Accreditation Planning Agenda

October 2010 Midterm Report to the ACCJC



By October 15, 2010, College of San Mateo must submit a midterm report to the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC), Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). The report will contain evidence of CSM’s continued implementation of the recommendations received from ACCJC as a result of the site visit in fall 2007. In addition, the midterm report needs to provide evidence that CSM is addressing its own plans for improvement (planning agenda) identified in the 2007 self-study. The Accreditation Liaison Officer, in consultation with the Accreditation Oversight Committee, the Institutional Planning Committee (IPC), and the Office of Planning, Research, and Institutional Effectiveness (PRIE), is guiding CSM’s response to its planning agenda.

The following plans were identified in the Institutional Self Study for Reaffirmation of Accreditation, 2007. Indicated below is the standard which each plan addresses, the specific plan identified in the 2007 self-study, and the person(s) and/or committee(s) responsible for addressing the plan and reporting on the status of the plan to the Accreditation Liaison Officer (Susan Estes).

Standard I.B.5: The institution uses documented assessment results to communicate matters of quality assurance to appropriate constituencies.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Include a feedback loop for the public in the CSM website. Director, Public Relations and Marketing (Bev Madden)
Seek additional ways to obtain quality assurance feedback from the local community Advisory Committees; Instructional Deans; PRIE (John Sewart and Milla McConnell-Tuite)



Standard I.B.7: The institution assesses its evaluation mechanisms through a systemic review of their effectiveness in improving instructional programs, student support services, and library and other learning support services.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Develop the capacity to systematically measure community needs in ways that can usefully inform program review and student learning outcomes evaluation processes throughout the college. PRIE (John Sewart and Milla McConnell-Tuite); Vice Chancellor, Educational Services and Planning (Jing Luan); Advisory Committees



Standard II.A.1.b: The institution utilizes delivery systems and modes of instruction compatible with the objectives of the curriculum and appropriate to the current and future needs of its students.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Identify ways to strengthen distance learning, Honors, and Global Studies programs. Distance Education Committee (Martha Tilmann, Chair); IPC to identify appropriate deans; PRIE (John Sewart and Milla McConnell-Tuite)



Standard II.A.2.b: The institution relies on faculty expertise and the assistance of advisory committees when appropriate to identify competency levels and measurable student learning outcomes for courses, certificates, programs including general and vocational education, and degrees. The institution regularly assesses student progress towards achieving those outcomes.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Identify additional academic programs that would benefit from consultation with advisory boards and encourage the establishment of new advisory boards where appropriate. Instructional Deans



Standard II.A.2.c: High-quality instruction and appropriate breadth, depth, rigor, sequencing, time to completion, and synthesis of learning characterize all programs.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Develop an evaluation instrument for distance learning that parallels the existing evaluation instrument for idroom teaching; this evaluation instrument will then need to be negotiated to become part of the faculty contract. Vice Chancellor, Human Resources and Employee Relations (Harry Joel)



Standard II.A.3.b: A capability to be a productive individual and life long learner; skills include oral and written communication, information competency, computer literacy, scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical analysis/logical thinking, and the ability to acquire knowledge through a variety of means.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Review the current general education requirements and begin a discussion of whether a computer literacy requirement should be included and whether to directly address information competency as a requirement. Committee on Instruction (Laura Demsetz, Chair)



Standard II.A.5: Students completing vocational and occupational certificates and degrees demonstrate technical and professional competencies that meet employment and other applicable standards and are prepared for external licensure and certification.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Consider using employer surveys as a potential source of data for assessment for vocational programs, as appropriate. Appropriate Instructional Deans (Charlene Frontiera and Kathy Ross); PRIE (John Sewart and Milla McConnell-Tuite)
Consider establishing advisory committees for all vocational programs. Appropriate Instructional Deans (Charlene Frontiera and Kathy Ross)



Standard II.B.1: The institution assures the quality of student support services and demonstrates that these services, regardless of location or means of delivery, support student learning and enhance achievement of the mission of the institution.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Identify ways to broaden the amount and depth of program and service feedback received from students. Student Services Administrators; PRIE (John Sewart and Milla McConnell-Tuite)



Standard II.B.4: The institution evaluates student support services to assure their adequacy in meeting identified student needs. Evaluation of these services provides evidence that they contribute to the achievement of student learning outcomes. The institution uses the results of these evaluations as the basis for improvement.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Seek ways to refine, develop, and improve direct methods of assessing student learning in student services programs. Student Services SLO Lead (Eileen O’Brien)



Standard II.C.1.a: Relying on appropriate expertise of faculty, including librarians and other learning support services professionals, the institution selects and maintains educational equipment and materials to support student learning and enhance the achievement of the mission of the institution.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Review the adequacy of staffing and materials budgets. Staffing: Human Resources Committee (Sandra Stefani Comerford, Chair);
Materials budget: Director, Library and Learning Services (Lorrita Ford)
Update the Library Information Technology Plan. Technology Committee (Kevin Henson, Chair)



Standard II.C.1.b: The institution provides ongoing instruction for users of library and other learning support services so that students are able to develop skills in information competency.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Implement Web 2.0 technologies to improve access to information competency instruction for both on-campus and distance education students. Technology Committee (Kevin Henson, Chair);
Distance Education Committee (Martha Tilmann, Chair);
Director, Library and Learning Services (Lorrita Ford)



Standard II.C.1.c: The institution provides students and personnel responsible for student learning programs and services adequate access to the library and other learning support services, regardless of their location or means of delivery.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Investigate sources of funding to increase library hours. Director, Library and Learning Services (Lorrita Ford)
Investigate options for implementing electronic reserves. Director, Library and Learning Services (Lorrita Ford)



Standard II.C.1.d: The institution provides effective maintenance and security for its library and other learning support services.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Assess existing overhead and book-stacking lighting. Director, Library and Learning Services (Lorrita Ford)



Standard II.C.2: The institution evaluates library and other learning support services to assure their adequacy in meeting identified student needs. Evaluation of these services provides evidence that they contribute to the achievement of student learning outcomes. The institution uses the results of these evaluations as the basis for improvement.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Investigate more fully the discrepancies between faculty and students regarding the adequacy of library resources. Library Committee (Joyce Heyman, Chair); PRIE (John Sewart and Milla McConnell-Tuite)



Standard III.A.1.c: Faculty and others directly responsible for student progress toward achieving stated student learning outcomes have, as a component of their evaluation, effectiveness in producing those learning outcomes.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Work with Human Resources staff and collective bargaining representatives to include SLOs as a component of the evaluation process, as appropriate. Vice Chancellor, Human Resources and Employee Relations (Harry Joel); Vice President of Instruction (Susan Estes); Vice President of Student Services (Jennifer Hughes); SLOAC Coordinator (Jeremy Ball)



Standard III.A.1.d: The institution upholds a written code of professional ethics for all of its personnel.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Work with college and district personnel to develop a code of professional ethics for non-teaching personnel. Vice Chancellor, Human Resources and Employee Relations (Harry Joel)



Standard III.A.4.a: The institution creates and maintains appropriate programs, practices, and services that support its diverse personnel.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Clarify the roles of the college’s Equal Opportunity Advisory Committee and the district coordinator of diversity training. Diversity in Action Group (Henry Villareal, Chair)



Standard III.A.5.b: With the assistance of the participants, the institution systematically evaluates professional development programs and uses the results of these evaluations as the basis for improvement.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Develop a mechanism to evaluate and, if needed, improve the college’s professional development programs. Human Resources Committee (Sandra Stefani Comerford, Chair)



Standard III.B.2.a: Long-range capital plans support institutional improvement goals and reflect projections of the total cost of ownership of new facilities and equipment.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Develop a long-term educational master plan that is linked to the college’s facilities master plan. Done



Standard III.C.1: The institution assures that any technology support it provides is designed to meet the needs of learning, teaching, college-wide communications, research, and operational systems.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Explore ways to assure adequate funding for technology and related needs. Technology Committee (Kevin Henson, Chair)



Standard III.C.1.c: The institution systematically plans, acquires, maintains, and upgrades or replaces technology infrastructure and equipment to meet institutional needs.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Explore alternative funding sources for equipment and technical support through partnerships or sponsorships with foundations, corporations, or individuals. Technology Committee (Kevin Henson, Chair); PRIE (John Sewart and Milla McConnell-Tuite)
Establish a budgetary commitment to ongoing funding for the continued replacement of older technology. Technology Committee (Kevin Henson, Chair); Budget Planning Committee (Rick Ambrose, Chair)



Standard III.D.3: The institution systematically assesses the effective use of financial resources and uses the results of the evaluation as the basis for improvement.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Develop and implement annual program reviews for the areas comprising institutional support services. President’s Cabinet (Mike Claire, Susan Estes, Jennifer Hughes, and Virgil Stanford); PRIE (John Sewart and Milla McConnell-Tuite)



Standard IV.B.3.a: The district/system clearly delineates and communicates the operational responsibilities and functions of the district/system from those of the colleges and consistently adheres to this delineation in practice.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Work with the district to publicize the location of existing information about district roles, responsibilities, and services. Director, Community and Government Relations (Barbara Christensen)



Standard IV.B.3.b: The district/system provides effective services that support the colleges in their missions and functions.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Use facilities program review data to support and illustrate the need for additional staff. Vice Chancellor of Facilities Planning, Maintenance, and Operations (Jose Nunez)



Standard IV.B.3.g: The district/system regularly evaluates district/system role delineation and governance and decision-making structures and processes to assure their integrity and effectiveness in assisting the colleges in meeting educational goals. The district/system widely communicates the results of these evaluations and uses them as the basis for improvement.
Plan for Improvement Responsible Person(s)/Committee(s)
Work with the district to assess the newly created function map and evaluate its value as a tool to delineate and communicate governing and decision-making structures. Vice Chancellor, Educational Services and Planning (Jing Luan)



8/28/09, approved by the Accreditation Oversight Committee