College Governance and Planning

Los Angeles Harbor College

Accreditation Summary (August 20, 2008)

The Western Association of Schools and Colleges Accrediting Commission requires that Los Angeles Harbor College resolve and respond to five recommendations that impact the College’s evaluation, planning, and review process and further define the relationship between the College and larger Los Angeles Community College District of which Harbor College is a part.

Since the Commission’s 2006 accreditation visit, Harbor College has engaged in an aggressive effort in terms of unit planning, SLO development, and program review to further develop and implement its planning processes.

Since 2006 all instructional divisions have updated their yearly unit plans on a new, standardized template that better reflects approved college goals and relevant data. These unit objectives have in turn been integrated into a prioritized instructional plan.

Since 2006 Harbor College’s progress on formulating and assessing Student Learning Outcomes has been significant. The majority of regular faculty members have now participated in discipline by discipline training sessions Repeated in the design of objectives and assessment tools for the college’s core courses. These SLOs and assessment measures are now on the college website.

Between 2006 and 2007 a special committee of the Academic Senate evaluated all previous program reviews, and since 2007 a new timetable for maintaining a viable cycle is being enforced. The February, 2008 interim report addressed Recommendation 1 in terms of the thorough revision of the program review process. This revision met the satisfaction of the accreditation commission.

Below is a timeline coordinated by Harbor College faculty and administrators that specifies a chronology for addressing the October 15 and March 15 deadlines established by the Accrediting Commission. The timetable reflects the College’s ongoing effort to address the following recommendations:

Rec. 2: The College needs to develop an on-going, systematic cycle of evaluation, integrated planning, resource allocation, implementation and re-evaluation. This should be based in deep analysis of District and institutional research provided data and assure a broad involvement and participation in the institutional planning cycle.

Supporting Activities and Data:

A) Calendar and Microsoft Project timeline for all planning processes.

B) Evidence of operational process:

1) Minutes from meetings of each College cluster, CPC, and Senate.

2) Unit plans including research data.

3) Cluster data and resulting prioritization matrix.

4) Budget based on decision of CPC, Budget Committee, and College President.

5) Alignment of College plans with district planning objectives.

C) Written evaluation of planning process (2007-08).

D) Initiation of 2008-2009 unit plans.

E) Update educational Master Plan.

Rec. 3 using the planning process and the governance process, the college should construct a meaningful dialogue about student learning which assures understanding and infusion of Student Learning Outcomes. This dialogue should rely on robust information focused on the accomplishment of students as defined in program, inter-departmental, and institutional learning outcomes.

Supporting Activities and Data:

A) Appointment of SLO coordinator.

B) Assessment of Institutional Student Learning Outcome.

C) Departmental workshops with Powerpoint presentation of Strategic Learning Outcomes. Posted on Web.

D) College-wide participation in World Café I (April 7) & II (Aug. 29)

E) Revised Course Outlines and Assessment Forms for core courses. Posted on Web.

F) E-Portfolio-initiation of program and institutional level SLOs for Spring ‘09.

G) Assessment workshops- FLEX- Aug. 27 & 28.

H) Ongoing collection and evaluation of SLO assessment data in Fall ‘08.

I) Completion of assessment tools and application to all courses for March report.

Rec. 4 In making public the process of program review as well as the results, the College will regularly and in a timely manner review and update policy, planning and procedure manuals.

Supporting Activities and Data:

A) Calendar and timeline (Microsoft Project) of program review process.

B) Organization of most recent program review materials.

C) Completion of first two steps of program review process for those programs to be reviewed in Spring, 09.

D) Outline additional steps of review process for March report.

E) E-Portfolio- initiation of program and institutional level SLOs, Spring ’09.

F) Updating and schedule for further updates of all policy and procedure manuals.

G) All governance and planning materials readily accessible on a redesigned college accreditation website.

Rec. 6 The functional relationship between the college and District needs to be fully defined through a dialog focused on the efficient use of resources and service to students. The implementation of a decentralized relationship needs mutual definition.

Supporting Activities and Data:

A) Flex Activity on District Planning.

B) College consultation with District Administration.

Rec. 1

The Commission is seeking evidence that the district has developed, implemented, and is adhering to a plan which will address the unfunded retiree health benefit liability to assure out-year obligations are met without significant negative impact on the financial health of the institution.

Supporting Data:

A) Statement of District policy addressing the retiree health benefit liability.