Accreditation – Progress Report Recommendations 3, 5.1, 7.1, 8.1

1. Accreditation – Progress ReportRecommendations 3, 5.1, 7.1, 8.1 Kathy Hart, Assistant Superintendent/Vice President of Instructional Services and Accreditation Liaison Officer

2. Participation/Input • President’s Council oversees the process, reviews the drafts, provides input and guidance. • Paula Bennett creates a template that allows an individual to respond to each recommendation response draft. • Authors begin drafting. • Drafts are posted on Docushare. • E-mails to campus business and campus announcements inform the campus community that drafts for comment are ready to be accessed.

3. Participation/Input • Individuals respond and send feedback to Paula Bennett who passes responses along to the authors. • Drafts are shared with Instructional Deans and Division Deans for feedback. • Drafts are shared weekly with President’s Council for additional feedback. • Progress on the college response is shared with the Board on 3/17/2009 and 4/7/2009.

4. Recommendation 3 • The visiting team recommends that the college decisively address the development and implementation of a comprehensive strategic plan closely focused on assessing institutional effectiveness. A systematic, continuous cycle of feedback and evaluative improvement must be critically and deliberately developed and put into effect. This strategic plan must incorporate student learning outcomes within all institutional efforts, resource allocations, and be supported by program and service reviews and research data. Educational, fiscal, technological, physical, and human resources should be considered and integrated. As a whole, the planning document should also identify short-and long-term directions for the college, timelines for implementation, the individuals responsible for each area, monitoring and follow up strategies, and expected outcomes.

5. Standard IA/Standard IB (2002) • The institution demonstrates strong commitment to a mission that emphasizes achievement of student learning and to communicating the mission internally and externally. The institution uses analyses of quantitative and qualitative data and analysis in an ongoing and systematic cycle of evaluation, integrated planning, implementation, and re-evaluation to verify and improve the effectiveness by which the mission is accomplished.

6. Recommendation 3 Progress Report • Describes a model of planning based on the college mission that integrates and links human, physical, technology/equipment resource needs to annual budget development process and uses an evaluative feedback process to complete the cycle. • Describes the role of the environmental scan and updated mission-driven strategic plan that enumerates 6 strategic goals and key initiatives (2008) in the planning process: environmental sustainability, information technology initiatives, and improved communication. • Describes a mission-driven method of assessing overall institutional effectiveness and a model for developing student and administrative learning outcomes and assessments at the course, program, and institutional levels. • Describes the role of program review and annual program, division/department, and unit goals and objectives development in the integrated planning and budget development cycle.

7. Recommendation 3 Progress Report • Describes the self-assessment process for evaluating the effectiveness of AI projects; outlines a future process for assessment of AI projects. • Describes the process for developing an updated Educational Master Plan that will be completed in Fall, 2009, and will inform the entire planning and budgeting process. • Describes the extensive Measure L planning based on the Educational Master Plan (1999), extensive demographic analysis (2003-04) including the Mountain House Project Plan; Stockton Campus Master Plan; Lodi Campus Master Plan.

8. Recommendation 5.1 (2002) • It is recommended that the college enact a plan to resolve the issue of the counseling department schedules to ensure that the counseling needs of students are being met.

9. Standard 5 (2001) • The institution recruits and admits students appropriate to its programs. It identifies and serves the diverse needs of its students with educational programs and learning support services, and it fosters a supportive learning environment. The entire student pathway through the institutional experience is characterized by a concern for student access, progress, and success. • The institution identifies the educational support needs of its student population and provides appropriate services and programs to address those needs.

10. Recommendation 5.1 Progress Report • Current data demonstrate that the college is doing a better job of meeting counseling demands than it did in 2002. • Through collaborative discussions with counseling faculty, the college recognizes the opportunity to improve the delivery of educational support services to students. • Contract negotiations are currently taking place. Proposed contract language has been exchanged and is being discussed. The proposals outline a schedule that addresses the counseling needs of students. The goal is to develop a counseling schedule that more effectively addresses students’ needs for programs and services.

11. Recommendation 7.1 (2002) • As called for in the 1996 Accreditation Evaluation Report recommendation 4.1, the college should ensure that evaluations of staff are conducted at agreed-upon intervals and provide training on evaluation procedures to managers, faculty, and classified staff.

12. Standards 7.B1/7.B2 (2001) • The evaluation of each category of staff is systematic and conducted at stated intervals. The follow-up of evaluations is formal and timely. • Evaluation processes seek to assess effectiveness and encourage improvement.

13. Recommendation 7.1 Progress Report • Timely Performance Evaluations for all Staff • 100% of the evaluations for management, confidential, classified, full-time faculty, and police officers have been completed within 60 days of the due date. • Managers and Human Resources and Employee Relations (HRER) staff will work cooperatively to ensure that evaluations are completed in a timely manner. • HRER will continue to pursue the implementation of a new human resources data management system that promises to provide better tracking and reporting functions.

14. Recommendation 7.1 Progress Report • Training for Effective Performance Evaluations and Staff Development Managers • Principles of effective employee performance evaluation: Fall, 2008 • Management Academy: Summer, 2009 • Federal Employment Law, Education Code/Title 5, CTA, CSEA, POA contracts including Tenure Review Process and employee discipline • Best practices of faculty and staff development Faculty • Pre-evaluation conference to review purpose and processes of evaluation • Tenure Review Committee orientation • New Faculty Academy coverage of Tenure Review Process Staff and Police • Institute workshops on evaluation • Institute pre-evaluation conference

15. Recommendation 8.1 (2002) • A comprehensive strategic plan should be developed with input from all key constituencies, which integrates educational programs and facilities needs for the entire SJDC District including the main campus in Stockton, the Tracy Learning Center, the proposed Mountain House Center, and other centers and sites. The plan should build in contingencies for short and long-term demographic trends and shifts, anticipate and balance needs at the main campus with needs at regional centers and outlying sites, maximize the use of distance education strategies, project expansion and investment in centers and sites as needed, and consider development of collaborative agreements with neighboring college districts to help address educational needs in outlying areas.

16. Standard 8 (2001) • The institution has sufficient and appropriate physical resources to support its purposes and goals.

17. Recommendation 8 Progress Report • Describes the extensive Measure L planning based on the Educational Master Plan (1999), extensive demographic analysis (2003-04) including the Mountain House Project Plan; Stockton Campus Master Plan; Lodi Campus Master Plan. • Describes the Environmental Scan and 2008 mission-driven Strategic Plan and 6 strategic goals. • Describes the way in which the 6 strategic goals guide program, division/department, and unit plans and objectives on annual basis. • Describes the process and intended outcomes for the 2009 Educational Master Plan including the widespread input of academic and support units through focus groups; application of short-term and long-term demographic and labor market trends; integration of educational, human, physical, technological and fiscal resources needs.

18. Recommendation 8 Progress Report • Describes the cycle of regular review and assessment through the use of program review, annual planning, student learning outcomes and assessment, 5-year instructional capital outlay plan, scheduled preventive maintenance plan, and annual report of institutional effectiveness. • Describes the mission-driven process developed for assigning space when programs and functions move to the Gateway Student Services Building. • Describes the establishment of a new standing committee, the Delta Innovation and Sustainability Committee, whose charge is to review and make recommendations concerning the conservation of energy and other resources, and the implementation of sustainability practices that impact both the college and the wider community.

19. Questions?