Introduction

Newsletter                    

Resources

Committee Portal

Accreditation Timeline

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

HLC/NCA STEERING COMMITTEE
Phoenix College
Wednesday, April 14, 2003 - 3:00 p.m.
Administrative Conference Room

Meeting Notes

Present: Darrell Carnahan, Queta Chavez, Karen Christen, Corina Gardea, Marsha Hopkins, Brent Jameson, Cassandra Kakar, Emily Lander, Nancy Matte, Jessie Mireles, Mike Mitchell, Jeremy Moreland, Denny Sheehan, Marian Tadano, Patricia Zaccardo

Note Taker: Adriana Loera

Brent Jameson greeted those in attendance. He noted that there were several handouts at today's meeting. The handouts are the draft of the elements that will be contained in the Self-Study report. Everyone is to review them and submit any suggestions or comments to Adriana Loera by Wednesday, April 21. After comments are received and reviewed and any necessary changes are made, the draft will be printed and sent out to the HLC for review.

The Design of the Self-Study Report is what the HLC wants us to submit to demonstrate to them that we are prepared. Once they receive the design then we will receive specific feedback. For the design, the fit came from conversations that were held to see how the process shapes the report. When speaking of the plan we are speaking of the Design. The commission has mentioned that the timing on the design is not critical, it is more of a tool than anything else.

The graph is used to help solidify the understanding of the process. The question was brought up of whether or not the expectations of each element should be added to the graph?
The Structure of self-study committees was created by Patricia Zaccardo. It gives us a picture of who is involved and of the overlaps that exist. Only titles are given because names are not needed. Dean Tadano mentioned that what is important is to make sure we agree with the duties of each group. Looking at the structure it was asked who is the Self-Study Executive group? The Executive group: Marian T., Marian G., Brent J., and Marsha H.

The Self-Study outline is what NCA says "may become the table of contents" but most likely there will be changes to the outline. Looking at the outline it was noted that section XV. Federal Compliance and Third Party Comments was added after the NCA conference in Chicago.

The next topic that was covered was that of communication. It was agreed by all that we need to get the word out! We need to let people know what is going on. Some of the ways that this is being done is through the all college meetings, in the fall and spring. Also, events like the Ice Cream Social. There needs to be more involvement from those on campus and more knowledge of the process.

One idea related to communication that was presented was to have a slogan or theme that is connected to the Self-Study logo. It was agreed that a deadline needs to be set for the slogan to be agreed upon. Also, it is important to make an effort to start fall off by saturating the campus with HLC information, we need to have a Fall Kickoff!

Looking at the topic of a newsletter, handouts were given of Mesa's Accreditation newsletter as an example. The newsletter should also be started by fall, when the students return. There will be an online version of the newsletter. This on-line version would have a link for people to respond to the newsletter or to any questions that we may want to ask. It was asked whether we should set up a site on the LAN for feedback or content of the newsletter. It was agreed that it should be published at least twice a year.

Next the committee was given a handout of the sample questions for the faculty survey which is to be put out early fall. It was commented that staff also needs to be able to respond to the survey. It was also questioned whether or not adjunct should also receive the survey. Along with the survey, we are looking at there being an online resume where people can go to update their information.

Criterion Chair Reports:
Denny S. - committee continues to meet, they are becoming more confident and are beginning to narrow the items for the criterion. A few concerns that he has are the question of the distinctiveness of the college, how are we distinct? He noted that his committee was having some difficulty with the word unique and coming up with a solid definition for it. Therefore, they moved to the word distinctiveness. His other concern is the emersion of the campus in recognizing the college mission. Should the mission, values, goals be displayed around campus? Marsha commented that as a committee they are not responsible for carrying-out these things, only for letting others know so that they can get done. Also, the values are a major thing, they were there in 1996, but they have not been addressed since, we really need to look at getting the values out there again. Marian T. reiterated that it is the responsibility of each chair to identify these gaps and take them to the correct person, and that they need to be organized about collecting information. Brent J. mentioned that this committee is the venue where these concerns are brought and then from there they are sent out to the correct people. President Gardea gave the example regarding the mission that during the summer the mission could be posted in all the classrooms and other areas on campus. On this Brent commented that the mission also needs to be more visible on the Phoenix College main web page.

Darrel C. - In order to help in the process a comprehensive organizational chart of the college (which does not exist) is needed. He will begin to create one; he will ask Estrella Mountain for a copy of theirs to use as a guide. A concern was, will this organizational chart then need to be compared with the one from the 1996 Self-Study? Will the changes need to be noted, explained, showing where we were then and where we are now?

Mike M. - his committee is in the process of examining the last core component. He will also need a final version of the different departments on campus. When reporting on the district programs, to what extent are the evaluations compared to what other colleges say? Should our comments about the program be the same as theirs because it is the same process, relationship, at all the colleges? (Example: MCLI).

Karen - her committee has made a lot of progress and has addressed all the questions, but notes that the progress is kind of limited by the people on the committee. A gap, and possible concern, is how different people on campus evaluate and document those evaluations of the things they do. (Example: NFO, which is very well evaluated.) Mike M. noted that at this point we are an institution that is in the process of growing into that. President Gardea noted that we need to look at how the information collected is fit back into the curriculum.

Queta - a gap that she has come across is the concept of how, as an institution, we assess and evaluate our effectiveness across programs? How do we begin to research if we do this? We need to have goals to know what we are evaluating. Her committee has started gathering information. They are finishing core component 5c and are leaving 5d until the fall. In 5a looked at learning and analyzing how we serve, plan and document. Does our current strategic planning fit into the plans and goals? In 5b they began getting a sense of matching, looking at occupational documentation on internships, but they haven't asked about academic aspects. In 5c when looking at how an organization shows its integrity, the committee thinks it is how our mission matches theirs. Denny commented that you measure integrity by meeting what your mission is, expanded to mission documents. An example of this is the Head Start program at OSW, this shows the educational, social and economic aspect.

President Gardea summed the meeting up by commenting that in looking at the distinctiveness of Phoenix College, we need to note that this college has never been segregated. This speaks to the inclusiveness and accessibility of Phoenix College. It also demonstrates that we have not lost our commitment to educational rigor. She also commented that we need to offer opportunities for people to express their concerns. An example is that we are stewards of resources. The last thing mentioned was that we need to begin now to identify those people that will be the leaders for the next self-study in 2016.

The last issue looked at was the future meeting for the steering committee. It was agreed that two meetings a semester would be fine. Marian T. noted that as things come up the door is always open for more meetings if necessary.

Meeting adjourned.