Executive Committee Meeting AGENDA Go to minutes
August 13, 2004
UHCC Biennium Budget Update
2. ABIT Progress
3. Review of Community Forum Agenda, Respondents, and other Preparation
4. Monday Schedule of First Day Agenda
5. Lahaina Ed Center Progress
6. Annual Report,
7. Enrollment, Revenue,
8. Student Housing: Paul Quong: faculty, Agora, County
9. Windmill contract
10. DHS Contract
11. Bill McDonough, Sept 1, 5:30pm-7:45pm, Paina
12. Other Items
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
8:30 a.m., Ka Lama 102
Present: Kate Acks, Pat Adams, Scott Broadbent, Margaret Christensen, Kathryn Fletcher, Pam Hoopii, Nancy Johnson, Diane Meyer, Jeannie Pezzoli, Kiope Raymond, Suzette Robinson, Clyde Sakamoto, Frances Segundo, Mona Stevenson, Alvin Tagomori, David Tamanaha
Clyde introduced Janet Six, Special Projects Coordinator, assigned to the Chancellor’s office. Janet is an APT casual hire who will be assisting with grant development and special projects.
MCC submitted 1.1 million dollars worth of items we felt we needed: Top priority - support for ABIT program, 2 - workforce development programs (remedial development), 3 - Allied Health and Early Childhood programs, 4 - campus security. UH Administration went in with a lesser request, reducing our request by $4 or $5 hundred thousand. Priorities 1, 2 and part of 3 could be funded.
An informational meeting was held on Monday night, August 9, 2004. The meeting was videotaped and is being played on Channel 55 the week of August 16 at 7:00 p.m. and on weekends at 4:00 p.m. David Grooms has sent thank you letters to attendees. Students entering the ABIT program are being encouraged to start with IS 106. Many of the students are not ready for the two- and three-hundred level courses.
Margaret Christensen (IT Assistant Professor) and Rafael Boritzer (Business Assistant Professor) have been selected for the two ABIT faculty positions. They will each teach a class. General Education curriculum is about done and ready to go to curriculum committee before November. Initial accreditation visit will be held in February. Both Sr. and Jr. Commissions were satisfied with MCC’s eligibility report. We addressed 23 criterion to become a candidate for initial eligibility. There are three or four criteria we need to address more fully. These are being addressed and will be submitted as an addendum.
A meeting is scheduled to discuss ABIT infrastructure requirements.
Brochures have been printed describing courses available. The program is also listed in the catalog as BCR3 ABIT track.
The agenda for the community forum was distributed to members. We have approximately 45 positive respondents. There will be 12 facilitators to help lead discussions. The forum will help determine where we will be going for the next year in terms of strategic plan. Suzette will introduce our new programs: Bio Technology, Dental Hygiene, and Media Arts as well as list of our present two-year programs and University Center offerings. We will also be sharing our Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) results.
A draft of the first day agenda was distributed. Members reviewed and made changes/additions.
Clyde, David Tamanaha and Scott Broadbent met with Bill Dornbush, owner of the Lahaina property on Kenui street. We will be acquiring the entire facility. Unit Chairs, Alvin Tagomori, Michele Katsutani and Sharane Gomes will be going out to see the facility to see how it would be used. Nancy Johnson will also be visiting the site to determine where telehealth will be located. Keoki Raymond will be rehabilitating the site. The facility will also be set up as another HITS site.
Scott Broadbent is working on the annual report. Scott asked members to forward any information on notable achievements by faculty and staff. It was noted that outstanding student accomplishments should be included and we should highlight accomplishments of students from various programs.
As of August 13, our enrollment was at 2,576. Last year about a week from this time, we were at 2697. We are ahead in continuing students. There is a drop in returning students, and we are down in first time and transfer students. We have 112 international students. Some international students may be turned away because we are at our maximum capacity for student housing. We could solicit help from the community however we need additional half-time personnel to assist in doing this.
Paul Quong, developer of projects around the country, is interested in purchasing the property between Harbor Lights and Cutter Nissan as well as the Cutter Nissan property for a 400-bed student housing facility. The facility would have commercial space on the bottom with student housing on the upper floor. Discussions with Jan Yakota, C.I.P. Director, are in the preliminary stage; we are looking at impact on infrastructure, staffing, timing, size, what preferences would be.
Our current dorms will be refurbished and may possibly be used for non-credit in-service training.
Agora dorm project is moving ahead. County is supportive. We will be submitting documentation for permit process.
Frances Segundo recommended that the housing design distributed at an earlier Executive Committee meeting be put on our website.
The MCC-HIPAC contract has been forwarded to ORS for review. We are also in discussion with Mike Unebasami to determine if we need Board approval or notice to the Board.
Department of Human Services Contract
MCC is working with Lillian Kohler to develop a program similar to our oral health care program which provides services to needy families. Lee Stein will be involved in a program to change the culture of the Child and Family Support Services by offering training classes to service providers. A meeting will be held to look at how we can translate grant funds into activities that will be beneficial. Title IV funds will cover Lee Stein’s instructional cost and infrastructure.
A concern was raised that these special programs take good faculty out of the classroom. We need to develop our lecturer pool to fill behind. It was recommended that we advertise lectureship opportunities on the web. It was also noted that these special initiatives will also give students opportunities to participate in training.
The System is paying for an ORS position on campus to provide ongoing support to those who are preparing proposals and grants and to principal investigators on budget, grant requirements, etc.
Bill McDonough, co-author of Cradle to Cradle, will be giving a presentation on September 1, 5:30-7:30 p.m., in Pa`ina. Please let Colleen know if you wish to attend. HC&S. MEDB, and Maui Land and Pine will also be participating.
Alvin Tagomori was informed that we will need to submit our Corrective Action plan by August 27.
Suzette Robinson distributed copies of the Timeline for Comprehensive Program Review (draft), Timeline for Annual Assessments, Self-Study Guide for Annual Assessment and Comprehensive Program Review and Procedures and Timeline for Annual Assessment and Program Review Validation Teams (draft). The draft documents have not yet been approved by the Academic Senate.
Cindy Yamamoto is on leave until July 2005. Flora Mora will be temporarily assigned to Cindy’s position. Delena Fujioka will fill behind Flora. David will need to hire someone to fill behind Delena.
Brian Harding is out on sick leave. He will be running out of leave time soon. Sick and vacation leave can be donated by staff who would like to help Brian. Different rules apply to faculty, apt, civil service. Those who wish to contribute should check with Debbi Brown first. Reminder should go out in November as some staff may be in a “use or lose” position and could contribute.
Gloria Juday, Lanai Education Center Coordinator, has resigned. She will work until the end of the first week of classes. Jeannie Pezzoli is working on getting a casual hire.
Alika Witecha, O&M Grounds Supervisor, visited the campus and presented flags to the Chancellor’s office and the preschool. He has returned to Iraq.
Draft (June 28, 2004)
The Comprehensive Program Review will include Parts I, II, III, IV and V of the “Self-Study Guide for Annual Assessments and Program Reviews.” Each program will complete a Comprehensive Program Review every five years, on a rotating basis. Comprehensive Program Review Reports are due to the Vice Chancellor on the third Friday of September.
Covers AY 2003-04 Allied Health
Due 9/16/05 Administration of Justice TLC
Covers AY 2004-05 Carpentry Molokai
Due 9/15/06 Human Services UHC
Covers AY 2005-06 Fashion Technology Lanai Ed Cntr
Due 09/14/07 Autobody Library
Covers AY 2006-07 Hotel Operations Computing C Auto Mechanics
Due 09/13/08 Culinary Arts Media
Covers AY 2007-08 Business Careers Hana Ed Cntr
Electronics & Computer
An Annual Assessment Report will be completed by each program, except for those that are doing a Comprehensive Program Review that year. This Annual Assessment Report will include only Parts I, II and V of the “Self-Study Guide for Annual Assessments and Comprehensive Program Reviews.”
The Annual Program Review is due to the Vice Chancellor by the third Friday of September of each year. For example, the Annual Assessment Report for AY 2003-04 is due September 17, 2004. This report will cover the program’s progress in establishing student learning outcomes and assessment over the past academic year.
Beginning AY 2004-05, the annual assessments will continue as follows:
AY 2004-05 report due September 16, 2005
AY 2005-06 report due September 15, 2006
and so on –
This schedule allows program assessment to be a part of campus planning and resource allocation for the coming academic year.
Note: Annual Assessments cover only sections I, II, and V of the
Comprehensive Program Reviews cover sections I, II, III, IV,
and V of the Self-Study Guide.
(Instructions for writing your Annual Assessment Report or your Comprehensive Program Review Report are in bold.)
I. OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM
A. Mission and Vision of the College
The mission and vision of Maui College are on the first page of the MCC Strategic Plan.
B. Mission and Vision of the Program
1. Program vision for the next five years
2. Contribution of the program to the Mission of MCC
3. Goals of the program (See Appendix A)
4. Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) of the program (See Appendix B)
Write your program’s mission and vision for the next five years and discuss how they contribute to the MCC mission and vision. Explain the connection between the goals of your program and the student learning outcomes of the program.
C. Relation to MCC Strategic Plan
Read over the MCC Strategic Plan Action Strategies, paying special attention to those chosen as priorities for this past year, and describe the relationships your program has to any of them.
D. Program Faculty (full and part-time)
1. Faculty by rank
2. Faculty by length of service
3. Faculty qualifications or credentials
4. Faculty areas of expertise
5. Faculty turnover during the past seven years
6. Faculty appointments and attrition
7. Faculty’s currency in the field of study
Give the information listed in 1-7 about each faculty member (full and part-time) in your program. Describe how the teachers in your program keep updated on any changes in your field of study. Tell how this affects student learning outcomes.
E. Ways in which program interacts with:
1. Community groups
2. Professional associations
4. National accreditation bodies
5. Other key organizations
Describe the interactions your program has with external groups or organizations. Tell who the members of the groups are, giving names, professions, and qualifications, when applicable. In each instance, tell the goal of the interaction and the outcome. Tell how these interactions affect student learning outcomes.
II. CURRICULUM AND STUDENTS
A. General Education Standards (COWIQs), program goals, and student learning outcomes (See Appendices C, A, B)
Discuss the five standards currently in place (COWIQs) to assess students in your program. (Critical thinking, oral communication, written communication, information technology, and quantitative reasoning.) Tell which ones are assessed as student learning outcomes for your program. Tell which ones may be taught and practiced but not assessed. Connect program goals with student learning outcomes.
B. COWIQ and program goals curricular grids (See Appendix D)
C. Student Achievement (See Appendices E and F)
3. Other student achievement measures
Describe your program’s progress, using data from PHI’s, Perkins, and any other student achievement measures available. Explain the significance of the information and what actions you plan to take because of it.
D. Changes made in accord with the recommendations of the previous
program review for Program Health Indicators (PHIs)
1. Recommendations followed
2. Recommendations not followed
3. Reasons for not following recommendations
4. Implementation timeline for changes
E. Changes made in accord with the recommendations of the previous
program review for Perkins measures
1. Recommendations followed
2. Recommendations not followed
3. Reasons for not following recommendations
4. Implementation timeline for changes
Describe any changes recommended by a previous program review for Perkins measures, covering 1-4. Describe the outcomes of any changes made.
F. Measurable Benchmarks
1. Value added
a. Internal criteria
b. External criteria
3. Peer college benchmarks
List and describe all measurable benchmarks, 1-3, in your program. Tell how you know that your students have achieved the benchmarks. Describe your assessment of each benchmark. Describe any changes recommended by a previous program review of benchmarks. Describe the outcomes of any changes made.
G. Program/Certificate/Degree Standards and their SLOs (See Appendices
C and G)
H. Program trends, including student goals, enrollment trends, retention, and
time of completion
Describe the goals of students who are enrolled in your program. Tell what percentage of your students earn certificates or degrees and if some may enroll to take specific classes to upgrade their skills. Use data to discuss current and past enrollment, retention, and average time of completion.
I. Changes in field; resources; shifts to respond to changes
1. No additional resources
2. Moderate additional resources
3. Major additional resources
Describe any changes in the field of study for your program. Tell what you have done or plan to do to adjust to these changes and what additional resources, if any, are or will be required. Tell any plans you have to find external resources.
J. Major curricular changes since last review
Describe any major curricular changes since your last review. Tell why a change was made and how the curricular grid and other assessment strategies influenced the decision. Discuss any support courses that are needed for your program and how readily available they are.
K. Student advising and the degree to which faculty participate in the
mentoring of students
Describe how accessible faculty in your program are to students, both inside and outside the classroom. Tell how many and to what degree faculty members advise and mentor students. Describe any effort to encourage faculty mentoring activities. Discuss any data you have on the effectiveness of faculty mentoring.
L. Opportunities for student involvement in program-related organizations,
clubs, and governance
Describe how much and to what degree students in your program are involved in organizations, clubs, student government, and the governance of the program. Tell how students are encouraged to attend meetings and planning sessions.
M. Use of lecturers to teach courses; related concerns
Describe the number and qualifications of lecturers who teach in your program.
Identify any concerns about how this might affect student learning outcomes.
N. Admission policy
Describe the admission policy for your program and any prerequisites students must complete before being admitted. Discuss how well this is working and if you plan to make any changes.
O. Job placement, including job prospects, procedures for placing graduates,
and success in placing graduates
Describe any program or College job placement procedures in existence for graduates of your program. Tell what they are and how successful they are. Describe the future job prospects for your graduates. Tell where your information comes from and how often it is updated. For instance, tell how often you survey local business and industry and what local and state government job predictors you use to gather your evidence.
P. Articulation with high schools, community colleges, and four-year
Describe your articulation agreements with high schools, community colleges, and four-year institutions. Tell how these came about and what your program regularly does to support them.
Q. Centers or Institutes
Describe any Centers or Institutes on campus. Tell what kinds of relationships, e.g. articulation, that you have with them. Tell how easy or how difficult it is for your students to enroll in classes or programs offered.
III. STAFF SUPPORT AND FACILITIES
A. Professional and Clerical staff
List any professional and/or clerical staff positions that serve your program. Describe their duties and tell how each position’s responsibilities support student learning outcomes.
B. Space and equipment for instruction
C. Space and equipment for research, e.g. institutional
Describe the space and equipment used by students for research in your program. Tell if this is adequate for the present and long-term goals of the program. Give data and evidence to back up any need for additional space and/or equipment for research. Discuss any external fund-raising possibilities and activities.
D. Space and equipment for external grants
Describe the space and equipment used by students for projects funded by external grants in your program. Tell if this is adequate for the present and long-term goals of the program. Give data and evidence to back up any need for additional space and/or equipment for external grants. Discuss external fund-raising activities.
A. Description of programs delivered off-campus or via distance delivery
B. Faculty, student support, and facilities
1. Qualifications of distance faculty (full and part-time)
a. Faculty by rank
b. Faculty by length of service
c. Faculty qualifications or credentials
d. Faculty areas of expertise
e. Faculty turnover during the past seven years
f. Faculty appointments and attrition
g. Faculty’s currency in delivering distance education courses
Give the information listed in a-g about each member of the full-time and part-time faculty teaching either off-campus or distance delivery classes in your program. Compare their qualifications with faculty who teach courses on campus.
Tell how the teachers are trained in distance education skills and practices.
2. Available Student Support
a. Access to faculty
b. Academic advising
c. Financial aid advising
d. Library materials and resources
e. Tutorial support
f. Media and/or computer tech
g. Clerical support
Give information, a-h, about support for students in your program taking classes either off-campus or by distance delivery. Use evidence and data to confirm your information. Describe assessment strategies for student support for your program, a-h. Compare the student support offered to students taking classes on the campus to that offered to distance students.
3. Space and equipment for instruction
a. Sending site
b. Receiving site
C. Evidence that the educational student learning outcomes of each program are being met
Tell how you and your faculty know that the student learning outcomes of your program are being met for your distance students.
D. Evidence that the educational effectiveness of off-campus or distance delivered programs is comparable to on-campus programs (including assessment of student learning outcomes, student retention, and student satisfaction).
Cite the data that you use for evidence to prove that the educational effectiveness of off-campus or distance courses in your program is comparable to that of on-campus courses in your program.
V. ANALYSES OF PROGRAM – TYING IT ALL TOGETHER
A. Summary statement
Tell whether or not your program goals, general education standards, and student achievement measures were met. If they were, you have validated your program. If they were not, tell why not.
B. Plans for next year
Describe your plan of action for next year. Tell how you plan to meet goals and SLOs not yet attained. Describe your plans for setting any new goals and SLOs and implementing them. Describe your assessment strategies.
C. Budget for next year
Describe the budget that will be needed next year in order to implement the program’s new goals and SLOs. List any possible sources for revenue.
D. BOR questions
The following questions are those asked by the UH Board of Regents about all
established programs. Use the checklist to be sure that you have addressed each one in your Annual Assessment or your Comprehensive Program Review.
˙ Is the program organized to meet its objectives (student learning
˙ Is the program meeting the student learning outcomes?
˙ Are program resources adequate?
˙ Is the program efficient?
˙ Does your review provide evidence of a quality program?
˙ Are the program outcomes compatible with the student learning
˙ Are the program student learning outcomes still appropriate
functions of the college and university?
A. Goals of the Program
B. SLOs of the Program
C. General Education Standards
D. COWIQ Curricular Grid
F. Perkins Performance Indicators
G. Program Map
Document revised June 28, 2004
Program Review Validation Teams
University of Hawai’i Executive Policy E5.202 mandates the periodic examination of academic programs by faculty and administration to determine the extent to which the programs are meeting their objectives and if these objectives remain relevant to the missions of the unit, campus, and University.
Maui College’s program review process involves continuous and systematic evaluations of established programs or units on a yearly basis (referred to as the Annual Assessment) with a comprehensive self-study and external validation study every five years (referred to as the Comprehensive Program Review.) The review of all aspects of a program’s or unit’s instructional offerings and campus/community service are undertaken at the same time. The validation process involves two steps. The first step is the validation study by at least a three-member committee made up of on-campus and/or off-campus members as established by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (VCAA) and academic chairs/directors. The second step is the confirmation of the validation study by the Maui Community College Executive Committee (CEC) led by the Chancellor.
To the extent possible, program reviews are coordinated with accreditation reviews for those departments, schools, or colleges that are evaluated by external accrediting associations. When possible, a self-study report will serve for both external and internal review purposes with information being added as needed to address campus criteria not covered by accreditation standards.
Annual Assessment Validation Teams will consist of at least three people. The recommended composition of the team may be (1) a student, (2) a program coordinator from another program, (3) campus support faculty, or (4) community/expert in field. The Program Coordinator for the program being reviewed will serve as a resource person.
The Comprehensive Program Review Validation Teams will consist of four people. Required composition of the Team will be (1) a student, (2) a program coordinator from another program, (3) campus support faculty, and (4) community/expert in field.
Annual Assessment and Comprehensive Program Review Validation Timeline:
1. Report due to VCAA by 3rd Friday of September
2. VCAA gives to Assessment Coordinators by 4th Friday of September
3. Assessment Coordinators review and write comments and pass on to Validation Teams by 2nd Friday in October.
4. Validation Teams do their report and submit to VCAA by 4th Friday of October.
5. VCAA confers with program coordinators by 4th Friday in November.
6. VCAA reports to Executive Committee in December. Reports are used for planning and budgeting recommendations.
7. Executive Committee gives planning and budgeting recommendations to the Chancellor by 4th Friday in January.
8. Chancellor submits report on Comprehensive Program Review Validation Team reports to President and Board of Regents.
In their next year’s report the programs address any recommendations made by all the reviewing bodies on their report of the previous year.
Maui Community College
Annual Assessment and Comprehensive Program Review Validation Teams should follow these guidelines. The format can be adapted to fit the needs of the program being reviewed.
Program Health Indicators (PHI’s) of the vocational programs during the past five to seven years are available for review by team members. This information should be supplemented by reading the original program description and previous program reviews.
Each review team should interview (a) student, (b) faculty, and (c) the department chair(s). The team should also tour departmental facilities and observe their usage. The results of these interviews and observations will form a key part of the report.
Relevance: How well does the program meet the MCC Strategic Plan?
1. Is the mission of the program aligned with MCC’s mission?
2. How effectively does the program advance the core commitments of the MCC Strategic Plan?
3. Is there evidence that the program is implementing the strategic action strategies of the MCC Strategic Plan?
Comparison: How does the general quality of the program compare with that of similar programs at mainland universities? In the analysis, consider such factors as staff, students, physical facilities, fellowship, scholarships/assistantships, admissions standards, etc.
1. Are the courses of degree-related activities appropriate to the level at which they are offered (i.e., 100-level, 200-level)?
2. Are the courses intellectually challenging and rigorously comprehensive?
3. Does the field of study have a thoughtfully-designed program for its students?
Consider the quality of the curriculum and its appropriateness to the program’s educational objectives.
1. Are educational objectives of the program articulated?
2. Is there sufficient evidence that educational objectives are being met? Are students learning outcomes articulated and achievement assessed?
3. Are assessment results used to continuously improve the program?
Note length of time needed to complete degree requirements, attrition rate, ratio of international to American students and the effect, if any, this may have on the program’s quality.
Current students as well as students who have completed the program should be surveyed.
1. Is the program selective in its admission of students?
2. Are students admitted conditionally? What sort of deficiencies do incoming students have?
3. Is written information delineating program and graduation requirements provided to each entering student?
4. Is there a coordinated program of courses and faculty advising to help students reach their goals?
5. Is the program consistent for all students?
6. Do students feel they have an adequate voice in departmental affairs?
7. Will the field of study take effective action to remedy legitimate student complaints? For example, what is the result if students report a badly-taught course?
8. Are there any problems with harassment or coercion?
9. Is student morale high?
Assess the quality of the faculty using traditional measures of productivity, teaching, excellence, and service.
1. What is the reputation of the program and its faculty? Where do faculty exhibit or perform their works? What awards have they received?
2. Are the faculty accessible to students both inside and outside of the classroom?
3. Are the faculty dedicated in their roles as mentors to their students?
4. Are the faculty available, to student and, providing academic advisory?
5. What is the faculty workload and is it equitable?
6. How is teaching evaluated? What priority does the department place on the quality of teaching?
DISTANCE DELIVERED PROGRAMS
Review the distance- or off–campus delivery of programs. Consider whether “distant” students are receiving programs and services of comparable quality to on-campus students.
1. What are the qualifications of faculty who are teaching in distance- or off–campus programs? Are their qualifications comparable to faculty teaching in on-campus programs?
2. Do students in distance- or off–campus programs have adequate access to faculty, academic advising, financial aid advising, library materials and resources, etc.?
3. Is there sufficient evidence that educational objectives and student learning outcomes in distance- and off-campus programs are being met?
Employing reasonable criteria of achievement (e.g., number of graduates, success in obtaining employment, etc.), describe how the program has met its objectives during the review period. Where has it failed? Does the program meet local, national, and international needs?
FACILITIES AND SUPPORT FUNDING
Consider the quality and extent of the department’s relationship to other units of the university; its funding from state, federal, and private sources, including funds obtained for various elements of the program; and physical facilities, e.g., laboratories, computers and word processing equipment, library holdings.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The final written report should address these broad questions:
· What have been the objectives of the instructional program during the review period?
· In what ways has the program succeeded in achieving these objectives?
· In what ways has it fallen short of these goals?
Comment on both positive and negative aspects of the program. Include recommended actions that should be taken. Pertinent problems and deficiencies that were observed during the review should be noted.
The completed report should be checked with the unit/program coordinator chair for factual accuracy before it submitted. A hard copy and an electronic version of the team report (Word format) should be provided to the OVCAA.
If you have any questions at any stage of the review, please feel free to raise them with the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Thanks in advance for your help in this very important task.