ACCJC (specifically references to Standard IV)
Windward Community College Strategic Plan
David Mongold’s Report
Kathleen French’s Report
GSIEC Report, 2009
Background and Purpose
In 2007, the ACCJC recommended that Windward Community College improve the assessment of its governance structures. Standard IV.A indicates the need for a college to regularly assess its governance structures to create the conditions for evidence-based, continual improvement.
Windward Community College is committed to shared governance, open communication, and constant improvement. To ensure appropriate participation and input, the college will continue to refine its current governance policies by developing written definitions of the roles and responsibilities for all constituent groups and establishing processes for clear and effective communication and reporting relationships.
The purpose of this policy is to establish clear and comprehensive procedures that will guide the overall assessment and promotion of effective college governance through the use of evidence.
To this end, the college will implement a regular evaluation process to assess the effectiveness of the college’s decision-making structures.
The authority of this policy is with the Chancellor.
A. Creation of the Assessment Tools
The college will plan and ensure systematic, collaborative, and continual evaluation of the effectiveness of leadership and groups connected to decision-making and governance.
The goal of assessment is to improve governance through evidence that is both diagnostic and reflective. A variety of assessment methods may be used, including institutional data and surveys with Likert scale and open-ended questions.
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee is responsible for creating any surveys, and rubrics where appropriate, in collaboration with stakeholders. Surveys must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Significant concerns about the survey design can be directed to the Chancellor, who has final authority over survey design.
Assessments will be guided by ACCJC’s Standard IV.A, the college’s mission, and accepted ideas of effective governance.
B. Administering the Assessments
Assessments of decision-making structures are conducted on a regular basis, with administrative offices, core committees, and departments evaluated annually. The assessments ought to focus on the role of those groups in the governance of the college.
The assessment data may be a combination of perception surveys, institutional data, and other evidence as determined by the IEC.
Formative assessments will be conducted annually on the following:
Offices (some in the Fall and some in the Spring)
- of the Chancellor
- of the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs
- of the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs
- of the Vice Chancellor of Administrative Services
- of the Director of the Office Continuing and Community Education
- of the Dean of Academic Affairs, Division I
- of the Dean of Academic Affairs, Division II
Core Governance Committees (some in the Fall and some in the Spring)
- Faculty Senate
- Institutional Effectiveness
- Ke Kumu Pali
- Planning and Budget
- Master Planning and Space Allocation
Governance in Departments (in early Spring)
- Language Arts
- Mathematics and Business
- Natural Sciences
- Social Sciences
Other chartered groups and offices connected to college governance (as requested by the group, its authority, or the Chancellor)
The focus of the assessments will not be on individuals but on decision-making structures.
Where possible, assessments will be completed during the Fall and Spring convocations and at other convenient general meeting times.
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee will direct the Institutional Research Office or other entity to conduct the surveys and oversee their implementation.
C. Analysis and Communication of Assessments
For assessments to be useful, their results must be communicated in a timely and meaningful manner.
i. Preparing the Results
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee is responsible for editing the raw results from surveys and other assessments to exclude derogatory or overly personal comments.
ii. Communicating the Results to Those Surveyed
The results of the survey and other assessment tools are transmitted to the offices and groups surveyed in a timely manner. Automatically tabulated survey results should be transmitted within one month, preferably sooner.
iii. The Use of Results
Offices and groups will conduct self-assessments and formulate improvement outcome statements based on the evidence provided.
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee will, as needed, organize trainings and provide materials to assist groups in understanding how to use assessment results.
iv. Communicating the Results to the Campus
The survey and the self-assessment will be posted on the website in the documents page for that office or group.
The group has the option of excluding specific comments from the published results, though the fact that comments have been excluded will be indicated in the final document
The results of quantitative data will not be changed.
The group surveyed or its governing authority may organize a public forum to discuss the results.
v. Ensuring Improvements
Every three years, or more frequently if needed, the Institutional Effectiveness Committee will be responsible for analyzing previous assessments and self-assessments to determine if appropriate changes have been made. The results will be sent to the group and to the group’s governing authority indicating to what extent improvements have been made and making recommendations regarding the group’s use of the assessment process.
vi. Modification of the Assessment Tools
After every assessment cycle, changes to the assessment tools can be suggested by the stakeholders to the Institutional Effectiveness Committee. The chair of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee will ensure that there are adequate opportunities for feedback on assessment tools.
There are no exclusions for this policy
The policy will be reviewed by the Institutional Effectiveness Committee in the early fall of every year and recommendations, if any, will be sent through the standard policy revision process. The Chancellor has final authority over all changes.
Initially adopted: Fall, 2008
Last revised: April, 2012