Glendale
Community College
NCA
Self-Study Report, January 2002
Chapter Eight
Criterion Four
|
The
institution can continue to accomplish its purposes and strengthen its
educational effectiveness |
Glendale Community
College fulfills Criterion Four.
This section describes the Institutional Planning, Research,
Performance, and Process Review which all play major roles in assessing and
improving our effectiveness. The
College’s institutional planning processes focus on various factors that
may affect the College’s future.
Given the many technological and demographic changes over the past
decade and in anticipation of continued growth in these areas, careful
attention is paid to student and community needs. Educational effectiveness springs from organizational
processes that have been developed in a logical and integrated manner, intended
to be comprehensive, strategic, dynamic, and able to respond to future needs.
Organizational Effectiveness—Institutional Planning
Strategic Planning
The Interim
Advisory Council and the Strategic Planning Committee developed our current
strategic plan in 1996. The plan
has been implemented over the past 5 years under the direction of the
Operational Planning Team, comprised of College representatives and 3 community
members. The Team met for 2 years
(1998 and 1999) to help focus and direct annual planning efforts in support of
the broad strategic issues and goals identified.
In Spring 1997,
department chairs, faculty representatives from specific disciplines within
divisions, service-area managers, administrators, Fund 2 managers, and budget
committee members participated in a comprehensive effort to study all
organizational aspects related to planning and budgeting. The study examined the importance of
incorporating the results of student academic achievement and institutional
effectiveness, along with the goals, objectives, and strategies developed and
affirmed by our strategic plan.
These findings helped the College understand the importance of achieving
goals through the implementation of an effective planning and budgeting
process.
Based on these findings, strategic and operational planning
processes have been the focus of continuous improvement efforts. The study is available at
http://www.gc.maricopa.edu:2049/ie/PlanningBudgetingAssessing/PlanBudget.html (restricted access - username gccguest)
In Fall 2001, an ad
hoc workgroup of faculty
and staff explored how to improve upon the previous strategic-planning process
used in 1996. This revised process
can be described as an “outside-in” approach and includes the steps
of listening to a variety of stakeholders, examining the gap between the
stakeholders’ expectations and the College’s current capabilities,
identifying strategic choices, exploring the implications of responding to
“gaps” identified, selecting strategic goals, and finally creating
action plans that align internal processes, resources, employees, and
information systems in support of strategic goals. College strategic planning is being linked to District-wide
strategic planning described at
http://www.maricopa.edu/stratplan/
Annual Planning
GCC’s annual
planning and budgeting process revolves around strategic issues and goals, the
College Mission, and MCCCD Governing Board’s Goals. Department Chairs and managers are
encouraged to include members of their departments in the planning
process. Planners are asked to
report outcomes from the previous year, objectives of the current year, and
objectives for the next year. The
end result of each department’s planning is a list of objectives that are
linked to a prioritized list of budget requests for faculty, staff, computing
equipment, capital, supplies, and facilities needed for the upcoming fiscal
year.
Determining the
allocation of resources to requests is equally participatory. Three budget subcommittees,
Instruction, Student Services, and College-wide Services, review and prioritize
budget requests and forward recommendations to the Budget Development Committee
(BDC), which reviews all requests and makes final recommendations to the President. The Faculty Staffing Advisory Committee
forwards a prioritized list of faculty staffing recommendations to the
President, computing technology requests are sent to the Computer Resource
Committee, and facilities requests are sent to the Facilities Committee. The annual planning and budgeting
process is documented each year on the IE web site at
http://www.gc.maricopa.edu:2049/ie/PlanningBudgetingAssessing/BudgetingProcess/BudgetingProcess.html (restricted access - username gccguest)
Achievements since 1992
· Developed a planning and budgeting database
that is continually improved
· More faculty and staff participate in the
planning process
· Improved quality of planning documents
submitted by departments and managers
Team Analysis
Team 12 conducted
an initial analysis of factors likely influencing the areas of improvement and
determined that successful institutional planning includes department chairs
and administrators who understand the processes; levels of planning; plans and
processes are in place to address the College’s short-, mid-, and
long-term needs; and the planning and budgeting process is reviewed annually to
identify areas needing improvement.
The facts that the current budget process is annual/short-term and only
considers the next fiscal year and the planning and budgeting processes are not
universally understood, and is viewed as too complex and cumbersome were seen
as weaknesses. While the College
faces a threat in the rapidly changing environment (social, technical,
economic, political trends), the opportunity for future growth will depend on a
successful 2004 bond initiative.
Areas for Improvement
· Creating a broader understanding of
planning processes
· Strengthening ties to College and District
strategic-planning goals
Recommendations
· Expand the multi-year planning process
· Simplify budget process forms to help
managers develop objectives
· Strengthen the feedback process to make
planning processes more meaningful
· Link strategic planning to bond planning
Content Area Validation
A greater number
of faculty and staff have been involved in the planning and budgeting process
over the past 5 years. Although
some view the process as time consuming and complex, the current process has
addressed a number of issues identified by the 1997 planning and budget study,
such as including new people on budget committees, providing a more open
process to eliminate the feeling of secrecy, and improving communication and
dialog among department members when writing objectives and budget proposals.
Organizational Effectiveness—Institutional Research
The Office of
Institutional Effectiveness (IE) has the primary responsibility for conducting
research and providing data for decision support, planning, and assessment
processes. Staff members of the IE
Office handle both ad hoc
and recurring requests for data primarily from department chairs, committees,
deans and managers. All requests
are tracked in a database so that recurring requests can be scheduled each
semester, and common ad hoc
requests can be identified and published on the IE intranet web site. Faculty and staff can access a wide
range of enrollment, student demographic, retention, facilities, and staffing
data on the IE web site located at
http://www.gc.maricopa.edu:2049/ie (restricted access - username gccguest)
Data Warehouses
Two data
warehouses provide the ability to publish trend data on the intranet web site
and enable a wide variety of research questions to be answered about student
performance and College effectiveness.
One warehouse, IRDW, maintained by the District, has more than 10 years
of “detail level” data about students, enrollments, and
completers. The other warehouse,
ASSIST, maintained at ASU, provides the ability to track transfer students to
the state universities and other community colleges in Arizona. The office also maintains a library of
books, articles, journals, and publications on institutional research topics
such as assessment and institutional effectiveness. The library is available to all faculty and staff.
Support for
assessment processes includes conducting cohort studies on new students,
students in special programs such as dual enrollment and ACE Plus,
graduates/completers, and university transfers. The office also develops specialized tracking databases at
the request of programs and departments to meet their unique needs. Support provided to faculty and staff
who want to conduct surveys includes planning the survey, formulating questions,
selecting random survey samples, automating the processing of survey results,
and analyzing survey data.
Achievements since 1992
· Enabled easier and wider access to data
through the IE intranet web
· Increased availability of data led to
increased use of data for College decision-making, planning, and budgeting
· Implemented District data warehouses
Team Analysis
Team 12 conducted
an initial analysis of factors likely influencing the areas of improvement and
their relationship to the measures of success, which included using data
consistently and appropriately for staffing, budgeting, and other
decision-making issues; and that accurate, relevant, and timely data are
available in useable forms. A
strength is that institutional research is viewed as facilitating the use of
data for decision-making by faculty and staff. A lack of clarity in knowing who does what and where
employees should get needed information, along with the difficulty of linking
outcomes to the Strategic Plan were seen as weaknesses. Opportunities include working with
GCC’s feeder schools’ research and planning offices to share data
and integrate College research with District initiatives.
Areas for Improvement
· IE Office unable to handle all programming
support requests in a timely manner
· Creating awareness of available online
research information
Recommendations
· Schedule ongoing data workshops during week
of accountability for faculty and staff
· Initiate West Valley researchers’
consortium
· Continue to implement and improve the
College IE plan
Content Area Validation
The use of
quantitative and qualitative data has become a standard and expected practice
at GCC. Although there has been
more emphasis and evidence that the College is using data to make decisions and
for planning purposes, the IE Office needs to provide additional opportunities
for faculty and staff to learn about data and resources available to them on an
ongoing basis.
Organizational Effectiveness—Institutional Performance
The IE Plan was
approved by NCA in 1993. Since the
plan’s initial approval, it has continued to be refined by adding,
deleting, and modifying performance measures based on their usefulness or
ability to be implemented. The
framework of the plan includes monitoring performance in 2 major areas: Student
Achievement and Organizational Achievement.
Student Achievement
Ø
Academic
Success--assesses what students should “think, know, and do” upon
completion of courses and/or programs
Ø
Student
Development--assesses the effectiveness and efficiency of the support of
student learning outside of formal instruction
Organizational
Achievement
Ø
Community
Processes--assesses the efficiency, effectiveness, responsiveness, and
satisfaction of identifying and customizing training to meet the needs of local
businesses and residents, communicating offerings to service-area residents,
involving community members in advisory committees, and all other outreach
activities conducted by the College, faculty, and/or staff
Ø
Institutional
Processes--assesses the effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction, and continuous
improvement of all internal, non-instructional units, operations, and processes
of the College. A summary of the
performance measures can be found at
http://www.gc.maricopa.edu:2049/ie/PlanningBudgetingAssessing/IEPlan/IEPlan.html (restricted access - username gccguest)
Source: GCC IE Office
Assessment Philosophy
At GCC, assessment
provides the means for the College to evaluate the effectiveness of the
institution, especially student-academic achievement. Through the process of assessment, we ask questions such as
“What should students think, know, and do upon completing a course,
academic program, or general education curriculum?” “Are we meeting student
expectations?” and “What can we do better?” Assessment is the step in the
College’s plan-do-check-improve cycle and provides the data that is the
basis for decision-making and continuous improvement.
Administration of IE Plan
The Institutional
Effectiveness Office has the primary responsibility for directing the
implementation of the plan. The
Dean of Instruction oversees the assessment of Academic Success. The Dean of Educational Services
oversees the assessment of Student Development. The President, Deans, and the IE Office share
responsibilities for the oversight for the assessment of community and
institutional processes. In
addition, the following groups have specific responsibilities:
· CWAAC has responsibility for the annual
review and update of the College-wide general education assessment plan
· Within their respective departments,
faculty have responsibility for the annual review and update of academic
program assessment plans
· Faculty Assessment Liaisons are responsible
for working with faculty in their departments to document course-level
assessment
· Managers of student services, College-wide
services, and key committees have responsibility for the annual review and
update of their assessment plans
· The IE Office makes recommendations to the
Administrative Team regarding the administration of College-wide surveys
Evaluation of the Assessment
Process and Measures
Since the IE
Plan’s inception in 1993, CWAAC, the Student Success and Deans’
Councils, and Administrative Team have reviewed the assessment process and measures
periodically for the purpose of updating the IE Plan. The self-study process recommended annual reviews of all key
processes. Based on this
recommendation, the assessment process and IE Plan will be reviewed by CWAAC,
Student Success Council, and Administrative Team annually, and the plan will be
updated as needed. The IE Office
will be responsible for initiating the review process and for updating the IE
Plan.
Relationships between Planning,
Budgeting, and Assessing
Since 1997, the
planning and budgeting process has considered assessment results when
allocating and reallocating resources.
Planning areas are encouraged to include data and assessment results to
substantiate the need for new or additional resources. Although it is expected that departments
will implement assessment plans without additional resources, assessment
results can and should be used as evidence that resources are needed to make
improvements in programs and services.
Assessment results are also used to anticipate the need to change
curriculum, organizational structure, administrative procedures, and
relationships to external agencies and the public. Results can also identify faculty and staff professional
growth and development needs.
Overall Indicators of Student Satisfaction
In Spring 1999,
the College conducted the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory to measure
overall student satisfaction with a wide range of college experiences. The companion Institutional Priorities
Survey for faculty and staff was also administered at the same time. A Noel-Levitz consultant assisted the
College in analyzing the findings.
Students were most
satisfied with the
following areas:
· Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable
in their fields, faculty are fair and unbiased toward individual students, and
faculty are usually available after class and during office hours
· Students are able to experience
intellectual growth at GCC
· Library resources and services are
adequate, computer labs are adequate and accessible, and equipment in the lab
facilities is kept up-to-date
· Policies/procedures regarding registration
and course selection are clear and well-publicized and students seldom get the
"run-around" when seeking information
· There are convenient ways to pay school
tuition and fees, and billing policies are reasonable
· The College provides a variety of courses
Students were least
satisfied with the
following areas:
· Academic advisors are knowledgeable about
students’ program requirements
· Academic advisors are knowledgeable about transfer
requirements to other schools
The Student
Success Council has primary responsibility for addressing these areas of
concern.
Achievements since 1992
· An IE plan was written and approved by NCA
and implemented
· Assessment results have been used for
planning and making budget decisions
· Institutional performance data are
available from the IE Office and CWAAC on the IE web page at
http://www.gc.maricopa.edu:2049/ie/
(restricted
access - username gccguest)
· Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Instrument
was administered in Spring 1999; simultaneously, the Noel-Levitz Institutional
Profile Survey was administered to employees; an outside consultant conducted
focus group surveys concerning the quality of Support Services
· Support Services participated in a District
survey conducted by O’Neil Associates regarding the “Attitudes of
Students Toward Maricopa County Community College Services"
· Support Services were the subject of
focus-group surveys targeting student perception
· The Student Success Council developed a
retention plan based on findings of the Student Satisfaction Survey
Team Analysis
Team 7 conducted
an initial analysis of factors likely influencing the areas of improvement and their
relationship to the measures of success, which included students’
accomplishment of goals (whether employment, transfer, or personal
development), the College-wide assessment of general education, and student
retention rates. Currently, it is
difficult to link our institutional effectiveness outcomes to our Strategic
Plan. In addition, incoming
students often lack college readiness skills and information, affecting
attrition rates. Strengths include
instructional support programs available for students and the variety of
courses and degrees offered to students.
A threat is that at times the District is seen as out of touch and out
of sync with College institutional effectiveness (including assessment) and
performance measures, potentially complicating the monitoring of institutional
effectiveness.
Areas for Improvement
· Although a number of measures related to
academic success, student development, and community and organizational
processes have been implemented, a select group of high-level indicators
identified should be reported to the community
· A more formal process for the review and
update of the IE Plan is needed
Recommendations
· Develop additional measures to assess
effectiveness of institutional processes
· Conduct Town Halls with District Office
personnel/Chancellor on common areas of interest and concerns regarding
institutional performance and accountability
· Consider mandatory advisement, placement,
and orientation for incoming students
· Monitor changes in community systematically
· Expand cohort for College-wide general
education assessment
· Assess student goal completion
· Develop mechanisms to ensure use of
outcomes data in future planning
Content Area Validation
Institutional
performance and strategic planning will most likely be more closely aligned in
the near future. The IE Plan still
has an extremely large number of measures that potentially could be honed down
into a more manageable number, allowing a more directed effort that would
enable the College to quantify its overall performance more simply. The majority of recommendations have
already been considered or acted upon by the College and/or District.
Organizational Effectiveness—Process Review
Process reviews
are a component of the College’s IE Plan and are conducted for the
purposes of improving key processes, including strategic planning, annual
planning and budgeting, and institutional effectiveness and assessment. Each process is well defined, with many
having flow charts that identify each step in the process.
The annual
planning and budgeting process has a formal review mechanism that was initially
conducted by the Budget Process Review Team (BPRT). Using 1997 study findings related to planning and
budgeting, the team made recommendations for improving the process. Currently, each spring the BDC and its
related subcommittees evaluate the planning and budgeting process and make
recommendations for improvements for the next academic year.
This past fall, an
ad hoc work group
comprised of faculty and staff with strategic-planning experience or interest
in this area recommended a revised five-year strategic-planning process cycle
that links self-study results to strategic planning. The strategic-planning process will be re-evaluated after a
new plan is written in Spring 2002 and again in Fall 2006, before the next
strategic-planning cycle.
The absence of a
formal review mechanism for the IE Plan should not be construed as a complete
absence of review.
Achievements since 1992
· In Spring 1997, conducted a study of
planning and budgeting processes to determine needed improvements
· As a result of process reviews, planning
and budgeting training and work sessions are scheduled each year, forms are now
available through a planning and budgeting database, a planning and budgeting
timeline is published each spring, communication of budget decisions are
distributed earlier and made available to everyone, and more people are now
involved in making budget recommendations
· Annual review of planning and budgeting
processes
· Evaluation and revision of the
strategic-planning process
Team Analysis
Team 12 conducted an initial analysis of
factors likely influencing the areas of improvement and their relationship to
the measures of success. That all
key processes, including strategic planning, institutional effectiveness,
planning and budgeting have process review mechanisms, that College processes
mesh with District processes, and that a plan-do-check-act methodology is used
as a means to incorporate process review into key processes were seen as
strengths. The process review used
for planning and budgeting is viewed as a model for conducting reviews of other
key processes. A weakness is that
conducting process reviews increases faculty and staff workloads, but the
opportunity gained is that an honest and reflective review of College processes
provides accountability to the public and increases trust and support.
Areas for Improvement
· Need a more formal process for the review
and update of the IE plan
· Mechanisms to assess all College processes
should be developed
Recommendations
· Publish the results of process reviews
· Establish process reviews for all key
processes, including strategic planning, mission review, and institutional
effectiveness
Content Area Validation
The
Office of Institutional Effectiveness is working with the Executive Team on
developing an annual process review related to assessment. Although process reviews and other
continuous improvement strategies do increase our workload, they also assure we
are busy doing the “right” things in the most effective way.
|
|
Last revised 1/8/02. Direct feedback to l.hawbaker@gcmail.maricopa.edu. See Legal Disclaimer.