A1c Template for Team Responses to the Accreditation Standards
1. Review the Specific Standard Section
Standard III: A.1.c.
Faculty and others directly responsible for student progress toward achieving stated student learning outcomes have, as a component of their evaluation, effectiveness in producing those learning outcomes.
2. List of Team Members working on this Standard
Tom Blank, Bob Bradshaw, Lyle Engeldinger, Linda Evers, Kathleen Johnson, Heather McCarty, Tina Miller, Deb Parziale
3. Read and Review Self-Study Questions and Suggested Source of Evidence
Major reference source for analyzing accreditation standards:
“Accreditation Commission Self Study Guidelines, August 2004, Guide to Evaluating Institutions”
http://www.ohlone.edu/org/instruction/docs/200408accredcomm-guidetoevaluatinginstitutions.pdf
4. Locate and Review the Evidence. Include Suggested Sources of Evidence from the “Guide to Evaluating Institutions” as well as additional engagement activities conducted by your Team, such as team meetings, special meetings of existing groups, special focus groups, open forums, surveys, etc…)
List of evidence being reviewed and engagement activities being conducted:
Union contracts Faculty Handbook Board of Trustees Policy |
5. Descriptive Summary
Draft a brief one or two paragraph description of what the College is doing to meet the standard.
-
As per the union agreement, there is no official process in connecting student learning objectives or success with faculty and others. The evaluation process for faculty is timely and generally consistent. Its components include a written peer evaluation by another faculty member selected by the instructor, written student evaluations, a self evaluation and a class observations and written evaluation by the instructor’s dean. It is important to note that faculty are involved in course outline development and engage
in a technical review process, of which a primary goal is to ensure that the learning outcomes, course content, and instructional methodology reinforce and support one another. Moreover, proposed course outlines are subsequently
subject to the review and approval of the Curriculum Committee. As course outlines specify unit value, scope, objectives,
and course content, the evaluation of such shows a direct link to the significant role that faculty play in the integration of student learning outcomes through their curriculum and teaching practices.
The staff evaluation process is clearly defined in the collective bargaining agreements with the specific unions, but has no student success component. Additionally, it is evident that most permanent staff members are not being regularly evaluated
unless there is a problem, and hence the evaluation process is likened to a disciplinary act rather than a regularly scheduled process.
6. Integration Review
Is there an expression of our College Values? Is there a contribution to our College Goals? Is there an expression of the Accreditation Themes?
7. Self Evaluation
Provide a rating of how well the College is addressing the specific standard using this scoring rubric:
1. Superior: College has worked in this area and considerable improvement is noted
2. Satisfactory: College has taken some actions to address the area and some improvement is noted.
3. Needs Improvement: College has not adequately addressed the area.
Rating: n/a
Draft a one or two paragraph explanation for this rating based upon your assessment of the College’s activities in relation to the standard. Pay particular attention to the quality of our involvement and interventions since the last WASC self-study report.
|
As the evaluation process is a union issue, there was no action suggested or taken from the previous study.
8. Planning Agenda
If the assessment process does not identify areas in need of change, simply state, No Plan Required
If the assessment process identifies areas in need of change, a planning agenda for improvement should be developed. The planning agenda should identify the activities and processes the institution should implement, or is implementing, to produce improvement. How will these plans be incorporated into the evaluation and planning processes of the institution? How will the outcomes of this planning agenda improve student learning and foster institutional improvement in general.
Adapted from: “Self Study Manual,” August 2006, A Publication of the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges Western Association of Schools and Colleges; and City College of San Francisco Self-Study Template
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.