City College of San Francisco - California Competes

THEME II
“Another potential source of resistance to student learning outcomes,” notes the Standard II Report,
“is the perception that development, implementation, and assessment of student learning outcomes is a
monolithic process that cannot be tailored to the needs of individual programs.” The two case studies in
this essay suggest there is an alternative viewpoint. The examples cited here are initiatives that have developed
out of a sincere desire to improve student success by using a combination of clearly stated outcomes
and carefully crafted assessment to evaluate effectiveness. In each case, the effort has been tailored to the
specific needs of programs and services as defined by the faculty, staff, and administrators responsible for
those programs and services.
The infusion of SLO expectations into every aspect of the accreditation standards has provoked considerable
controversy. The statewide Academic Senate for California Community Colleges has been a significant
adversary in this debate. In Fall 2004, the Senate adopted “The 2002 Accreditation Standards:
Implementation.” 14 That document clearly articulates the objections that many academic professionals
have with the SLO paradigm. At the same time, the Senate also clearly articulates how institutions can use
a variety of methodologies to assess SLOs for the broad spectrum of academic offerings in California community
colleges. Equally important, the Senate points to models that have appropriately placed faculty at
the center of defining the goals, establishing the standards, and developing the implementation of SLOs.
At City College of San Francisco, faculty views on SLOs are similarly diverse, requiring continued discussion
and improved integration with our traditions to increase ownership. The effort to learn more about
and experiment with the assessment of SLOs will require the participation of both faculty and administrative
leadership across the institution. The College will have to develop human and financial resources
to provide programs and services as well as the expertise and technical support necessary to fully
implement SLOs. This is a long-term process that will have to evolve over years. However, this essay also
demonstrates that significant progress can be made with limited resources over a relatively short period
when the effort evolves from faculty-driven goals and processes. Speaking to the centrality of faculty in
this process, Chancellor Day in his Opening Day speech (August 2005) proposed that “… it is my intention
to confer with the Academic Senate and hopefully with their support convene a special committee
of interested faculty, staff, students and administrators to … recommend a course of action to ensure that
we support the assessment of student learning outcomes at all levels of the institution along with a corresponding
commitment to assist through the provision of leadership and professional development.”
14 Fall comparative data has been used for these comparisons since students tend to perform at lower levels during the fall
vs. spring semesters. Success rates are determined as completing the course with a “C” or better and include withdrawals
as unsuccessful.
276 CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO