Accreditation - Hartnell College!!

Institutional Self Evaluation – 12-05-12
Descriptive Summary
The president takes responsibility for ensuring that Hartnell delivers on the promise of its
mission, and that it serves its students with high quality academic programs and student
services. The president does this, in part, be ensuring that the college has the appropriate
leadership in place and that every sector of the college continually strives to assess the job
that it is doing and asks how it might do better. This continuous improvement model has
guided much of the college‘s work over the last several years.
On the day before Interim Superintendent/President Phoebe Helm assumed office in summer
2007, the college was notified that it had been placed on probation by the Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC). (IV.B.64) She immediately
called together the leadership of all the college‘s constituent groups, who committed to
working not only to remove the accreditation sanctions, but to change the culture of the
college. At her recommendation, the Board voted to provide resources for the effort required
to revise several hundred course outlines and create student learning outcomes for most
Hartnell courses (IV.B.65). She named new leadership to focus specifically on accreditation.
She immediately planned two retreats for the Board in July 2007, from which emerged an
ethics policy and Board goals that included transparency, financial integrity, and selecting a
permanent superintendent/president (IV.B.66). She put in place college-wide training
sessions in ethics and shared governance (IV.B.67, IV.B.68), and commissioned the Salinas
Valley 20/20 report (IV.B.69). With these data in hand, the college updated its Educational
Master Plan (IV.B.68) and Facilities Master Plan. (IV.B.71) A Master Plan for the King City
Education Center was produced. (IV.B.72) She engaged a consultant to do a forensic analysis
of the college‘s financial resources and to write a financial plan with projections through
2016 (IV.B.73). All of this was done in a collaborative manner.
In spring 2007, the Academic Senate convened a task force that would examine and revise
the shared governance committee structure. This task force comprised members of all groups,
reflecting the shared governance goal. The new structure was enthusiastically launched in
2008. (IV.B.74)
Four years since the launch of that structure, there is indeed a new culture at Hartnell, one
that values participatory governance and makes decisions carefully, demanding answers to
difficult questions before tackling a new project or agreeing to new proposals. The new
Superintendent/President champions these values, and came to Hartnell with a strong record
of stable, effective leadership built on respect and integrity.
Self Evaluation
At a time of crisis, everyone understood that extraordinary effort would be required to
complete this work: that the community must share a common purpose and sense of
engagement; that widespread dialogue was required to analyze and accept these ideas, and
that there be mutual trust and respect among all parties. As the college has moved out of this
crisis, there is a clear need that its work be focused, that expectations be clear, and that the
pace of work be sustainable. The college has accomplished a great deal in the past few years,
Page 310