Accreditation - Hartnell College!!

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Institutional Self Evaluation – 12-05-12 The college meets this standard. Planning Agenda None. IV.A.1 Institutional leaders create an environment for empowerment, innovation, and institutional excellence. They encourage staff, faculty, administrators, and students, no matter what their official titles, to take initiative in improving the practices, programs, and services in which they are involved. When ideas for improvement have policy or significant institution-wide implications, systematic participative processes are used to assure effective discussion, planning, and implementation. Descriptive Summary Hartnell College implemented changes designed to improve communication and participation in college processes. Some involve improved technology, while others are designed to encourage dialogue and problem solving. Electronic Communication: Hartnell College has made substantial changes in its communication technology. In 2008, Hartnell modernized its email system, making it easier to communicate rapidly with all constituents. By addressing emails to all@hartnell.edu, a message can be sent to everyone. Hartnell provides Google apps, and Gmail for registered students (IV.A.7). The college also maintains and updates mailing lists for each constituent group, making targeted communications possible. Groupwise email includes a web-based option so employees, including adjuncts, can receive college email from off-campus (IV.A.8). An advantage of this ease of communication is that individuals can offer ideas and receive rapid feedback. For example, dialogue about safety practices was conducted in this way. On occasion, blogs were established to elicit feedback on planning documents, accreditation reports, and similar documents. Like e-mail, these were designed so readers cannot comment anonymously and are accountable for their statements. Members of the Hartnell community increasingly use file sharing technology and the course management system eCollege to work collaboratively on reports and other projects. Thus, the increased technological expertise allowed the college to overcome obstacles created by distance and conflicting schedules. This embrace of technology provides working relationships that were not possible before. (IV.A.9) Page 273
Institutional Self Evaluation – 12-05-12 Administrative Structure: The administrative reorganization of 2008 was conducted in a spirit of experimentation. The planning group (the ―transformation committee‖) was formed by a shared governance process and consisted of faculty, staff, and students. The plan grew out of a vision of how Hartnell College could best serve the needs of the Salinas Valley community into the next decade. As part of that transformation, the group developed a new administrative structure and a timeline for its implementation. (IVA.10) For various reasons, including financial, the administrative structure was never fully staffed. For a period of time, faculty designated as ―pod leaders‖ assumed responsibility for scheduling and staffing and reported to the vice-president of academic affairs (IV.A. 11). With extensive input from faculty and staff, the academic affairs area was reorganized with the restoration of division deans. Upon recommendation from the Resource Allocation Committee (RAC), this new structure was implemented in August 2011 and is reflected in the current organization chart (IV.A.12). However, many of the positions were hired on an interim basis. In the meantime, deans have prioritized division meetings, which had been on hiatus from 2008 until the Academic Affairs reorganization was implemented in Fall 2011. Because of the realignment for departments, these brought together faculty who had not interacted in this capacity in the past. These division meetings served as forums for program reviews, resource allocation, and the sharing of plans and priorities (IV.A.13). Town Hall Meetings: These meetings involve topics that are of concern to the entire Hartnell community, and were usually called by the superintendent/president, although sometimes by other administrators. Many topics were about the state budget and the impact on Hartnell programs. Other topics included course scheduling priorities, the 50% law, and institutional racism (IV.A.14). A workshop on accreditation in November, 2011 was well attended (IV.A.15). Some of these meetings have consisted of a presentation to an audience, while others have been more interactive. (IV.A.16) Shared Governance and Other Committees: When the District shared governance structure was reformed in 2008, each committee was designed to be compact, with a designated number of representatives from each constituency. The formulation of committees was revised in 2010 to ensure student participation on all committees. (IV.A.17) A term of committee membership is three years, with the terms staggered to ensure continuity as well as the infusion of new energy and wider participation. Student membership tends to change more frequently. Some committees have formed subcommittees to focus on complex issues. For example, joint labor-management benefits committee is investigating health and other benefits (IV.A.18). The committee structure was streamlined from sixteen standing committees to four. Although the scope of each committee is consequently very broad, the task force reasoned it would facilitate communication and tracking of work if there were fewer committees. Additionally, an explicit goal was to make committees such as the Financial Information Subcommittee, Page 274
Page 1 and 2:
H A R T N E L L C O M M U N I T Y C
Page 3 and 4:
Institutional Self Evaluation - 12-
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
BSI Improvement (%) Institutional S
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230: Institutional Self Evaluation - 12-
Page 251 and 252: Approximately $9.7 million or 21% o
Page 253 and 254: The college meets this standard. Pl
Page 255 and 256: levels that support the college’s
Page 257 and 258: III.D.1.b Institutional planning re
Page 259 and 260: Assumptions are reviewed during the
Page 261 and 262: The institutional planning and asse
Page 263 and 264: The audit report includes a managem
Page 265 and 266: financial decision making process i
Page 267 and 268: III.D.3.a The institution has suffi
Page 269 and 270: and restricted funds; and to demons
Page 271 and 272: Planning Agenda None. III.D.3.d The
Page 273 and 274: III.D.3.g Contractual agreements wi
Page 275 and 276: III.D.4 Financial resource planning
Page 277 and 278: Standard III D: Evidence III.D.1 Ha
Page 279: Institutional Self Evaluation - 12-
Page 331:
show all

Accreditation - Hartnell College!!

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?