Another challenge for the criterion to address is work force development enrollments versus university-parallel enrollments and how the two are tied to the different funding methods. It’s important to determine what actions the college should take to make sure our funding doesn’t drop. Mary Walker noted that adding the position of Alliance Program Coordinator (Mike Autrey) could now be viewed as a strength when considering the budget.

Notes from the interviews with Dr. Campbell and Dr. McKeon are still to be posted in the electronic resource room. Mary Cantrell hopes that these interviews will help answer questions raised after the last self-study about the Strategic Vision implementation plan and its timeline and goals.

Criterion 3: Gary Hunt noted that we have number of new programs being implemented. What he had considered a weakness during the course of his research is that while the college has made a big effort to assess quality assurance in the programs, little is being done with the assessment results. Perhaps the new programs are responses to those assessments. It would be important to correctly establish a link between a past program assessment and a new program developed from the results of that assessment. A discussion of why the college applied to the Assessment Academy followed and mention was made of Paul Johnson’s narrative of the history of the Institutional Effectiveness Council that is posted in the electronic resource room.

Terri Alonso noted the challenge that for all of the various course formats we offer (i.e. fast track, weekend college) we don’t have a meaty process for assessing them. A strength found would be that we do have a number of different course formats. Mary Walker noted that a previous retention committee has analyzed the effectiveness of second eight-week courses. Information from that committee’s work should be available. It might be found on the State Regent’s web site.

Criterion 4: Sharon Wright identified the weakness that there had not been a coherent approach to developmental studies, as a program. This weakness is being addressed now with regular meetings of developmental faculty, more so in reading and writing courses than in math. The groups recommend that we replace CPT testing with COMPAS, which has a diagnostic package that integrates with BANNER, the new ERP system. Also, the researchers would like to see developmental studies regarded with the same emphasis as the honors program, as a systematic program. That regard may come with the implementation of Achieving the Dream. The criterion attempts to address the component of valuing a life of learning from the different angles. One is the assessment process. Another is the number of various service learning programs that exist. A third is that students and faculty make presentations at conferences and conventions. Sharon referred to the tri-chairs’ list of questions/suggestions asking for examples of programs that do not have measurable outcomes. The conclusion is that this weakness is primarily at the course level more in university-parallel programs than workforce development. Discipline objectives are better defined than course objectives. The process of holding faculty discipline meetings is helping solve budget questions as evidenced by the work of the biology faculty.

Paula Eggert reported that Mike Rusk is working on developing an “intellectual property” statement. There will be an open forum in April seeking input with a draft produced by the summer. Examples of evidence for core component 4d include the series of ethics forums this semester, FIG grants and literacy classes.

Marvin Cooke listed as weaknesses how the college has changed the LRC system and how it is used; and that the college has several learning programs that result in narrowly defined student learning but few programs for life-long learning. A number of life-long learning programs for staff (reading groups, CTLC, Master Teacher, MAGIC, Cookies and Cogitation) are driven by faculty, not the administration. A discussion ensued regarding changes in textbook policies being considered by the college. Also discussed were how textbooks and course materials have become simplified and today’s students have less reading and comprehension skill and a smaller knowledge base than students of previous eras. The committee voiced concern that as instruction uses more technology we must be careful to assure it does not move away from quality and that students who do not have access to technology do not suffer. Perhaps the self study should recommend that faculty be organized to discuss these types of challenges to learning. It was agreed that issues of bookstore pricing and policies be addressed in the self-study report. The tri-chairs will determine where this issue should be mentioned.

Criterion 5: Nikki Givens noted a strength discovered in her investigation is that in addition to national and residual ACT and GED testing TCC offers over 1,100 exams to students and the community. ACT and GED testing represent only ten percent of the testing we offer. A weakness she found was with communication in TCC’s collaborative efforts with high schools and the concurrent enrollment program. Communication needs to improve when recruiting concurrent enrollment students regarding what is expected of them to earn college credit. Valerie Pratt shared plans of the College Staff Council to create “Ambassadors” made up of staff members, part of whose job would be to help with recruitment. This program could help with communication in TCC’s recruiting efforts. FERPA issues come into play when dealing with parents, caregivers and high school counselors. Faculty need to have a way of knowing when students are concurrent, or when students have signed waivers that give the parents the right to discuss their records. The information about access to students’ records will become a part of the Web for Faculty process. The BANNER system may be able to address this problem, as there’s a way to denote FERPA waivers on file.

Jan Clayton noted as a weakness that while employees are empowered to create new ways of doing things, there is a lack of financial and physical resources to implement them. Also, while there is great deal of civic engagement and community service going on, there is difficulty in cataloging all existing programs and adding new programs to the list. This creates problems such as duplication of efforts.The Institutional Effectiveness Council will begin working to develop a matrix of all initiatives and look for overlaps and gaps and where to merge efforts for better efficiency.

Valerie reported that the Staff Council, the Faculty Association, Dr. Crooms and Dr. McKeon have drafted a letter of intent to “embrace a philosophy of shared governance.” This letter will be signed at the next general faculty association meeting in April by Dr. McKeon, the president of the faculty association, the chairman of the staff council, the chairman of the board of regents, and a student government officer. This letter is a collaborative effort on the part of the groups involved to establish a process of shared governance that will evolve and become defined in the future. Valerie reported a weakness for the criterion is the current lack of student involvement, which the “Ambassador” program would also attempt to correct.

Logistics Committee: Randy Dominguez and Casey Ashe are working to organize the electronic resource room. The physical resource room at the Southeast Campus is being prepared. The surplus equipment in the room has been removed. Its floor has been tiled and walls painted. Media will be installing internet drops for the computers it will have. A temporary wall will be built to split the room into two areas. Jennifer McMahon and her interior design students will select and order furniture. The goal is to have these tasks completed by July. Randy and Casey will be working to post items still needed in the electronic resource room. Pam Kannady and Jona Schweinberg will be working to collect documents for the physical resource room in SEC3216. The last steering committee meeting may be held in that room.

The tri-chairs asked for comments about the first draft of chapter one of the self-study report, which has been posted in the electronic resource room. After noting how well written the draft is, Amanda Blackman offered comments on eight discrepancies she found in her review of the draft and enumerated them to the tri-chairs. The other members of the steering committee were encouraged to read the opening chapter and to provide their feedback via email.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.