Introduction

Newsletter                    

Resources

Committee Portal

Accreditation Timeline

Criterion Committees:
Criterion 1
Criterion 2
Criterion 3
Criterion 4
Criterion 5

NCA /HLC
Criterion Chair Retreat
Hilton Garden Inn
June 11, 2004

Meeting Notes

Agenda:
9:00 – 9:15                                  Welcome      
9:15-10:00                                  Presentation
10:00 – 11:30                              Faculty Survey: Finalize questions
11:30 – 12:30                              Lunch
12:30 – 2:00                                Group discussion of issues
2:00 – 2:30                                  Break
2:30 – 3:45                                  Writing Exercise
3:45—4:00                                  Wrap up

Notes:

The meeting began with Brent welcoming everyone and allowing President Gardea and Dean Tadano a few minutes each to welcome and address the group. President Gardea mentioned that it is important to get meetings set up with Dianne Nyhammer for the fall, and also with the inside and outside community of Phoenix College.  Marian T. mentioned that Mike Murphy is working on a sample shell for the hard copy of the final Self-Study report. Marian G. and Nancy M. are assisting him in this process.

Then Marian G. presented a PowerPoint presentation which went over what would be covered during the day and showed what had been accomplished to date and what was upcoming, based on the Self-Study timeline. The presentation began by having everyone look at what successes we have achieved.

Some successes that were noted:

Marian T. noted that the leadership was a success due to how each chair has taken charge of their area and what is needed.

Queta C. mentioned that all the people from the different areas of the campus gathering together on the committees has been good, and the fact that we do know what we need is important also.

Denny S. mentioned that everyone on campus pretty much knows about the self-study, and that the set-up of the plan, with the writers, is a good thing.

Mike M. commented that the committees are excellent, have great people and they accomplished all they thought they would.  

Karen C. appreciates the support from administration, says the committees are great and she feels really good about the work, the events are effective (All College Meeting, Ice Cream Social, etc.) since most everybody seems to know about the Self-Study.

Dr. Gardea noted the passion and interest demonstrated shows how much people care about PC

Ann R. commented that she was really excited about the chair – committee relationship

After discussing the successes Marian G. went into a brief description of the HLC /NCA web page noting that the page will now be maintained by Adriana L. and that all minutes or documents that the chairs wish to have posted on the web page should be emailed to Adriana L. A portal has been created on the web page which will need a username and password to be accessed. The portal will be used to begin storing all the information that will actually be on the final Self-Study Report. This page will be accessible by the steering committee. Also, the PCPerspective Newsletter, which will be published twice a semester, will be posted on the website. Discussion is open as to any suggestions for the title or content of the newsletter, so if anyone has any input please let Adriana L. know.   

After this Marian G. discussed the goals of this retreat, which were:

• Finalize the faculty survey
• Explore Common Themes
• Have at least “something” written for each criterion.

She then went into the progress that has been made to date, based on the self-study timeline and those things that still need to be done. She noted that for fall of 2004, we need to have the team competencies to HLC, which is where we request those people we would like to have come for the site visit, and where we compile the issues that we will need help on. For spring 2005 the Self-Study draft needs to be completed. It was agreed that when the draft of the Self-Study Report is complete there needs to be a general meeting, or a forum with all the committee chairs, to show the report to the campus, posting it on the web beforehand, so that people can read it and then at the forum have a discussion. It is also important to ask department chairs to review the draft and give input about it. We need to ask people to evaluate the report, but in doing this we need to be very precise when we ask people, in what it is we want done. It was also suggested that any suggestions or changes made to the report be noted in the portal so that the process of development can be seen.

The next thing that was discussed was some common issues, such as data collection, faculty survey (which will be looked at in-depth later), chair/writer relationships, writing and editing, communication, etc. Based on this list a few things that were brought up were: Dr. Gardea mentioned that it is important to make sure that the timeline is comprehensive and includes all the activities that we have done and will be doing, that there is a good range of diversity on the committees, and asked if committee chairs need an administrative resource or liaison added to the team? The suggestion was made by Karen C. to have focus groups next year with faculty, students, committees, or based on a topic. A common issue that was discussed was whether or not the committees should be opened up again in the fall for new members. Yes! These new members should be used to try to fill the gaps of those areas not represented on the committee.

The faculty survey was looked at next. A few main ideas that came up were that timing for the survey is a huge issue, the survey needs to be focused more, and whether the survey should be sent to adjunct faculty. Thinking about adjunct faculty an idea was to have a meeting in appreciation of adjunct, as has been done before, and at the meeting give them a survey to complete that is focused more towards them. The idea of a resume page for faculty to keep their resumes updated on the web was mentioned. It was then suggested that on this resume page, we could have certain questions that as part of their resume faculty answer, allowing us to get that information without having to actually place it on the survey, this would help focus and shorten the resume. This resume page would be voluntary. One of the concerns for the survey was that the questions are too open-ended. A suggestion for this was that the questions be formatted into a statement, which can then be answered with a yes, no, or don’t know. This would allow the survey to be in a bubble sheet format, making it easier to fill out and possibly encouraging a greater response. The final thoughts on the survey are that Brent J. and Marian G. will work on reformatting the questions to use the yes, no format on a bubble sheet, with a line under each question so that people can write comments if they wish. Also, the survey will have a cover page telling what the goal of the survey is and what is trying to be achieved.

After this the following issues were open for group discussion:

1. Chair/Writer relationship – It appears that there is a disconnect between some chairs and their writers, they are not connecting or communicating well. The role of the writer is not clear, does the writer or the chair write the draft? Writer’s role in the committee needs to be clarified, need to communicate to the writers what is wanted and where to put emphasis. It is also expected that the writer will need to do some research. The chairs need to be able to rely on the writer, but the writer needs to be comfortable enough to say what is lacking. The lead writer is working with the writers to train them. Some recommendations are that there be a chair/writer retreat, that the roles of each are clarified, and that as soon as possible there be a group meeting with the chairs, the writers, the lead writer and the editor; this meeting needs to be open, with no agenda, hopefully in the first week of school or even at the day of learning. Also, that there be a meeting after this with just the chair and their writer with the lead writer, this can be done during the week of accountability. Some suggestions were that the writers should attend the next NCA conference, that the draft be a co-draft written between the writer and the chair and that the writer/chair retreat should be scheduled for late fall of 2004 or early spring of 2005. Some concerns mentioned were the inexperience of some of the writers and how to guide the writers.

As a side note to this topic the outline for the report was discussed as there was some items that were not clear. When looking at the outline, committees should only do the parts that they see relevant. One way to look at the whole process is as an argument; state your points to win the argument. It is also important to remember to talk about the past, present and future when writing the report. Each criterion needs to focus on section C of the outline.

2. Data Collection - One of the big concerns for this area is what to do now that Jeremy M.  is gone. Damita is in his place temporarily, but since she is Title V should there be a person hired in that department to work on NCA material only? Another concern brought up was that many have not received the reports that they requested. For this the suggestion was made, and agreed on, that all requests be sent to Brent J. to chart and keep track of and send out, this way one person knows all information requested, when it was requested and when it was received, and it is easier to keep track of documents that were not received. At the criterion chair meeting new requests can be given and information on other requests dispersed. Another concern is exactly what kind of data are we collecting, and to what level of detail (hard copy?). It was agreed that only summary narratives are necessary for the chairs to receive, but that as we receive the information to inform those that give it to us that they should have the full information from 1996 forward, in their offices or know where they are. The result of this may be that we recognize that we need to keep better records.
3. Evaluation vs. Description – In this section everyone felt that it had already been discussed enough except for the issue of the PC Values. It was decided to take the values that were in the 1996 Self-Study and present them the strategic planning committee to see if we could get values approved or updated and be able to use them officially.

From the discussion a few other issues arose: one is how best do you balance what the District Office is doing, which impacts PC, with what PC is doing specifically? That is, do we, can we, use a District Office example as evidence of meeting a criterion? It was also decided that for the chair meetings, they should be held twice a month, and should have an agenda, beforehand, for the meetings.

After the discussion each person was given a packet that contained all five criteria with their criterion statements and core components. This packet is to be used as a starting point for writing out the information that has been gathered. Each criterion is divided into three sections, Information/Data Collection, Decision Making, and Recommendations. Once the packet was explained everyone choose one of the core components and began filling out the form. Then each chair read which component they choose and what they had written. Everyone was given the chance to read what they wrote and comment on what was written. 

In wrapping up the meeting, Brent re-capped what we had done and some important decisions that had been made: