Executive Summary of Responses

Ventura College Progress Report
For Accreditation Site Visit
Executive Summary

A. Recommendation One

The College should implement a broadly based, institutionally supported program to offer the faculty the opportunity to explore a variety of student learning styles and the associated teaching strategies (1996 Standard 4A.1, 4B.3, 4D.5)

Response to and Statement of Progress on Recommendation One

The College has made important strides in responding to this Recommendation.

• The Council for Institutional Development (CID) has at its core the issues of student learning and creating a student-centered model. This issue is also central to the College’s Mission, Vision and Goals Statements. Examples of College activities related to Student Learning Styles include:
  
  • The Teaching Techniques Exchange Group; Paired Classes; Great Teachers’ Seminar; Flex Programs on the “Best of the Best”; Title V Teaching and Learning Seminar; Numerous other programs funded by Title V
  • Strategies developed by the Divisions and Programs such as the Educational Assistance Center; the Learning Skills Program; the Assistive Computer Technology Program; the School of Nursing’s implementation of group assessment and collaborative learning models, and development of student retention programs; the Language Arts Department’s establishment of a program-wide assessment process; and the Theater in the Classroom program;
  • The creation of interdisciplinary, multi-college programs such as the Multicultural Collaborative Learning Consortium which focused on the variety of learning styles for diverse student populations;
  • The utilization of technology to meet the needs of the diverse student population through the diversification of instructional delivery, including expanded online courses (more than 40 added in four years); online services (including registration, applications, etc.); and online workshops and training for faculty;
  • The campus’ participation in the state-wide One Book, One Campus Program included an innovative six-week, cross-discipline collaboration attempting to involve the whole campus in teaching and learning about the novel and related topics of social, artistic and historical interest.
  • Ventura College Foundation Grants have supported the evaluation of innovative teaching techniques to improve and enrich student instruction.
  • Sabbatical Leaves provide faculty with the opportunity to explore ways to improve instruction and require that they report back to their colleagues.
  • The Staff Development Committee, through grants, has supported numerous projects involving faculty innovation in teaching.
  • The District and the College have provided more than $15,000 per year for faculty to attend professional development courses focused on learning new teaching techniques.

B. Recommendation Two

The college should classify the charge and composition of the Council for Institutional Development with respect to its role in governance and its relationship to all governance groups in the institution particularly the Academic Senate in matters of the faculty rule (sic) in governance and the planning process. (1996 Standards 3B.1, Standards 10B.5, 10B.6, 10B.9, 10B.10)

Response to and Statement of Progress on Recommendation Two

The College has made progress in clarifying the charge and composition of the Council for Institutional Development.

• The roles of all governance groups including students, Academic and Classified Senates with respect to institutional governance have been affirmed.
• In particular, the Academic Senate’s role as it relates to the institutional planning process has been defined and affirmed by formal action of the Academic Senate to appoint faculty members to serve on CID.
• The role of the Classified Senate has been strengthened; and its relationship with the SEIU clarified, which each organization’s respective responsibilities specified.
• The role of CID as a “think tank”, rather than as a decision-making body, and been re-iterated and will be again upon the completion of the Educational Master Planning process.

C. Recommendation Three

The College should assess not only the delivery of services, but also the structures through which the services are provided in determining the levels for staffing required to ensure timely and accessible services to students. (1996 Standard 5.3, and 5.10, Standard 7A.1)

Response to and Statement of Progress on Recommendation Three

There are three major components that the team felt needed to be addressed:

• Assessing student service delivery: The accomplishments of the student services offices and programs has been substantial. There have been significant gains in a multiple of service dimensions: new and innovative service techniques and projects; improved service strength; better facilities; creative partnerships and collaborations; increased staffing and staff development opportunities.
• The structure of student services: There have been substantial changes in the structure of student services, with the creation of the position of the Executive Vice President, which oversees the now-two Student Services deans. The creation of the Student Success Team has encouraged an in-depth exchange of information and increased communication between the departments and the divisions.
• The adequacy of student service staffing: The demand for student services has increased, the numbers of students serviced has increased and in some cases, the number of staff have increased, although not across the student services offices. There continue to be unmet personnel needs that must be met to serve students properly.
• The Student Services Offices have been extraordinarily successful at pursuing grants and categorical funds with which to supplement their staffing needs.

D. Recommendation Four

The College and the District should conduct a systematic and comprehensive review of hiring processes for all full time and part time faculty, classified staff and administrators to ensure that all practices support the goal of selecting the most diverse and highly qualified staff available. (1996 Standards 7A.2, A.3, D2)

Response to and Statement of Progress on Recommendation Four

Significant progress has been made in the review of the hiring procedures for all employee groups. This Recommendation is being addressed in six main ways:

• Communication between the College and the District: This is vital since the hiring process is not solely in the hands of the College. The District has led a call for action district-wide to obtain a coordinated review of all hiring policies and practices. The President has supported this with a letter to the District Council of Human Resources.
• Coordination of the College and the District: The new Vice Chancellor of Human Resources has decided to create a small working group with representatives from each of the colleges to begin immediate work on personnel hiring issues.
• Part-Time Faculty Hiring Process: The Human Resources Oversight Committee (HROC) has completely reviewed the part-time Academic Hiring Policy and clarified the process district-wide. There is an emphasis on the recruitment of qualified and diverse candidate pools; new forms have been created and payroll problems have been addressed.
• Full-Time Faculty Hiring Process: An ad-hoc subcommittee of the HROC has reviewed and revised the hiring policy and practices for full-time academic positions. A draft copy of the District’s hiring policy statement was presented that eliminates affirmative action goals and includes diversity goals. The draft policy was delivered to the campuses last October for review by each of the Academic Senates and the three college presidents. It will be presented to the Governing Board at a meeting in early 2003. In addition, the campus Academic Senate recognized a need to document the process that prioritizes new full-time academic positions before they are submitted to the President’s Cabinet. The Senate’s conclusions were submitted for Senate review in November 2002.
• Classified Staff Hiring Process: Our district is a one of only five Merit System community college districts in the State of California. The Merit System is a personnel system of rules and procedures administered by a Personnel Commission. These rules are binding on all classified employees and provide procedures to be followed by the Governing Board as they pertain to the classified staff. The rules of the Personnel Commission are currently under review by a District-wide committee that has and will continue to present drafts for revisions to the Commission for adoption.
• Management Hiring Process: The Executive Committee of the College Management Association (CMA) met in November 2002 and agreed to bring the proposed Managers Operation and Policy Manual to the January 2003 general management meeting. The section concerning Hiring Procedures for Managers has been a critical area of review for the manual. The final version of the manual is to be submitted to the Governing Board in March 2003.

E. Recommendation Five

It is recommended that the College effectively coordinate staff development activities. (1996 Standard 2.6, Standard 5.7)

Response to and Statement of Progress on Recommendation Five

The College has made significant progress in the development, implementation and coordination of its staff development activities. The Comprehensive Staff Development Plan is central to and continues to provide vision and direction to the diverse staff development activities that occur throughout the campus.

• On the issue of Staff Development to Meet the Needs of a Diverse Student Population: The College has numerous examples including CID discussions on “Focus on Learning instead of Teaching”; Futures Forum “Learning Days”; such Staff Development Activities as District Diversity Fund Activities; Sabbaticals; Teaching Techniques Exchange Group; Drama Program; New Faculty Orientation process; The VC Technology Staff Development Report: A Plan for the Decade; The Staff Development Committee Mission Statement and Objectives; The Teaching and Learning Center; The Liberal Arts and Learning Resources Division Monthly Workshops on Teaching Styles; Language Arts Monthly Forums; and Nursing Department Learning Style Trainings
• And numerous funded Activities such as: Faculty Innovation Grants funded by the Ventura College Foundation; Flex Week Programs; Great Teachers’ Seminars and follow-up workshops; attendance at other varied conferences and workshops sponsored by AB1725 and TTIP funds; Student Equity Plan Activities and Diversity – including 31 projects and activities that have already been completed that focus specifically on diversity or alternative delivery systems to meet student differences in learning styles or preparedness; Technology Training and Staff Resource Center; Liberal Arts Division Integration of Technology into Instruction; the Multicultural Collaborative Learning Consortium; the South Coast Writing Project; the Carnegie Scholar program; TTIP Staff Innovation Grants; the Title V Symposium on Teaching; and Title V Faculty Grants
• On the issue of evaluation of staff development activities to measure the effectiveness of these initiatives, the Staff Development Committee has done the following to evaluate their activities and their effectiveness: Staff Survey of College Environment and the Strategic Planning Open Forum (both Fall 1998); The Trailblazer Self-Assessment Study (Fall 2000); and the VC Comprehensive Staff Development Plan that contains evaluation processes for Flex Week; Sabbatical Reports; Great Teachers’ Seminar Participant Reports; and all others.

F. Recommendation Six

The College should create a single comprehensive institutional multi-year technology plan that will provide the framework for systematically meeting its needs in technology. (1996 Standard 4A.4, Standard 6.7, Standard 8.4, 8.5)

Response to and Statement of Progress on Recommendation Six

The following plans document the substantial progress that has been made on this issue during the past several years:

• Development of the Ventura College Instructional Divisions and Student Services Technology and Equipment Plan (Sept. 1996)
• Planning for Future Technology Infrastructure Staff Survey (Spring 1998)
• Ventura College Campus-Wide Assistive Technology Plan (April 1998)
• TTIP Technology Training Expenditure Report (May 1998)
• Ventura College Final Telecommunications Plan Mini-Grant Project (July 1998)
• Ventura College Library Technology Master Plan 1997-2002 (Sept. 1998)
• Student Services Technology: Steps to Technology Advancement (March 2000)
• Ventura College Technology Staff Development Report: A Plan for A Decade (July 2000)
• Ventura College Distance Education Plan (Fall 2002)
  In addition to these planning efforts, there have been standing committees charged with planning and managing campus-wide technology issues. Since the Summer 2000, the following critical projects have been undertaken and addressed:
• Significant upgrading of the College’s data wiring
• Replacement of many classroom computers
• Redesign and upgrading of the College’s Web Site
• Hiring of additional computer maintenance support
• Initiation of the CISCO and Oracle programs
• College commitment to an emphasis on expansion of its Distance Education offerings
• An attempt to provide an office computer with internet and email access to all requesting faculty.

G. Recommendation Seven

The team reaffirms and continues the 1996 recommendation that a comprehensive enrollment management plan be formalized and implemented to guide decision-making and resource allocation. (1996 Standard 1.2, Standards 9A.1, A.2)

Response to and Statement of Progress on Recommendation Seven

Ventura College has had a plan for enrollment management, a growth plan, in process since 1998. It was part of a district-wide effort that included its sister colleges, Moorpark and Oxnard. The development of each college’s growth plan was focused on meeting the growth goals for the district set in 1998 and was developed by the-then sitting Executive Vice Presidents within the district. The three colleges’ growth plans were tied to each college’s budget (resource allocation). The plans were concerned with population growth, student statistics based on age, and historically underrepresented populations. The plans did not, however, consider the impact of the annual legislative budgeting process, policies and actions. The current projected statewide budget shortfalls will have a substantial impact on College decisions regarding enrollment management.

• The success of the 1998 Growth Plans is evident. All three colleges exceeded all goals originally established in the plan.
• The College plans to institute a process for a systematic analysis of data as part of its enrollment management by Fall 2003. In addition the College will create an Enrollment Management Team to work with the District Office of Institutional Research to collect and analyze a broad spectrum of data to utilize in its planning process.
• Numerous studies have been conducted campus-wide that compared and analyzed data with respect to Ventura College’s under-represented and special populations. These studies document the growth in these student populations.
• Numerous grants have been obtained by the College to better serve its students and to expand its enrollment of traditionally under-represented student populations, including:
  • Two Title V grants for Hispanic Serving Institutions
  • Engaging the Latino Communities for Education (ENLACE)
  • Mathematics, Engineering and Science Achievement (MESA) – which supports minority students in science and mathematics programs, assisting them through to a four-year university
  • Middle College High School – which has increased its enrollment of high-risk, underachieving high school students by more than 300%

H. Recommendation Eight

It is recommended that the District and College leadership clearly define and communicate the allocation model to be implemented. The College should also adopt strategies that will implement the model to assure and maintain the fiscal stability of Ventura College. (1996 Standard 9A.2, Standard 10C.2, 10C.5)

Response to and Statement of Progress on Recommendation Eight

Issues Involving Allocation Model

Background: The current allocation model in use by the District was developed through a shared governance committee, the District Council of Administrative Services (DCAS), and a sub-group of that committee, the Allocation Model Special Task Force. The Governing Board adopted the model in April 1997.

• The original intent of the allocation model was to move away from an expenditure-based process and toward a process consistent with the methods by which the District receives its resources.
• The allocation methodology itself has forced Ventura College to take significant steps during the past several years in order to maintain an operating level sufficient to provide for modest FTES growth.
• The actions at Ventura College result from the inability to maintain FTES growth rates consistent with that experienced by Moorpark and Oxnard Colleges. Over the past three years, Moorpark College has generated 52.4% of all FTES growth, Oxnard College 27.9% with Ventura contributing only 19.7% of total growth. At the same time, Ventura College represents about 35% of the Districts’ total FTES base.
• With approximately 80% of all resources allocated to the colleges based on FTES, Ventura College’s share has been declining proportionately over the past several years. This has created a financial strain, resulted in budget cuts and in the elimination of several vacated positions in all employee groups.
• During the past three years, DCAS has recommended modifications to the model to provide supplementary resources to Ventura College.

Current Status:

• To address the issues of the Allocation Model and Ventura College’s budget situation, the Chancellor has convened a shared governance Allocation Model Review Task Force, represented by the DCAS membership augmented with District administrative officers, including the Chancellor and five additional representatives from each college. The expanded college representation includes the Presidents, Executive Vice Presidents and faculty and staff members. The Chancellor charged this body to recommend modifications to or replacement of the current allocation model by January 2003.
• At the January 9, 2003 DCAS meeting consensus was reached. It was agreed:
  a. The allocation model would be suspended for development of the 2003-04 budget;
  b. Distribution of any resource changes above or below the 2002-03 level would be allocated to the colleges in accordance with their relative share of the 2002-03 budget; and
  c. Each college would be responsible for absorbing their actual increased costs for 2003-04 within this base allocation. The Chancellor agreed to present the recommendation to the Board of Trustees at their scheduled January 24, 2003 retreat.

Campus-Wide Strategies for Budget Issues:

• The Ventura College President has convened monthly campus-wide open forums to review and discuss Ventura College’s budget status. The President has asked those attending these meetings to provide advice on acceptable measures to be taken to either a) increase resources, and/or b) identify economies and efficiencies to reduce costs.
• The Campus Resource Council, and the College’s shared governance budget committee have been reconstituted and charged with the responsibility to examine the current budget in detail and recommend both guidelines and actions to reduce the College’s budget by an additional $2 million for the coming year.

I. Recommendation Nine

The College should identify the nature and scope of administrative tasks to be performed by College management staff, identify administrative positions, duties, and structure to accomplish those tasks, and create and maintain a stable cadre of professionals to fill those positions. (1996 Standards 10 B.3, 10 B.4)

Response to and Statement of Progress on Recommendation Nine

Ventura College has undergone a major administrative reorganization since the last full accreditation visit in 1996. A new organizational model was adopted district-wide in 1997, supported by a philosophy directed at achieving an organizational structure that would reinforce the core value of the colleges - student learning. This change fully reorganized the interdependencies between student services and teaching/learning. Full implementation of this reorganization included:

• Elimination of separate Vice Presidential offices for Student Services and Instruction
• Establishing a new Office of Executive Vice President for Student Learning to provide leadership and direction for both student and instructional services
• Redesigning the functions of all mid-level deans and, in the process increasing management level support for student services functions from 1.0 FTE to 2.0 FTE
• The formation of a new structure called Administrative Council, which includes student services and instructional managers working together within a single coordinating administrative body
• By Spring 2002, more adjustments were needed in the overall administrative structure because two administrators left the College; one retired and the other went on an extended leave of absence. Additionally, a third dean was selected to serve as the Executive Vice President of Student Learning for the College. As a result of fiscal constraints facing the organization, the College and District decided not to replace the vacated positions, so the College undertook another internal reorganization as a consequence of these changes.
• The positions, duties and structure of the administrative offices of the college are set forth in the Organizational Charts included with the Progress Report.
• The College’s administrative staff has an average of 15 years experience in College administration.

J. Recommendation Ten

The College take immediate steps to reestablish a relationship of integrity with the Commission by ensuring that it is accurate in all communication with the Commission and that it follows the process outlined for development of college reports. (1996 Standards 2.8, Guide to Institutional Self-Study and Reports to the Commission, page 3, Participation of the Self Study, and page 38, Midterm Report)

Response to and Statement of Progress on Recommendation Ten

The Recommendation Ten Committee strongly believes that the process utilized in the preparation of the 2003 Progress Report has addressed all institutional integrity issues cited by the Commission.

Report Preparation: Given the serious, substantive concerns raised by the Commission’s addition of this Recommendation to the findings in its report from the 2002 abbreviated visit, a separate campus committee was established to review these issues and address the concerns.

• The Recommendation Ten Committee met several times, discussed the history that gave rise to the recommendation, and worked to create a scenario that would document the seriousness with which they approached the issue raised by the recommendation. The Committee decided to:
• Communicate with each committee that had been assigned a standard or a recommendation to review for the 2003 Report; Remind the committees of their responsibilities in the preparation of the Report; Define “integrity” for the members of the committees; Ask their support in documenting their commitment to wide-spread participation in the creation of the report; Confirm what went wrong last time in order to avoid those problems this time; and
• Confirm with the Executive Vice President’s Office that any communications with the Commission or the visiting team members would be clearly documented,
• In addition, the Committee confirmed that each step of the accreditation process would be supported by documentation showing that the campus had appropriate opportunity to participate and provide input (given the short time line for report preparation).
  The Recommendation also instructed the College to use specific guidelines in the preparation of this Report:
• Each committee was provided with copies of the guidelines specified in Recommendation Ten, copies of the portions of the 1996 report, the 1998 Mid-Term Report and the 2002 Report and Supplemental Report relevant to their Standard or Recommendation.

Campus Participation:

• The 2003 Progress Report is the result of 20 participating committees – whose sign-in sheets reflect a wide diversity of staff, faculty and management participation, and whose minutes reflect a depth of issues discussed and questions debated which was not present in the preparation of the 2002 Report.
• The committee co-chairs met, as a group, regularly during the period of report preparation, with the Executive Vice President and often with the Academic Senate President, in order to confirm the importance of broad, campus-wide participation in the review of accreditation issues and the creation of their respective reports.
• The Accreditation Co-Chairs prepared Accreditation Updates that were distributed campus-wide by email and by hard copy.
• Upon completion of the first draft of the 2003 Report, the draft report that resulted from the committees’ work was widely disseminated, discussed, reviewed, corrected and then re-issued in a final version. Copies of the draft were made available in hard copy, by email distribution to the entire campus community and on the College Web Site. The final version remains available on the web site, located with a link in the center of the College home page.
• Copies of all comments, supporting documents and committee membership lists are available for review through the office of the Executive Vice President.