 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
HLC/NCA Accreditation at Phoenix College
|
|||||||
|
|
HLC/NCA Accreditation at Phoenix College |
||||||
|
|
HLC Criterion 3 Meeting Notes December 9, 2003 The third meeting of the HLC Criterion 3 Subcommittee was December 9, 2003. In attendance were Mike Mitchell, Chair; Liz O’Brien; Dana Fladhammer; Joy Fitzpatrick; Don Richardson; Pam Rogers; Kristin Anderson; Marian Gibney; Lily Kang; Kory Merkel; Vaswati Ghosh (New Member); Tara LaCasta-Revell (New Member); and self-study co-chair Brent Jamison. The two new members were introduced, and the committee accepted the suggestion that a student member (who has already volunteered) would be useful and acceptable. The meeting began with a presentation from the HLC Lead Writer Nancy Matte and the HLC Editor, Patricia Zaccardo. Each criterion has its own writer; the writer for Criterion 3 is Don Richardson. The plan is for the writers to prepare drafts as the study progresses and to hand off their material to the lead writer, Nancy Matte, in the summer of 2005. Nancy and Patricia distributed copies of a self-study template in outline form, p. 4 of which focuses on Criterion 3. This is based on the NCA list of core components. The aim is for each criterion sub-committee to brainstorm types of evidence to use to demonstrate satisfaction of each element. This template is based on the old criteria; the new criteria workbooks are due in December. Each member is to receive a copy from Mike Mitchell. Both Paradise Valley and Mesa are using the new criteria. The core values will not be changed; only the criteria will be changed, and the changes will probably be minor. Nancy and Patricia disclosed that their goal is to stimulate and facilitate the sub-committee writers to write on an on-going basis, rather than save their material until the end and then assemble it. The transition from the abstractions to the data is up to each sub-committee and then it is up to the writer to present it effectively. Patricia and Nancy stated that the tables of contents of prior self studies are often very revealing in addition to be quite different and individualized. Indeed, some are difficult to follow. Since our report must be both paper and web-based, we need to focus on reader orientation of both. They suggested that sub-committees look for 3-5 best examples to support each element being examined, rather than trying to be all inclusive. The focus should be not only on the process (evidence gathered) but also on the evaluation of its success. Demonstrating a zeugma, Nancy said we should be opening the doors to evidence and to opportunities for improvement. Following the presentation, Mike distributed copies of a chart he has created which lists each college department with various columns indicating mission statement, assessment, report availability, modifications, etc. Although we will archive all of our evidence, we will not use it all in the final report. The material will be filed in data archives on the web page. There will also be a library of hard copies. The issue of confidentiality
was raised. Any confidential material will be stored electronically
and securely until it is deemed appropriate to be made available to
the public. Mike proposed two meetings per month in the spring and two per month during the fall. After considering logistics and temperaments, the following schedule of meetings for spring, 2004 was agreed on: Monday, January 26 1:30 Monday, February 23 1:30 Wednesday, March 10 1:30 Monday, April 5 1:30 Monday, April 19 1:30 Monday, May 3 1:30 All meetings are to be in the Library Multi-Purpose Room.
Respectfully submitted Don Richardson |
|
Updated: 6/2/04 Disclaimer. Send comments about this website to webmanager. |