Accreditation Evaluation Report

Solano Community College

Submitted by Dr. Jeffrey N. Lamb

Academic Senate President

Solano Community College Solano Community College

Evaluating Accreditation

The Makings of the Accreditation Report As a consequence of being placed on “show cause” by the Accreditation Commission for Junior and Community Colleges (ACCJC) Solano Community College (SCC) began to organize itself in order to produce the 2009 Accreditation Show Cause Report. After the College received notification on its Show Cause status, an Accreditation Advisory Group consisting of the Academic Senate President, the Vice President of Academic Affairs, the Interim Superintendent President, and the report writer met on February 9, 2009 to plan a timeline and organizational structure for preparing the report. Based on information gleaned from having participated in the Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges (ASCCC) Accreditation Institute, it was decided that the college would create Working Groups around the different accreditation recommendations. These Working Groups were comprised of two co-chairs (one faculty member and one administrator or classified staff) and a core group of faculty and staff who had something to contribute to that particular recommendation. The Working Groups were authorized to seek information/input from the campus community as they saw fit and were charged with gathering the necessary evidence to support their narrative. (Classified staff were quick to provide a list of employees willing to participate in the Show Case Report.) Mindful of the abbreviated timeline for report development, the group decided that the wiki format for gathering report data and commentary that had been used in the last reports would be the most expeditious way of facilitating dialogue while allowing sufficient time for preparation and review of drafts. The online modality of the wiki allows for broad-based participation because it is easily accessible from any location and can be accessed any time, thereby accommodating various schedules of busy faculty, staff, administrators, and students. The wiki is also conducive to collaboration in an evidence-based culture because every change made to a wiki is documented. A participant or viewer can, at any time, see an earlier version of any page and can read comments made during the creation of the document. Gathering Information

Accreditation Evaluation Report 1 Solano Community College

Working Groups

Recommendation Co-chairs

Improving Institutional Dialog College Presidents

Improving Institutional Planning Tracy Schneider and Rob Simas

Improving Institutional Tracy Schneider and Rob Simas Effectiveness

Staffing and Organizational Michael Wyly and Richard Christensen Stability

Fiscal Integrity Jay Field and Dorothy Hawkes

Leadership College Presidents

Evaluating the Process As a means of evaluating the college’s performance on the process of producing the Show Cause Report, Academic Senate president Jeff Lamb consulted with Vice President Steinback. They agreed that a multi-faceted approach would be necessary to obtain input from the campus community. Dr. Lamb sent an e-mail to $ALL inviting constituents to provide insights into the accreditation process in the following ways:

★ Attend one of the two forums and participate in a face-to-face discussion

★ Fill out a paper survey

★ Fill out an electronic survey (via SurveyMonkey.com)

★ Send back an e-mail survey

★ Participate in an Instant Message Chat with Dr. Lamb

★ Post comments directly to the Show Cause Wiki

The surveys, whether paper, electronic or in-person, were structure around three main areas: 1) the pre-writing/writing phase, 2) the evidence phase and, 3) Action Plans

The first forum was held on Friday, April 10, 2009 and the second was held on Wednesday, April 22, 2009. The minutes and audio from these meetings are available on the Show Cause Wiki.

The Results

Pre-writing/ writing phase The goal of this section of the survey was to find out how we could improve on and what we did well in regards to preparing for and then actually writing the report. There was no shortage of input available in all areas of the evaluation. The following is a summary of the comments

★ Training

In a word, we need more training. While ASCCC representative Dr. Kawaguchi’s workshop and Dr. Houston’s visit were helpful, we need more. Specifically, we need both a broad introduction to accreditation standards (I-IV) and then a real word by word discussion/presentation to ensure that everyone understands the standards. Additionally, the college community needs to understand ACCJC recommendations and where to focus our energies based on them. We need to know how to speak/write to the recommendations. Of interest was one observation that we don’t simply need to listen to a “talking head” on accreditation standards but rather to get people involved by doing and not just when accreditation “surprises us” but more poinently in an on-going fashion (i.e. dedicated Division meeting time to learn about standards/ recommendations/ sanctions/ etc...) While most agreed that face- to-face training is vital, it would also be necessary to archive training sessions (audio and video) and to take advantage of online modes of instruction. In this way, eCollege provides a nice platform to create an Accreditation 101 course.

There was also a blaring call for an accreditation style sheet. One person went further and requested an accreditation workbook that specified a working plan with information on 1) who is “in charge”, 2) members of the working groups, 3) other key contacts, 4) a timeline, etc...

There was praise in the evaluations/ discussion for the “write-ins”.

★The wiki

The college community had somewhat of a love/hate relationship with the wiki. The majority of those who used the wiki found it to be effective while others were put-off by the more impersonal nature of them. There was overall praise for the Wiki Tutorial, however; more work could be done on the training and

design of the wiki. Someone recommended trying Share Point instead of PBWorks. The concern about wikis was that it should not be confused with dialogue. In other words, just because it is in a wiki, doesn’t meant that people are aware of it or have had a chance to give input.

★Working Groups

Consensus was that the Working Groups were effective. In some cases, there was a concern/ complaint that only a few people ended up doing the lion’s share of the work. It would be a good idea to establish better guidelines/ expectations within them so that participants know the commitment and time necessary. Additionally, clarifying roles and responsibilities would be helpful. Working Groups should meet regularly, not just during accreditation “crisis”. Also, more Working Group debriefing sessions were recommended.

Evidence phase Without a doubt our new emphasis on “evidence, evidence, evidence” was key. Having an evidence driven narrative is fundamental to a solid accreditation report. There should be a workshop/ training on what qualifies as evidence. People felt that the overall quality and quantity of evidence improved since the last report. Some suggestions included: 1) a “call for evidence” before writing, 2) we should avoid evidence “scavenger hunts”, 3) evidence should be clearly titled and referred to consistently, 4) there should be an established template for minutes, 5) we should work toward tagging evidence/ minutes, and 6) three-year plans should be better sources of evidence.

While the college has much improved in the area evidence, we still have much work to do. The last few days and hours of the report were still very hectic when it came to collecting and referencing the paper and electronic versions of the evidence. It would be to our advantage to have productive dialogue about how we want to handle evidence archiving, collecting, referencing, etc... Additionally, the initial instructions on how to handle evidence were changed at the end of the process.

Action Plans Faculty, staff and administrators presented many good ideas that should be considered carefully. The evaluation process, if we are to live the standards of accreditation, should be the first step in productive dialogue, that is, dialogue that actually leads to something. Some ideas specifically related to accreditation were: 1) Working Groups should use MyGroups for reporting information and they should meet regularly, 2) there should be regular training/workshops on accreditation for the campus community, 3) all

information/ workshops should be documented and posted for everyone to access.

The online survey provided many varied and interesting perspectives. It would be difficult and foolish to try and paraphrase them so they are present presented below in their entirety. The question was, how can we meet the Standards?

1. Clearly, we need stability in management, leadership and fiscal roles. I see progress being made in that direction through HR efforts. But, the issue isn't just a problem of turnover. I firmly believe SCC needs a new kind of leadership team than I've seen in the past, where so much energy has gone into pettiness, dysfunction, com- petitive undermining and career climbing, building defensive or self serving liaisons and networks, faculty working w/o a contract, etc. I would like to see a progressive management team that is fiscally responsible, smart and no nonsense and 100% committed to supporting educational goals; and that is clear and firm about the mission of the school, to provide educational excellence to our students, prepare students for transfer, for vocational training, for enrichment and creative expression and citizen participation. A top priority needs to be teaching and teachers, classrooms and programs that serve students! I think the best way to do that is to have Dept. heads who advo- cate for their program, that report to middle level Division chairs who in turn advo- cate for the programs under their supervision to top management. I don't think the current headless depts supervised by Deans who lack subject matter in the broad and multiple fields under their supervision works. I think SCC needs to focus on what is really important and the reason we're here and say no to all the nonsense that goes on around here that wears good teachers down. SCC can do better. It needs to be honest. I'd like to see all work here guided by shared positive values articulated from the top and supported throughout. Sorry, but I'm one who thinks running around writing SLO's falls under the category of "nonsense." I'd rather put my energy into my students and teaching in my small gem of a program that in the past 30 years I've been at SCC has suceeded with a transfer rate in the 90 to 95% range, lowered only by it's success of attracting UC seniors and college grads who can benefit from what our program offers and don't need to transfer and a few terminal AA degree grads.. And, with Counseling Dept follow up reports on our transfer students confirming they are doing excellent work and are well prepared for success in the four year colleges and Univer- sities. So, at SCC, in short, we need a better more cohesive cooperative leadership

team, with a buy in from the middle and bottom that number 1 priority supports classrooms, programs and teaching! 2. Consistency, credibility, and communication with all constituent groups. I think several folks felt 'out of the loop' and devalued. 3. follow the proper venues to address concerns when we have them. 4. a wiki is not a dialog and it does not constitute evidence of institutional dialog. A survey is not a dialog and it does not constitute getting faculty input. Any one can manipulate statistics or survey results any way they want. The whole process has been very uncollegial and top down. I think the pattern of misrepresenting the 'truth" of what happens on this campus is continuning firmly in place. for one exception, I men- tion that the report sent to beno was incomplete and that blame has been placed on different individuals on campus without the responsible party taking responsibility for what took place. 5. Faculty (especially new ones) need ongoing training in shared principles of shared governance and good practices in record , data keeping and organization. Flex activity suggested. 6. Start over. 7. Address planning agenda items in annual three-year plans. Perform annual "accred review" that would look at each major standard and develop simple ways to measure how we're doing relative to the standard and how we're archiving documentation of our work under the standard. 8. As new faculty I don't really know as much as maybe I could (and should), just because I am so busy being a new faculty member! I couldn't always go to the forums and such, but would it have been possible to have someone come and talk at our division meeting? I would know a lot more if that had happened. 9. Utilize an effective evaluation process for adminsitrators, Board members, and faculty. 10. Maintain the wiki with ACCJC standards and constantly update information and gath- er new evidences as it happens for each standard. Build a core standards team that works on accreditation continuously. 11. I believe more hands on training on the Wiki will help and the teams should continue to review the standards to make sure everything is understood and how to collect the evidence regarding the standards will be helpful. 12. I'm not sure which standard you mean-- but if you mean the standardS in general:

1. Keep detailed minutes of every kind of meeting, and archive these in a cen- tralized repository such as the campus intranet, such that others can aceess them and they can easily be retrieved as evidence of decision-making processes. 2. CONTINUOUSLY train faculty, staff, administrators, and Trustees in the planning & implementation procedures. What seems to happen now is that there's a little training when a new process is developed, but then years go by-- and by the time an individual might actually want to propose something, he/she has long since forgotten what the process should be. 3. Hire competent administrators who understand policies and procedures, insist on following them, and assist those under them in doing so. 4. Recruit and campaign for the election of better-qualified and less egomania- cal Trustees. 5. Organize working groups around each standard that meet once or twice a semester, year in and year out, to monitor & maintain the evidence pertaining to that standard. Or, in lieu of that, at least have a general accreditation committee do this-- the members of this group might then become the chairs of smaller working groups in times of self-study and report-writing. 13. We have to have routine face-to-face discussions about each standard, the primary features of the standard, what constitutes valid evidence, timelines and deadlines, and other essential parts of the accreditation process. In addition, the most important elements of "the standard" are those that speak to the lack of respectful institutional dialogue, which fosters trust and facilitates effective planning. Sadly, it appears that some individuals, from many areas of the campus, have no idea what respectful dialogue looks like, as evidenced by the kind of "all-faculty" e-mail attacks that we can count on appearing every semester, and the verbal trashings that we have witnessed take place in public meetings. It appears that a number of individuals need training on basic standards of professional conduct, e-mail etiquette, and effective interpersonal communication. We also need to have an important campus discussion about effective methods of communication that serve to include all members of the campus community, and critically evaluate the impact and effectiveness of e-mail, blogs, wikis and other technology on effective, respectful, institutional dialogue. 14. Need stability in the VP AA position with that VP knowing the standards and keeping us up to date on an onging basis. The revolving door in that position hasn't helped.

15. A Master Calendar with due dates for various reports, i.e. Program Review, should be developed. Too often we're told a report is due for our area "as soon as you can get it done". We should all know when a report, and which report, is due. 16. We should have a standing Accreditation Committee divided into Standards Commit- tees, i.e., a committee to cover each standard. Each of these Standards Committees would handle the self-study for its standard as well as any recommendations that may materialize referencing that standard. If a recommendation references more than one standard (only General Recommendation 1 did so), each of the referenced committees could respond to the recommendation with reference to its standard (there would be no need for the committee to respond referencing the other standard(s) since that portion would be covered by the other Standard Committee(s)). 17. First all there is a well defined need to "sunshine" and "announce to all faculty members" the intentions of those in leadership roles the need to have us all provide input instead of just a handfull of of the "chosen members" from the same old clique that got us into this predicament in the first place. Otherwise this will be just an- other exercise in futility of a select few who operate in the same old vacuum without benefit of the recommendations of the rest of us. 18. The thing SCC needs to come to terms with is that we have a mission statement we were all hired to honor and work to make happen--student success. That needs to be our rallying point for everything we do. This will help us leave the past in the past and create new relationships and new processes for the future. My suggestion is an MOU be- tween the unions and the administration such that people get activity points or ac- knowledgment of part of their workloads for participating in campus-wide committees like accreditation response groups. The only way to get the buy-in necessary for more than the "usual suspects" to work on campus culture is for the campus to acknowledge the value of that work. If everyone on campus knew that part of their work was the tracking of evidence, the writing about that evidence, the making and implementation of new ideas, then we would be able to move forward as a unified institution. I simply don't see that happening until we as a community recognize, not just in word but in actions, the importance of this task. 19. We are finally on the right track. Please be sure to let all of us know how we can help as we continue. Thanks. 20. Follow through.

21. We need to "live accreditation" by having permanent working groups/committees, regular trainings and/or forums (at least during Flex), and keep a wiki going at all times--although modified to speak to the Standards rather than focusing on the recommendations as was needed for this report. And is there any way to require participation somehow? Wishful thinking. 22. We need more education on the standards. The assignment to read the standards does not result in learning them. We need a big picture intro and then get to the specifics of each standard. 23. I believe we need to spend Flex time discussing the standards, our relationship with the ACCJC, and what constitutes evidence. Also, the SCFA should be held account- able for their participation in the letter from the state CTA which placed us now in an even more untenable relationship with the ACCJC. I think the SCFA should be sanc- tioned. 24. I am thinking that there are still problems with institutional dialog- I worry that there is not as much "buy in" to Accreditation, Program Review, etc. as there needs to be for us to be successful. It also remains to be seen whether or not the Governing Board will continue to behave- here is hoping! 25. The "evidence" needs to be easier to access and to evaluate. We need to embrace "transparency" in our daily work, not just on special occasions! We need to "know" what the planning process is, and it should be as clear to new employees as to veter- ans. We should be able to read the accreditation response and know that the statements are correct without looking at any evidence. 26. better data dissemination Some Statistical Results The full results of the Show Cause Survey are available at the wiki. Some of the statistical results include the following:

Question Percent

There was sufficient training on the ACCJC standards. 41.2% Agree

Working Groups were provided with clear instructions on what to 46.5% Agree do.

Question Percent

In the Working Groups, having co-chairs and a “core group” was 60% Agree effective

There was a fair division of labor in the Working Groups, no on 51.4% Agree person did everything.

My input in the Working Group was valued. 53.7% Agree

The wiki was well organized. 56.3% Agree

The wiki was useful and easy to navigate. 43.8% Agree

Working Groups had a clear idea ow what qualifies as 48.8% Agree “evidence”.

Working Groups had clear instructions on how to incorporate 48.8% Agree evidence into their narrative.

Accreditation Advisory Group In early May Vice President Steinback and Dr. Lamb met with several of the co-chairs and members of the Working Groups to discuss the organization of the Show Cause Report and what should be done as Solano gears up for the next series of reports. We agreed on the following rough timeline: Summer 2009 to receive news on status, evaluate process, and refine timeline. Fall 2009 to produce next “Special Report” in October but also to train and begin gathering evidence for and writing the Self-Study due in Fall 1010. Spring 2010 to continue writing the Self-Study in addition to regular steering committee meetings with co-chairs. Summer 2010 to editing and review. Fall 2010 to finalize review and edits. Also, prepare, finalize and produce the document.

Training over the next year should include Flex Cal time on Standards training, What is evidence?, and the style-sheet. The Accreditation Advisory Group agreed that the accreditation editor should play an important role early on to help decide form the narrative that Working Groups produce should take, i.e., active or passive voice, bulleted sentences, citation rules, “us/we” or “the College”, for example.

Accreditation Evaluation Report 10