This is to inform the campus community that, on 5/12/03, I approved the attached Policy on Unit/Area Program Reviews.
The policy was drafted by the Accreditation Implementation Committee (AIC) on Program Reviews/Program Health Indicators co-chaired by Kathy Hill, Associate Professor of Accounting, and Emily Uribe, Instructor of Mathematics. Also attached is the memorandum, dated 5/8/03, from the Committee to me transmitting the policy for my approval. As noted in that memorandum, the policy has been extensively researched and debated by the Committee, "received broad-based input from a campus-wide open forum, and was presented to the Faculty Senate on February 12, 2003 and to the Campus Council on March 6, 2003."
The Recommendation of the October 2000 Accreditation Visiting Team
As you may recall, the AIC on Program Reviews/Program Health Indicators was established in 8/01 to review and help implement the following recommendation made by the October 2000 accreditation visiting team: "...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."
The team's concerns. In making its recommendation, the October 2000 visiting team was concerned, among other things, with the ollowing: "... The team was aware 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 decision making and program improvement." "... 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[s] 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." "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."
For additional concerns expressed by the visiting team, see the team's Evaluation Report which has been posted on the LCC accreditation website at:
http://www.lcc.hawaii.edu/ac2006/
The Policy and Its Implementation
The policy is a significant step in implementing the accreditation team's above-quoted recommendation. I thank and commend the Committee (especially Kathy Hill), the Faculty Senate, the Campus Council, and the faculty and staff at large for all of your efforts in reviewing and debating the various issues and in reaching consensus agreement on the final draft of the policy.
As noted in part I of the attached Policy, the overall purpose of the program review process "is to provide the College with a formal and systematic method for conducting ongoing assessment and the collection of data that provides valuable feedback to the campus community." The assessment and feedback will inform campus decision-making at all levels and will be an integral part of the College's planning, implementation, and budgeting process.
As also indicated in part I, the main focus of unit and area reviews "is to provide evidence that each unit/area of the College is providing quality support of student learning and related student outcomes." See also part II, item 6. And as prescribed in part III, item 4, a program review will assess whether the unit/area is meeting its goals and objectives in terms of the "outcome measures" (part III, item 2) which had been developed by that unit or area. Item 5 then prescribes that current or potential problems be identified and action plans formulated for program improvement.
Such review, documentation, and assessment for program improvement will be critical under the new ACCJC Accreditation Standards with its central emphasis on student learning outcomes. As stated in the new Standards (Standard 1: Institutional Mission and Effectiveness; B. Improving Institutional Effectiveness):
"The institution demonstrates a conscious effort to produce and support student learning, measures that learning, assesses how well learning is occurring, and makes changes to improve student learning. The institution also organizes its key processes and allocates its resources to effectively support student learning. The institution demonstrates its effectiveness by providing 1) evidence of the achievement of student learning outcomes and 2) evidence of institution and program performance. The institution uses ongoing and systematic evaluation and planning to refine its key processes and improve student learning."
The complete text of the new ACCJC Accreditation Standards is posted at:
I now ask the campus community to support the purpose and intent of the attached policy by respectively doing what we need to do, in good faith and on a timely basis, to implement the policy and the procedures prescribed in the policy.
If you have any questions about the policy, two principal resources are our Institutional Research Analyst Andy Rossi and Kathy Hill. Ms. Hill will also be serving in academic year 2003-2004 as the Chair of the LCC Faculty Senate's Program Review Committee, thereby helping lend continuity from policy formulation to the initial phases of policy implementation.
The broad purpose of accreditation is institutional quality and self improvement.
Mahalo,
Mark Silliman
Provost