Introduction

Newsletter                    

Resources

Committee Portal

Accreditation Timeline

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

HLC Criterion 3 Meeting Notes

October 4, 2004

            The HLC Criterion 3 Subcommittee met October 4, 2004.  In attendance were Mike Mitchell, Chair; Joy Fitzpatrick; Kristin Anderson; John Arle; Geof Eroe; Ofelia Canez; Brent Jamison; Gileana Raheem; and Don Richardson. 

            Mike began with an aim of finishing 3c today, starting 3d, and reviewing the draft of 3a.

            Kristen reported that occupational programs are falling behind in the technology area due to the costs of new programs.  As a result, graduates are not always up to date.  Is this captured in a report?  Are any other areas technologically behind?  This requires documentation.  Mike reported that the funding for WEB-CT has been restored; it was initially not funded.  At the BRC meeting it was a supplemental budget request.

            Mike asked what will be the result on technology if the bond fails to pass?  Isn’t there a danger of not keeping up.  The faculty need to be trained, and this training costs money.  What is the impact on the numbers of students? 

            Mike reminded everyone that our report on criterion 3 will not be all inclusive.  It will rather be somewhat concise, referring to a few best practices and indicating that full documentation will be available on line or in the resource room. 

            Some assignments were spread among the committee members to forestall boredom.   However, following completion of gathering of evidence, the work of the committee will be focused primarily on drafting the report.

            Mike arbitrarily announced that we will continue with 3d at the next meeting (October 18, 2:00 P.M.). 

            The committee members then engaged in a free-form discussion of the 3a draft brainstormed by Mike and Don Richardson and drafted by Don.  Several suggestions for clarification and elucidation were offered which Don will try to incorporate into the next draft and which the committee will subsequently review.  Mike reminded everyone that even after the committee approves the write-up, further changes may be made by the head writers.

Respectfully,

Don Richardson