Introduction

Newsletter                    

Resources

Committee Portal

Accreditation Timeline

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

NCA Criterion 2 Committee

Meeting Minutes

January 26, 2005

Present: Bonnie, Ann, Wilbert, Betsy, Loman, David, Janet

Referring back to 2B, Ann gave a hand out to remind us how we had set it up. Looking at all of this there are recommendations for change in wording. Instead of saying facilities, say Physical; instead of academic resources say academic support.

Looking at 3C and D, there seems to be a possible overlap. To make sure we don’t lose part of resources, we can combine the 4 sections (financial, physical, human, and academic support) into 3, without taking out any information. This would help us make sure we are not overlapping with Criterion 3 and focus more on resources. So, do we combine into three or keep as four? The committee does agree that academic should be addressed; it is ok if we mention some of the same things because they will be done so in a different way, feel it should stay as four. The academic resources that we want to highlight are: TSG (technology strategic plan), impact of Title V, LTD and development of online and hybrid courses, technology, media and library expansion. Focus is how has the bond impacted our facilities, what did we do with that? It is also important for us to show what we are planning for the future. A good example is the new associate dean of technology; possibly one of his priorities can be to work on a plan.

Looking at 2C – Evaluation and Assessment Processes. The five main areas and the evidence for those areas are:

1.      Evaluation processes provide evidence meeting goals

(Looking at documents and the processes)

2. Effective systems for collecting, analyzing, using information

• Enrollment management team being put together to analyze data, recruitment input
• Personnel, move in right direction but not sure if totally addressed – pg. 63, 96 self study
• Links in communication has improved in sharing organizational information, ex: grievance process – students now know more what the process is as well as faculty; have processes on paper but need to make better use of it. faculty review
• FEP – committee chair – faculty executive council with District – PC can’t change this
• If we’re not collecting, analyzing and using information about faculty, then how are we going to improve teaching and learning?

3. Appropriate data and feedback loops

Course evaluation standards (standard form being developed by IR)

Help with feedback
Compare data

4. Periodic review of academic and administrative subunits

• Program reviews- recommendations are sometimes made with no administrative response
• Culinary Café came about from program reviews by Sylvia Phillips, administration did respond
• Annual reports, budget reports, etc, but no response. There was an attempt to combine in 03-04  by DI.
• Overall lack of awareness
• CET example

5. Adequate support for evaluation and assessment

• Assessment work allows for release time, contracts (Georgia G. – PC institutional research resource, helped with planning)
• District workshops on assessment
• Conferences related to assessment
• Secretarial support – website
• Institutional Research – has full staff now, went from one person on release time in ’96 to 3.5 in ‘05