EVALUATION REPORT
Leeward
Community College
96-045 Ala Ike
Pearl City, Hawaii 96782
A Confidential Report
Prepared for the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
This report represents the
findings of the evaluation team that visited Leeward Community College from
October 23-26, 2000
Dr. J. Christopher McCarthy,
Team Chair
Leeward Community College
Comprehensive
Accreditation Team Evaluation
October
23-26, 2000
Team Members
Dr. Chris McCarthy
(Chair) Mr. Scot
Spicer (Assistant)
Executive Vice President,
Associate Dean of Institutional
Instructional Services and Instructional Services
Glendale Community
College Glendale
Community College
1500 N. Verdugo Rd. 1500 N. Verdugo Rd.
Glendale, CA 91208-2289 Glendale,
CA 91208-2289
Mr. John Ayala Dr. Robert Griffin
Dean, Learning Resources
and Library Vice President, Student Services
Fullerton College De
Anza College
321 East Chapman Ave 21250 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Fullerton, CA 92832-7061 Cupertino, CA 95014
(714) 992-78061 (408) 864-8989
Ms. Mary Ann Breckell Dr. Barbara Moir
Vice President,
Administration Dean of Instruction
Los Angeles Trade
Technical College Northern Marianas College
400 West Washington Blvd. PO
Box 1250
Los Angeles, CA
90015-4018 Saipan, MP 96950
(213) 744-9058 (670) 234-0759 x1013
Dr. Robert Barr Ms.
Lea Templer
Director, Institutional
Research Professor,
Economics
and Planning College of the Canyons
Palomar College 26455
Rockwell Canyon Road
1140 West Mission Road Santa Clarita, CA 91355
San Marcos, CA 92069-1487 (661)
259-7800
(760) 744-1150 x2360
Leeward Community College
is one of seven community colleges in the State University of Hawai’i System
and one of the four community colleges located on the main island of Oahu. The college accepted its first students in
the fall of 1968 and serves a community consisting of about half of the island,
running north and west from Pearl Harbor.
The service area includes military and middle class communities as well
as substantial communities of historically underserved and low-income
individuals. The service area also
includes the fastest growing areas on the island.
Leeward Community College
serves a diverse population, according to the fall 1999 college Fact
Sheet. The student population is 24%
Filipino, 15% Japanese, 15% Hawaiian, 12% Caucasian, and nearly 18% of mixed
ethnicity. A large majority of the
students (71.7%) identify themselves as being in general education and
pre-professional majors, and 56.8% are women.
Nearly two-thirds of the student population is of “traditional”
college-going age (under 24) and 48% attend fulltime. The current 5,300 students are equivalent to 3,600 FTES.
The college’s budget for
1999-2000 was $15.3 million; however, this amount reflects virtually no base
increase over the past six years. Since
1994, the college’s head count and FTES have declined approximately 14%. The college also has a substantial
self-supporting, non-credit program that encompasses a wide variety of
short-term training and certificate programs and community service
offerings. Since the state and
college’s financial crisis of 1994, most of the remedial education at the
institution has been shifted to the state’s Adult Education program. The college is home to two TRIO funded
Upward Bound programs and was recently awarded a federal Title III Grant to
assist native Hawaiian students.
During the fall 1999
semester the college offered 792 classes with an average enrollment of 18.4
students in each. A substantial
majority of all class sections (57%) meet before noon. The college is served by 170 fulltime
faculty with ranks of professor, associate and assistant professor, and
instructor, as well as 68 part-time assistant professors, instructors, and
lecturers. Additionally, there are 108
clerical, civil service, and “administrative, professional and technical”
staff. There are 7 positions in the
executive/managerial classification, with a provost in the lead position at the
college.
Summary of the Report
On October 23-26, 2000, a
team of eight members (including the team assistant) visited Leeward Community
College for a comprehensive visit in conjunction with the college's application
for reaffirmation of accreditation. The
team arrived at Leeward Community College having thoroughly reviewed the self
study and all the background and supplementary material provided by the
college. In preparation for the visit,
the team had attended training sessions sponsored by ACCJC, reviewed the Commission Handbook for Evaluators, and
read the 1994 evaluation report. One
week prior to arrival, team members drafted written reactions to the self
study, identified faculty and staff to interview, and formulated questions to
be used during the visit. During the
initial team meeting on October 23, 2000, the team discussed the self study and
shared initial observations regarding their primary and secondary areas of
assignment.
The team found the self
study to be complete and generally well written. It was clear that the college has taken the accreditation process
seriously, and that the self study benefited from collegewide input. The team noted, however, problems referred
to in some narrative portions of the report that were not followed by action
plans aimed at addressing those problems.
This became a frequent observation as the team validated the report:
although the college is working diligently and effectively to solve problems,
their efforts are often not formalized in concrete planning documents. The planning agenda at the conclusion of the
self study, too, lacked the kind of detail that would indicate prioritization
and integration of planning efforts.
While the team felt that planning activities at the college were
effective, they would suggest to the college that the self study should be used
as a tool that could assist in identifying areas where planning agendas could
provide a formal framework for future action.
Leeward Community College
is one of seven community colleges in Hawaii.
The system is unique in that it is part of the University of Hawaii
system. Their position in a large
system that balances the needs of a variety of two and four-year institutions
creates possibilities and limitations that influence the nature and character
of the college. The system is also
unique in that direct legislative control affects many of the decisions that
impact upon the college. The system
does not always conform with the practices and expectations found in California
community colleges, where most of the team members work; however, the team was
comfortable with the charge of evaluating Leeward Community College as an
entity governed and bound by forces that were often particular to the
University of Hawaii system.
Leeward Community College
serves the fastest growing area of the state, and its credit instructional
program, along with the Office of Continuing Education and Training (OCET),
provides a variety of opportunities for students. It should be noted that the college feels constrained in its
ability to develop job-oriented programs because of a longstanding tradition
that the college's primary purpose is to serve as a transfer institution. There is a college perception that the
emerging high-risk and low-income populations of West Oahu would benefit from a
greater variety of occupational programs.
The team understood that
this is a report by exception; that is, the primary purpose of the team's
review was to identify areas in which the institution could further
improve. However, this report contains
many commendations, and the team was unanimous in finding Leeward Community
College to be a place where the administrators, faculty and staff work
diligently and with spirit. The team
found that the college is a place characterized by a sincerity of purpose, a
commitment to student learning, and a belief in the power of Leeward Community
College to transform the lives of the students of West Oahu. The college should be commended for a number
of initiatives instituted since the last visit. Developments of particular note include:
1. the assessment of learning outcomes in three
general education areas, which has prompted both curricular and instructional
renewal,
2. the establishment of a research office and the
resulting appreciation of data in decision making,
3. the development of Core Outlines and an online
Curriculum Central database,
4. the consolidation of departmental computer labs
into a college-wide open laboratory,
5. the establishment of the Campus Council, a
representative governance body,
6. the development of an evaluation process for
lecturers in credit courses.
The team also wants to
commend the administration, faculty and staff of the college for, as one team
member put it, “getting the job done” in the face of considerable financial
challenge. The college is prevailing in
large part because of the commitment of the people who work there. Team members felt inspired by their
dedication and their resolve to transcend their financial problems and make the
college a premier learning environment.
The team finds that there
are no standards with which Leeward Community College is out of
compliance. The recommendations in this
report are, without exception, aimed at improvement and refinement of effort, in
the spirit that continuous attempts to better the learning environment are
essential if any college is to meet the standards of good practice to which all
higher education institutions aspire.
The team found that the
college has responded diligently and in good faith to the recommendations of
the 1994 team. However, in spite of
substantial efforts on the part of the college, three recommendations from the
1994 team concern issues are still not completely resolved. The team feels that these recommendations,
which are being reinforced in this report, should be considered major issues at
the college and should receive priority attention. This report will address the three carryover issues first, and
then describe new recommendations. The
numbering of recommendations will correspond with the order in which they
appear in the main body of this report.
The first of these issues
dealt with the need to create a process for curriculum documentation and review
that would be "systematic and consistent. " While the college deserves praise for establishing a curriculum
review process, developing Core Outlines, and setting up an online Curriculum
Central database, the team found that critical curriculum information was not
consistently described in the Core Outlines.
The team is concerned that colleges to which students may wish to
transfer would not be able to articulate courses whose outlines are
incomplete. The team is also concerned
that there continues to be no formal system, policy, or practice to ensure consistency
of course content, objectives, and standards from the time it is approved to
the present. The placement of Core
Outlines and syllabi in the Curriculum Central database is a good first step
toward this end, but division chairs should ensure that all syllabi are
regularly compared with their relevant outline to provide assurance that the
objectives and student competencies for all sections of a given course,
wherever and by whomever offered, are consistent with the outline of record for
that course. Periodic review of
established Core Outlines should be formalized and institutionalized to assure
the currency and continued appropriateness of curriculum content, instructional
methods, course activities and objectives, and student competencies. The team believes that course outlines are
the key documents that signal the academic viability of a curriculum, and to a
greater degree, the integrity and values of an institution. Therefore, the following major recommendation
is offered (again, the numbering reflects the order found within the
narrative):
3.
The team recommends that curriculum review and
revision be made a systematic and cyclical process with the goal of assuring
academic rigor and integrity in all courses and programs (Standards 4D.2, 4D.6).
The two other 1994
recommendations that still must be fully addressed are in the area of
governance and administration. The
first of these asked that the college develop and implement a written policy
that articulates a decision making process that is representative and that
clearly states the role of faculty, support staff and students. The college set
up the Campus Council, a representative governance body in response, and
established a Charter and By-laws for the body. This was a major effort, and the college should be commended for
its work. However, at the time of the
team visit, there was considerable tension on campus regarding the roles of
constituent groups in the Campus Council.
The Faculty Senate was circulating a policy that would put all academic
matters, as well as budgeting and planning, under their purview. Other segments of the college felt this
change would be tantamount to excluding them from college governance. This issue dominated college meetings at the
time of the accreditation review, and it was clear to the team that the problem
that led to the 1994 recommendation has not yet been put to rest.
Therefore, in this regard
the team offers a second major recommendation:
7.
The team recommends that the college clearly
define the role of all constituencies on the Campus Council. (Standards 10B.8, 10B.9, 10B.10)
The third recommendation
from 1994 had to do with instability caused by frequent turnover in
administrative positions. While the
college was asked to take steps to stabilize the administrative staff, the
college still suffers from the effects of frequent turnover. While the team
recognizes that colleges are human organizations, and no one can guarantee that
people will remain in administrative positions for extended periods of time,
the self study indicated awareness that the small number of administrators led
to a depletion of "energy and will power." The team also noted that the administrative evaluation system is
unclear, and administrators typically do not receive any information or
documentation regarding their evaluation once it is completed, which suggests a
lack of constructive feedback that would assist in their professional
growth. External factors, which are
often beyond the college's control (including systemwide budget constraints,
declining enrollments and the uncertain state economy) may all also play a role
in administrative instability. However,
the college cannot ignore this disturbing trend. It has had three provosts in
two years, and many top administrative positions are held by interim
appointments. The team felt that it
would be in the college's interests to analyze the local factors that lead to
high administrative turnover, and develop constructive strategies in response. Therefore, a third major recommendation is
offered:
8.
The team recommends that the college analyze
factors that may be contributing to administrative instability and turnover and
develop appropriate local responses. (Standard
10B.4)
The team is making a
number of new recommendations, as well.
The team was aware that the college has done fine work in using the
Program Health Indicators (PHI) as a tool for assessing its vocational
instructional programs. However,
program review needs to be done across the campus, and student services stands
out as an area particularly in need to effect a process that will guide
decisionmaking and program improvement.
Therefore,
1.
The team recommends that the college reexamine and
adapt the application of the Program Health Indicators (PHI) model (or another
appropriate program review model) to all its programs, and especially to
student services, so that a structure, process, and culture are developed for
its effective use in planning, decision making and program performance
improvement. (Standards 5.3, 5.10)
While the college has
done significant work in researching learning outcomes in three general
education areas, the team is concerned that while expected learning outcomes
("degree competencies") for the Associate in Science degree programs
are identified in the self study, they are not included in the current college
catalog. Learning outcomes for the
Associate in Arts and Associate in Applied Science degree programs and the
various certificate programs are also not found in the catalog.
The general education
component of the AA degree program is published in the college catalog. However, the catalog states that general
education requirements for the AS and AAS programs are undergoing review to
determine compliance with “new general education requirements” which are
unspecified. Students are referred to
faculty program advisors or counselors for current information. This area is in need of attention, and the
team offers the following:
2.
The team recommends that the college identify and
make public expected learning outcomes for all of its degree and certificate
programs; that the general education component of all degree programs be
published in clear and complete terms in the general catalog; that the general
education component be based on a philosophy and rationale that are clearly
stated and publicized; and that criteria be provided by which the
appropriateness of each course in the general education component is
determined. (Standards 4B.3, 4C.1, 4C.2)
The use of the COMPASS
test as an assessment and placement tool has been instituted statewide in
response to a recommendation from the 1994 team that analyzed the system
office. However, placement cutoff
scores for the test were also instituted on a systemwide basis, and Leeward
Community College has seen an increase in students placing into remedial
courses and a decrease in students placing into college-level courses,
especially in writing. While the team
believes that a system-wide response would be helpful, the college should
initiate a local response that involves both instruction and student
services. We offer the following
recommendation:
4.
The team recommends that the college review the
changes in placement scores that have resulted from its use of the COMPASS test
and develop appropriate response strategies in the student services and
instructional areas to ensure that students achieve their educational goals in
as timely and efficient a manner as possible.
(Standard 5.5)
The team had concerns
regarding the safe storage of files and records. It was unclear as to the reason student records and files were
stored in three locations, other than past practice. The team had also concerns that storage of files and records may
not be secure. A review of how and
where files are stored would be in order, and the following recommendation is
offered:
5. The team
recommends that the college review its practices related to storage and safety
of student records to determine if they are in compliance with established
guidelines. The college should pay particular attention to requirements related
to ensuring that files are protected from fire and other disasters. (Standard 5.9)
Finally, the team noted
that while the planning practices at the college were sound, they often were
not formalized in concrete planning documents.
This was especially apparent in the areas of technology and information
and learning resources. While the team
recognizes that the staff is very competent and works diligently to assist
students, faculty and staff, they noted that the college has not formalized
long-term plans that deal with problems identified in the self study. These
problems are associated with the sufficiency of information and learning
resources, the acquisition and maintenance of educational equipment and materials,
staffing needs to support technology, long-term financial support of
technology, and evaluation of the adequacy of learning and information
resources and services, among other areas.
While the college notes that some of these areas fall within the purview
of system, the team believes that the college must work to address long term
planning at the local level as a basis for local decisionmaking and as a
blueprint for advocacy when making requests through the system. Therefore,
6. The team
recommends that the college formalize its planning procedures in the areas of
technology and information and learning resources to address needs in the
following areas: determining the sufficiency of information and learning
resources, planning for the acquisition and maintenance of educational
equipment and materials, ensuring accessibility of information and earning
resources, providing professionally qualified staff, ensuring sufficient and
consistent financial support, forging outside agreements, and evaluating the adequacy
and effectiveness of learning and information resources and services. (Standards 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6,
6.7)
These recommendations are
not meant to diminish the significance of the fine work being done at Leeward
Community College, or to imply that they are deficient. The team is aware of the limitations imposed
by operating in a large system, and it applauds the college for the work it has
done to ensure an outstanding learning environment in spite of considerable
challenges. The team left with
admiration and respect for the fine people who staff the college, and with a
feeling of renewal in observing practices that are consistent with the shared
ideals of the community college movement.
The previous team made no
recommendations in this area.
Since the 1994
accreditation visit, the college has engaged in serious efforts to review and
revise its Mission Statement. As a
public community college, Leeward’s mission is “firmly rooted” in state law and
well articulated by its governing bodies.
The mission speaks about “providing” access and educational
opportunities. Leeward is an open
access “teaching” college that is also charged with making intellectual and
cultural contributions to its community.
As stated, however, the mission does not explicitly reflect the emphasis
in the current accreditation standards on student learning and success, nor
that the college’s purpose, consistent with the WASC Standards, is to improve
its capacity over time to enable student learning and success. However, the staff and leaders of the
college clearly believe in the college’s motto, “To Help People Learn.”
The self study describes the college’s
constituencies and the general nature of its educational programs. Fundamentally, the college sees its task as
one of responsively serving its local community, West Oahu, in both credit and
noncredit programs. However, the
University of Hawaii System, of which the seven public community colleges are a
part, considers the community colleges to be comprehensive collectively, though
not necessarily individually. Thus,
there are issues of differentiation among the colleges and, in particular, the
role to be played by Leeward Community College and the specific kinds of
programs it is to offer within the context of those offered by the other
community colleges.
The college recently revised its a six-year
strategic plan, the Academic Development
Plan 1996-2002 (ADP), and in the process reviewed and revised its Mission
Statement, attempting to nest and align the college’s role and programs with
those of the system strategic plan. The
team found, as indicated in the self study, that this plan, which was approved
by the Faculty Senate in October 1999, is widely regarded as the primary source
at Leeward for defining its educational programs and services. The team also found that there is some
tension between the directions the college would like to take in developing its
programs and services and the directions it perceives the system wishes it to
take. College staff members believe the
system wishes the college to remain essentially a liberal arts transfer
institution (with some vocational programs) while many college members and
leaders feel the college needs to expand its vocational and certificate
programs to both address the needs of its service area population and to
reverse the enrollment decline it has experienced over the past five years. Since the community college system as a
whole has also experienced flat or declining enrollments over the same period,
the system office is motivated to improve efficiency and reduce costs by
consolidating selected (and probably expensive) vocational programs of one or
more colleges on a single college campus.
The college established its goals and priorities
for a six-year period through the process of developing the ADP, most recently
for the period 1996-2002. The team was
able to confirm that participation in the development of the ADP was wide and
deep. Both the Campus Council, a body
representing all campus constituencies established as a result of the 1994
Accreditation Team recommendation, and the Faculty Senate are involved in
institutional planning and decision-making.
The Team observed some tension between these two bodies and the
constituencies they represent over which shall be the major governance
authority (which recommends policy to the Provost) in academic and budgetary
matters. There is current and ongoing
campus discussion over this issue of influence in decision-making.
The college has reviewed and revised its mission
and specific directions through a summer 1999 review of the ADP. The college also has two other statements of
purpose, a philosophy statement and a vision statement. The philosophy statement was revised during
1992-93 through a process involving open forums initiated by the faculty,
wherein the college reaffirmed its commitment to responding to a “wide range of
educational needs of the people of [its] community.” The vision statement, developed in fall 1995, also indicated that
the college would provide a “comprehensive curriculum” and “responsive
community partnerships.”
Again, some tension exists between what the college
envisions as its mission and what may be permitted within the system plan or
the constraints of system resources.
The college is commended for its continued attention to this matter of
its fundamental purposes. It is clear
to the team, in any case, that the staff of the college is committed to
providing responsive and high quality educational experiences for its students
and community.
The team makes no
recommendations in this area.
Response to Previous
Team's Recommendations
The previous team made no
recommendations in this area.
Observations
An interview of people
involved in developing the response to Standard Two provided evidence of a
detailed system of collecting information and engaging faculty, staff and
administrators in formulating the written response. A review of documents supported Leeward’s claim of broadly
publicizing its policies and practices related to Academic Freedom and
Responsibility, Academic Integrity, Codes of Conduct and Academic Honesty. Leeward Community College also offers
training on academic integrity, honesty and freedom, and student conduct as a
part of New Hire Orientation for faculty and staff. A document titled "For
Your Information" (FYI) is also distributed as a part of the New Hire
Orientation session.
The standards of conduct
for students are well spelled out in the Student Handbook and the College
Catalog. Those same documents also contain clear and concise information on the
process and procedures that students may use to address any concerns that they
may have regarding potential violations of their rights or freedoms. Members of
Student Government acknowledged receiving copies of the handbook at the new
student orientation sessions. The process for addressing issues related to
faculty rights or freedom are clearly identified in the Guidebook for Faculty
and Staff. The college, through its Staff Development Office, also offers
Customer Service Training to its new student employees.
Leeward Community College
appears to value and respect the diversity of its students and its surrounding
community. The college offers an
Educational Equity Training session through its Staff Development Office that addresses
issues related to gender and ethnicity. The service offerings, the printed
materials of the college, and the responses by people interviewed clearly
demonstrate the college community's commitment to make appreciation of
diversity an essential component of their teaching and learning environment.
An element of this
standard that was difficult to quantify was the use and effectiveness of a
self-evaluation process in ensuring the institutions’ continued positive
performance in response to the elements of this Standard. The team did not identify
a process or find sufficient data that provided a clear sense that Leeward is
collecting information and/or soliciting input from its students, staff,
faculty and administration to evaluate themselves in this area.
Conclusions
The faculty, staff and
administration of Leeward Community College are committed to serving their
students and community. The people
interviewed as a part of this standard clearly understood the impact of ethical
behavior on the quality of the educational experience for their students. The
college is committed to addressing issues related to access for high-risk or
first generation college students. Their approach to working with these
populations appears to be realistic and based on a working understanding of the
social, political and cultural issues of the communities that surround the
college. Leeward Community College should be commended for its commitment to
serving the educational, social and cultural needs of its students and
community.
Individuals who have been
employed at the college for many years hold a great deal of the institutional
memory of the college. It is important that the college formalizes practices
and procedures related to integrity, honesty and community relations so that
they can be continued after key individuals retire.
Recommendations
The team makes no
recommendations in this area.
The team recommends that the College create a planning
process, which is formal, systematic and coordinated. The process should set
College direction, identify institutional priorities, and use program review
and research in each sector of the College to measure effectiveness. Planning
should be done on an annual basis and should ensure that individual plans are
aligned with and reflect the collegewide plan. All segments of the College
community should be involved in the process. The collegewide process should
drive the budget.
The team recommends that the College develop and
implement a means for meeting the College's research needs to include
coordinating the campus research effort, furnishing usable data for planning,
program review and other institutional decision making processes, providing
technical assistance in designing research studies and serving as a liaison
with the System research office.
The previous team recommended that Leeward Community
College create a formal, systematic planning process and that it develop an
institutional research capability. The
college has made significant concrete strides in both these areas. The team was able to confirm through
interviews and a review of documents that the college has established a
planning structure and process, developed a periodically reviewed six-year
institutional plan (the Academic
Development Plan), and set priorities in a widely understood process in
which all campus units and constituencies participate. The college has also greatly expanded its
institutional research efforts by adding a full-time “general” researcher to
its half-time, vocational education program research position. The team confirmed that, as the self study
indicates, the new researcher and the administrative team are making significant
strides toward establishing a solid foundation of basic data and cultivating a
climate of expectation that ensures that decision-making will be informed by
appropriate data, research, and analysis.
Observations
The team's observations
fall into the three main elements of this standard, and they will be addressed
individually.
Institutional Research
and Evaluation
The team was able to
validate that since the last accreditation team’s visit, Leeward has made great
strides in developing its institutional research and evaluation capacity and in
using that capability in planning and decision-making. The college created a new research position
and hired a researcher to fill it in fall 1998. The college’s commitment to institutional research was
demonstrated by the fact that the college used “internal” funds to create the
position, when normally a position would not be created unless the System
Office approved a request for additional funds. The team observed other evidence that systematic research is
highly appreciated and supported by the administrative team and by unit and
staff leaders and members, as well.
Since he was hired, the researcher has produced a substantial number of
high quality products and studies including a solid foundation of basic
institutional data, such as that displayed in the new Fact Book, and a number
of high quality targeted survey research studies.
Discussions with the
researcher and other members of the college’s administrative team and staff
indicate to the team that research and data are being requested and used in
decision-making. For example, the
results of a student survey study were used to help decide whether to expand
the summer session from one to two short terms and to help assess whether
students were learning as much in short-term classes as in classes of regular
term length. A series of campus
conversations, initiated by the provost during 1999-2000, helped integrate the
newly available data in the Fact Book into the planning and evaluation process
by inviting discussion and analysis of the data and institutional outcomes.
Planning
Through interviews and
the inspection of documents, the team observed and validated the self study’s
essential claims regarding institutional planning and evaluation, though the
self study overstates some the degree to which planning is systematic and
integrated.
Considering the state of
planning observed by the previous team, the college has made enormous progress,
especially in the last few years. A
number of processes and structures have been put into place or more fully
developed. Since the last accreditation
team’s visit, the college has established the Campus Council, with a charter
and by-laws that describe the college’s planning process. This Council, which includes representatives
from all college constituencies and units, plays a major role in developing the
main strategic institutional plan, the Academic
Development Plan (ADP), and in corresponding resource allocation and budget
planning efforts. Another significant
player in the planning process is the Faculty Senate, which also helped to
develop, review, and approve the most recent ADP. However, the team observed a power struggle between the Senate
and the Campus Council and some of its constituencies regarding which entity
would have the major say in the formulation of the plan and biennial
budget. While this struggle greatly
lengthened the process of development and review of the ADP, the team did not
observe evidence that it diminished the quality of the results
significantly. It was clear to the team
that opportunities to contribute to and review the developing plan and its
priorities were significant.
As indicated in the self
study, the college is aware that it needs to incorporate the program review
process more effectively into planning and include not just academic programs
but also every program and unit of the college. The college needs also to make additional progress in integrating
the various aspects of planning into an overall, comprehensive institutional
plan. These aspects include educational,
financial, facilities, technology, and human resource planning.
Assessment of
Institutional Outcomes
In the area of
institutional outcomes assessment, the team was able to validate that the
college has made very substantial progress in identifying and assessing student
learning outcomes as specified in Standard elements 4.B3 and 4.C4. In particular, the college is working to
identify and assess the core skills of the general education (GE) program.
The team observed
evidence that a group of faculty have been working enthusiastically to develop
assessment instruments and methods for the GE skills of writing, oral
communication, and quantitative reasoning.
A faculty member clearly convinced of the genuine value and usefulness
of student learning outcomes assessment provides effective overall
leadership. Other faculty members have
assumed responsibility for leading each of three working committees. To date, initial assessment instruments in
each of the three skill areas have been developed and piloted. During the process of developing the
instruments and methods, the faculty involved has had exciting and challenging
discussions about the specific nature and qualities of each of these learning
outcomes. Thus, the process of
developing an assessment method and instrument has naturally and effectively
led to useful conversations about what the skills mean operationally and the
level of achievement expected of students awarded an associate degree.
Over the next several
years, the faculty group intends to continue to develop and refine the
assessment of the initial three skills and to commence the process to assess
the other GE skills of scientific reasoning and critical analysis/logical
thinking. The resulting assessment
methods and instruments will be used to evaluate whether students are meeting
levels of achievement in these areas sufficient to be awarded a degree and to
provide the feedback on results necessary to improve the College’s ability to
assist its students to learn these skills.
The results are expected and intended to lead to ongoing revisions of
courses, the GE curriculum, and the evaluation of various learning methods and
principles. The college is commended for its considerable and effective efforts
and the team encourages the college to maintain this level of effort in order
to meet the full intent of the Standard.
The team observed
evidence that the college is taking steps to identify and measure its other
program, service, and institutional outcomes.
For example, as reported in the self study, through institutional
research activities and the establishment of appropriate committees, the
college is working to expand its assessment processes to include other
educational outcomes, the achievement of outcomes in non-instructional areas,
and the efficiency with which it manages its financial, physical, and human
resources. For some time, the college
has been using the Program Health Indicators (PHI) model to provide an annual
index of the health and effectiveness status of its vocational technical
programs and has attempted to adapt this model to evaluate other academic
programs and student service performance.
While the model is theoretically sound, it is clear to the team, as it
is to the college staff, that the model and the PHI reports are not being used
effectively to improve programs and services.
College staff has been reexamining this effort and has been working to
improve the breadth and usefulness of the PHI indicators and the part they play
in decision-making. While such PHI
indicators can be used to justify the termination of unhealthy programs, the
team urges the college to continue its efforts to provide and use assessment
indicators to measure and improve its programs and institutional outcomes. No one should expect, however, that PHI
indicators alone, especially those currently in use, will provide comprehensive
diagnostic information about why a program is not performing or what steps
should be taken to improve program performance. Such information can only result from more extensive study,
research, experimentation, and review.
The team finds that the
college substantially meets the standards of institutional effectiveness and
has made very significant progress in increasing its level of achievement in
this area since the last accreditation team visit. The college has greatly improved its efforts and performance in
all three major elements of this standard: institutional planning,
institutional research, and outcomes assessment. The college is commended for these efforts and achievements. It is also apparent to the team that the
college has already been reaping considerable benefits from these efforts,
especially over the past few years.
However, the college needs to continue and expand its efforts in these
areas in order to reap their full benefits and to achieve a level of
performance and results envisioned in the spirit of the Institutional
Effectiveness Standard. In particular,
the college should continue to devote significant leadership and resources to
assess student learning outcomes as well as other institutional outcomes and
the college should intensify and expand its efforts to improve and use the PHI
model, or some other model, for program review and improvement. The program review model and process
especially needs serious reexamination as it applies to student services.
1.
The team recommends
that the college reexamine and adapt the application of the Program Health
Indicators (PHI) model (or another program review instrument) to all its
programs, and especially to student services, so that a structure, process, and
culture are developed for its effective use in decision making and program
performance improvement. (Standards 5.3,
5.10)
Responses to the
Previous Team’s Recommendations
The team recommends that curriculum documentation
and review become systematic and consistent in order to ensure that variations
are in the realm of professional latitude rather than substantive and
qualitative in nature as at present.
The process of
documenting the development of curriculum appears to have been made more
consistent and systematic with the creation of a Curriculum Central database,
which permits viewing of outlines and instructors’ syllabi as well as tracking
the course approval process. However,
the College’s written response states that while courses are reviewed as they
are developed and modified, there is no systematic review of courses once they
are taught repeatedly. A comparative
review of sample Core Outlines and corresponding syllabi suggests that there
are substantive inconsistencies between the outline (as the prescriptive
document) and the syllabus (as the descriptive document). The recommendation of the previous team that
curriculum document and review be
made systematic and consistent is still valid with respect to the regular
review of both established Core Outlines and individual course syllabi.
The team recommends that the College review and
revise the general education requirements for the Associate in Science degree
so that requirements meet the expectations established by the accrediting
commission in Standard 2C (now Standard 4C) regarding the content and
methodologies of the major areas of knowledge—the humanities and fine arts, the
natural sciences, and the social sciences—as well as critical thinking.
The College has responded
to the previous team’s second recommendation by ensuring that the general
education component of the Associate in Science degree programs in two fields
meets the Commission’s expectations regarding the major areas of knowledge as
well as critical thinking. For the AS
degree a minimum of three credits of study is required in each of the specified
areas, and the College attests in the self study that critical thinking skills
are “promoted and required” by most if not all Leeward Community College
courses, including those in the technical/occupational/professional programs
leading to the AS degree.
Observations
The College is to be commended
that its variety of degree and certificate programs, course offerings, modes of
instruction, and other educational opportunities are well fitted to community
needs, interests, and demographics, particularly as these are made available
under conditions of ongoing financial uncertainty. The efforts of the staff and faculty of the Leeward Community
College Waianae campus to ensure the delivery of programs and services to its
community, even with limited resources, are noteworthy.
Credit courses leading to
degrees or certificates are offered in a variety of career fields. Students earning the articulated Associate
in Arts degree are accepted as having fulfilled the general education core
requirements at all other UH campuses.
Three Academic Subject Certificates, representing clustered general
education coursework, are available to students pursuing the AA in Liberal
Arts. Noncredit courses and programs
which complement the College’s credit programs are offered through the Office
of Continuing Education and Training and include employment training in
numerous areas. Remedial courses in
reading, writing, and math skills are available on a noncredit basis, while
higher-level developmental courses are offered for credit.
Other educational
programs and services offered in response to community needs and interests
include an English as a Second Language program, an Honors program, several
educational partnership programs with community agencies and institutions, and
the Leeward Community College Theater’s performing arts programs.
Most classes are offered
on weekday mornings and afternoons, with a small percentage available in the
late afternoon and evening hours and on weekends. Some college administrators and faculty report that this is in
line with student preferences and work schedules, but others suggest that
scheduling more evening and weekend classes would better serve those students
who are employed during the day.
Since 1994 a total of ten
certificate and degree programs have been stopped out or terminated; in several
cases these were consolidated with programs at other community colleges in the
UH system. Students enrolled in these
programs were appropriately advised and assisted to complete their programs
without undue delay and with minimal disruption.
Academic advising is the
general responsibility of the Division of Counseling and Guidance, with some
program-specific advising in technical/occupational/professional fields being
handled by faculty in the relevant programs, with assistance from
Counseling. Funding for the training of
Liberal Arts faculty advisors, available a few years ago, has expired. Counseling personnel have made efforts to
improve the extent and effectiveness of academic advising through one-on-one
peer advising, group advising, and walk-in advising, but with limited
success. Academic advising is most
focused when a student enters a program, but reportedly is not consistently
emphasized or encouraged in all programs thereafter. There is considerable variation among divisions as to the amount
and quality of advising contact between faculty advisor and advisee.
Expected learning
outcomes (“degree competencies”) for the Associate in Science degree programs
are identified in the self study, but not in the current college catalog. Learning outcomes for the Associate in Arts
and Associate in Applied Science degree programs and the various certificate
programs are not found in the catalog.
The general education
component of the AA degree program is published in the college catalog. However, the catalog states that general
education requirements for the AS and AAS programs are undergoing review to
determine compliance with “new general education requirements,” which are
unspecified. Students are referred to
faculty program advisors or counselors for current information.
In 1997, the Faculty
Senate agreed to minimum UH system-wide “skill areas” and standards for general
education. To the five system-wide
areas of critical thinking, information retrieval and technology, oral
communication, written communication, and quantitative reasoning, the Faculty
Senate added a sixth skill: abstract, nonlinear thinking. However, these areas of general education
preparation and the levels of proficiency expected of students are not
mentioned in the college catalog. No
philosophy or rationale for the general education component of any degree
program is to be found in the catalog, nor are criteria for the appropriateness
of each course in the general education component.
The College has clearly
defined processes for establishing and evaluating all of its educational
programs, and the role of faculty in developing, implementing, and evaluating
such programs is recognized. It is
unclear as to what extent the data yielded by the Program Health Indicators
assessment model, currently in use, are integrated into overall institutional
evaluation and planning. Evaluation of
the Associate in Arts program has yet to be conducted.
The previous team’s
concerns regarding educational planning are still valid. Several faculty members stated their belief
that the Academic Development Plan is
a good plan, but were uncertain as to how it is to be implemented. There appears to be confusion as to the
ADP’s goal or objective priorities, activities, success indicators, persons or
offices responsible for action, and “what happens next?” Some faculty members reported that they had
no real sense of which office, group, or individual had overall responsibility
for implementing the ADP—or they stated that no one had such
responsibility. It was also stated that
assessment reports for programs evaluated under the PHI model are not widely
distributed; that in general faculty do not understand the uses to which PHI assessment
may or should be put, or how the model should be applied; and that this lack of
information and understanding is at least in part responsible for the
widespread impression that the PHI model of assessment is used to terminate
programs rather than to improve them.
The previous team’s observations
concerning the uneven and confusing use of the ‘F’ and ‘N’ grades by faculty
are still valid. The self study reports
(and course syllabi indicate) that faculty use these grades to evaluate student
performance of less than minimal passing quality, but that there is
considerable disagreement as to how and when either or both grades should be
applied. Some faculty state that there
is widely accepted anecdotal evidence of course selection by students on the basis
of whether or not the instructor utilizes the ‘N’ grade, and that this in
effect penalizes the instructor who uses the ‘F’ but not the ‘N’.
Conclusions
While the variety and
apparent quality of educational opportunities available to students and the
wider public are commendable, the reported decline in enrollment over the past
five years is a matter of concern to the college which has yet to be
satisfactorily addressed. The college
should carry out its plans to survey the community in order to better
understand its educational needs and wants.
Data should be gathered for other variables that affect student
enrollment choices and should be used by the college in planning for program
and course offerings and scheduling.
Students’ opportunities
for success in achieving their educational goals are likely to be enhanced by a
strengthened and institutionalized academic advising program. There is an evident bifurcation of the
academic advising role and responsibilities between the Division of Counseling
and Guidance on the one hand and certain academic programs on the other. Liberal Arts faculty do not play a
consistent role in advising Liberal Arts students, yet there are insufficient
Counseling staff to adequately serve all Liberal Arts students. Development and implementation of an effective,
collaborative academic advising program should have wide faculty involvement
and be supported by ongoing training of faculty advisors.
The lack of clearly
defined and published learning outcomes for all degree and certificate programs
is of concern to the team. Such
outcomes should be established and made public in the college catalog.
The college should
clearly identify its general education courses as such in the catalog, and
should make explicit the system-wide general education required “skills areas”
and the specific general education requirements for each degree program. The college should also define its general
education philosophy and rationale and should publish these statements in the
catalog. The college needs to establish
criteria by which the appropriateness of each course in the general education
component of degree programs is determined, and these criteria should inform
the development and revision of courses in the general education curriculum.
The team strongly
encourages the college to incorporate specific strategies into its ADP, to
involve the entire institution in the development and prioritization of such
strategies, and to provide leadership and follow-through in the implementation
of this strategic plan. The team
further advises that greater effort be made to ensure that the entire college
community, and particularly the faculty, are informed about and actively
participate in the assessment of educational programs, and that assessment data
is used in planning for program improvement as well as for other types of
institutional decision making.
The college is to be commended for its development of Core Outlines for all of its credit courses, and for the establishment of an on-line database for such outlines and their