Evaluation Team Findings

Ventura College
4667 Telegraph Road
Ventura, California 93003

A Confidential Report Prepared for the Accrediting Commission For Community and Junior Colleges

This report represents the findings of the evaluation team that visited Ventura College on April 2 and 3, 2003

Dr. Marie Smith (Chair), President, American River College

Mr. Dan Henry, Academic and Student Affairs, Los Medanos College
Mr. Ron Manzoni, Vice President for Instruction, San Diego City College
Ms. Sheryl Gessford, Dean, Health & Education, American River College
Dr. Lisa Sugimoto, Dean, Counseling and Student Support Services, Long Beach City College
Dr. Sharon Whelan, Dean, Humanities/Social Science Division, Santa Ana College

Introduction & Overview

Ventura College, the oldest college in the three-college district, began as a junior college department within Ventura High School in 1925. In 1952,Ventura Junior College became Ventura College, offering the freshman and sophomore years of collegiate education. In 1955 the college moved to its present 112-acre campus in the eastern part of the city of Ventura. Current student enrollment is approximately 12,500 students who receive instruction at the campus, four off-campus centers, and through distance education programs. The student population is culturally and ethnically diverse, with the largest student population being Hispanic.

Ventura College's last comprehensive evaluation took place in 1996, with reaffirmation of accreditation granted by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC). A focused midterm report on the 15 recommendations of the 1996 visiting team occurred in 1998. As a result of the 1998 midterm report, the college was asked to provide a progress report in 2000, describing the college's efforts on the prior recommendations involving visioning, hiring practices and also the self-identified issue of strategic planning. In order to synchronize the accreditation visits for the Ventura Community College District colleges which will occur in 2004, Ventura College was asked to produce an abbreviated self study in 2002 in which they would respond thoroughly to the recommendations contained in the last evaluation report (1996) as well as to the college's efforts to sustain progress on the three issues addressed in the progress report (April 2000).

A six-member team visited Ventura College from March 19-21, 2002. The 2002 visit resulted in the team recommending the retirement of several of the 1996 recommendations, the continuation of some recommendations, and the addition of new recommendations. This brought the number of recommendations to nine that were forwarded by the 2002 visiting team. As a result of additional circumstances surrounding the report preparation and communications, the Commission added a tenth recommendation. Ventura College was asked to prepare a Progress Report in preparation for an April 2003 visit. The Commission asked the college to include in the Progress Report a response to each of the ten recommendations and to provide a summary and discussion of Self-Identified Issues (to be identified through review of the 1996 Standards).

A reconfigured team of six members (the chair and three members of the 2002 visiting team joined by two new members) appointed by the Commission visited Ventura College on April 2 and 3, 2003. The team prepared itself by reading the 2003 Progress Report and documents sent by the Commission. A detailed schedule was prepared prior to the visit with the assistance of the Accreditation Liaison Officer. Meetings were held with all governance groups as well as the committee representing each of the ten recommendations. An open forum was scheduled for all interested on the first day of the visit. Team members made themselves available in the team room to meet with individuals and additional groups as requested. A total of approximately 140 contacts were made during the two-day visit.

The team room contained documents arranged by both recommendation and standards. This provided the needed documentation, but would have been more helpful to the team if all documents have been referenced in the report and if each document would have been identified with a single title as well as a date. The staff assigned to assist the team was helpful and responsive to all team needs and requests.

A large committee co-chaired by the Executive Vice President and the Academic Senate President prepared the Progress Report. A committee was assigned to each of the ten recommendations and to each of the ten 1996 standards. The task of the committees was to respond on progress in addressing the recommendations of the 2002 visiting team and to summarize and discuss Self-Identified Issues related to each of the 1996 Standards. The 2003 visiting team found substantial evidence that the report was prepared with participation from a broad section of Ventura College faculty, managers, classified staff, and student leaders. The report had been given wide-distribution and extensive review.

Commendations

Ventura College is to be commended for:

1. Demonstrating innovation in its staff development activities which provide a breadth of activities to support faculty learning.
2. Development of a positive relationship between the Academic and Classified Senates, leading to joint programs such as the Employee Assistance Program.
3. Exhibiting a positive, professional demeanor in the face of difficult situations.
4. Creating an improved level of college communication which has fostered an supportive climate overall.

Institutions Response To Recommendations

Recommendation 1

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)

Observations

The progress report lists a broad array of professional development activities that have been implemented at the college, including many developed and/or coordinated by the Teaching Techniques Exchange Group (TTEG). A review of the supporting documentation and interviews with the Recommendation 1 team, the Staff Development Committee and various faculty members confirm that many of the activities have focused on understanding student learning styles and on developing effective teaching strategies to meet the wide variety of needs.

The Spring 2002 One Book/One Campus program, the Fall 2002 Symposium
for Teaching & Learning, and the Summer/Fall 2002 Title V-funded faculty projects are recent, cross-disciplinary activities that are very responsive to this
recommendation. Significantly, a large proportion of the faculty participated in these activities.

Analysis/Evaluation

The College has made significant progress in addressing this recommendation in examining student learning styles and providing development opportunities for faculty. A coordinated approach to the assessment of student learning outcomes at the course and program level remains to be developed.

Although the 2002 team report does not specifically mention student learning outcomes in Recommendation 1, the preceding conclusion states AYthe College has not adequately addressed issues of student competencies associated with its program(s) nor the measuring of student learning outcomesY@. The report does not discuss any significant efforts at the College to plan for the development of measurable indicators of student learning. Interviews with faculty and managers did surface the fact that a few individual departments have initiated projects focused on the identification of learning and assessment of learning outcomes. Notable among these is the English department's work on courses in the writing sequence.

Conclusions

In order to build on the significant progress already accomplished toward meeting this recommendation, the College should make the development of a plan to assess student learning outcomes a high priority.

 

Recommendation Two

The College should clarify 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 role in governance and the planning process. (1996 Standards 3B.1, Standards 10B.5, 10B.6, 10B.9, 10B.10)

Observation

The response of the College to this recommendation provides background information from the period 1995-96 when the newly appointed College President initiated efforts to assess the college's ability to accomplish its goals and improve institutional communication and cohesion in the process. Strategic planning, was found not to be a viable process due to the college culture reflecting only a loose confederation of vested interests. In order to develop such a strategic planning process, the Council for Institutional Development (CID) was created in the spring of 1996. It was to serve as a forum for advising the College President. The previous team observed much confusion about the CID's role and membership which led to the above recommendation. The response describes the College's efforts to address the issue, the subsequent evolution of the CID, the adopted guidelines for its operation, and its outcomes that help provide strategic focus for the college. The response also describes its expanded membership and the increased role of the Classified Senate.

Analysis/Evaluation

The college has made good progress in clarifying the role of the CID and the roles of constituent groups that have been affirmed for governance activities. Supportive information includes the July 2002 meetings of the College Executive and Academic Senate leadership that were held to Arevisit the charge, membership and purpose of CID.@ The College made progress by affirming the Senate's responsibility to appoint faculty members to the CID, and all constituent parties agreeing to the Athink tank@ role of that body as a representative entity of functional areas of the College. Also, consensus developed about the advisory role of the CID with the Senate, CID members, and the administration. There is agreement that the group does not vote, but rather explores issues (e.g. hiring policies, budget-cutting policies), helps with planning (the Educational Master Plan), and makes recommendations to the College President. These efforts to clarify the role and charge of the CID were validated by a review of documents and interviews with many members of the college community. Additionally, in the meeting the team held with the CID, we found noteworthy the many sincere expressions of Aownership@, Aeffectiveness@, and support of continuation of the CID in its newly-defined role. It was clear that this is a body that works well for the College.

Conclusions

The College has sufficiently responded to this recommendation and the
issue has been resolved.

 

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)

Observations

The organizational/structural modification to student services was reiterated from the previous report and has been in place since 1996. However, since the progress report was written, one of the deans who had administrative responsibilities for an array of student services recently went on medical leave. The student services programs now report to another dean who has a significant role with core student services (e.g., Admissions, Counseling, Matriculation).

There have been numerous research studies done on student services. A recent Asimple survey@ analyzed the effectiveness of the Student Success Team, composed of all administration and lead staff from each student services operation. Mixed results brought into question the limitations of the ASimple Survey@. The survey results also supported the need for a more extensive and broader-based assessment of the organizational structure.

As in the previous report of 2002, the College proudly speaks to the successful grant writing skills of the Student Services units. Although the report indicates that grant funds limit salary expenditures on staff, it did not mention how the services would be continued after the categorical or grants funds end. The use of technology is one of the avenues the College has successfully undertaken to provide alternatives to the delivery of services.

Analysis/Evaluation

The Team discovered better documentation of the data collection efforts on student services programs and services than in the 2002 report. The College regularly collects satisfaction and perception data, along with the student surveys, program and service data. Data are in abundance and available for evaluating programs and services. The fact that there are a number of research reports and data available to guide the decisions of the student services programs is reassuring. How the research is used to drive decisions was not always clear except when it involved grant writing.

The data collected to assess the quantity and quality of service delivery indicate an increase in demand for services and in the utilization of services by students. However, the availability of accessible services appears to have declined. Although there are indications in the report that student services divisions have independently been able to expand services in the face of reduced funding and reductions in staff, the coordinated efforts to provide services was not evident in the progress report.

The progress report did not necessarily reflect the changes in the delivery of services to students since the Team's previous visit. In interviews with faculty and staff however, it was apparent that innovative alternative service delivery methods have been implemented that were initiated based on strong evidence in research. For example, the Team discovered that the implementation of year-round assessment has flattened the peak demand periods for testing and has helped to relieve staff of the student rushes that were affiliated with particular times of the year. Although there are issues with the availability of technical support and the technology infrastructure, technological applications have given students and student services personnel a more efficient means of accessing relevant information. With the full implementation of CC Apply, Admissions staff will be relieved of the time-consuming manual entry of student admission data into the College's database.

Even though the current organizational administrative structure is in question at this time, the "simple survey" to assess the adequacy of the organizational structure was a laudable effort to gather valuable input. While the survey provided a general sense of the employees' (Student Success Team's) satisfaction with the structure, the results indicate some concern with the coordination and communication. Although the College's response to the Recommendation tends to question some of the data, the approach to assessing the structure was a good start.

The staffing concerns were supported with evidence of a decline in the satisfaction of students with their contact with College staff. The decline has been attributed to the lack of staff or the reduction in staff support. The report mentions a gain of 12.5 full time equivalent staff in student services from 1998-2000 mainly in the categorical programs. Nonetheless, the report indicates the lack of staff as an issue and identifies the negative results reported on a student perception survey as supporting evidence.

While the plans for this recommendation are clear and forward thinking, it is not clear from the report that all of these plans derived from any analysis of evidence specifically noted in the response. For example, the plans related to the Bond were not based on information mentioned in the response.

Although the report concludes that there continues to be unmet staffing needs
in student services, the Team does not agree that the unmet needs can only be addressed through the hiring of additional staff. Staffing and facilities issues might be approached not necessarily adding more staff or more buildings, but by considering alternative models for providing services which was the rationale supporting the 2002 recommendation.

Conclusion

The College took steps to respond to the recommendation. In spite of the challenging circumstances of budget cuts and administrative changes, the student services areas have worked closely to address the needs of students. Intervening circumstances have precluded the College from proceeding in their assessment of the organizational structure. It will be incumbent upon the College to be mindful in continuing to address the delivery of services and the structures through which the services are provided as its situation stabilizes.

In spite of the challenging circumstances of budget cuts and administrative changes, the student services areas have worked closely to address the needs of the students.

 

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)

Observations

A new Vice Chancellor of HR has been hired and a significant amount of progress has been documented in the response to the recommendation.
There is improved communication between the College and the District Human Resources staff at the District Service Center. The coordination of the College and District is integral to responding to this recommendation. Many efforts have been undertaken to review hiring processes and recommend improvements to those processes. The revisions to the part-time faculty hiring process will be forwarded to the District Council of Human Resources and the full-time faculty hiring process draft policy is ready to be presented to the Governing Board. The Academic Senate has clarified the process by which its subcommittee prioritizes new full-time faculty positions.

Changes to the rules and regulations governing the Merit System hiring processes for full-time classified staff has allowed for a combining of the internal and external lists; however, there was no indication of how this new structure has worked. In addition, in the previous mid-term report, the College mentions the part-time classified hiring procedures. In the current Progress Report there is no mention of it or the challenges that were voiced in the previous report. The Report indicates that the final version of the management hiring process will be submitted to the Governing Board in March 2003.

Analysis of the Evidence

The College, the College President and the District have taken positive steps to initiate the review of the hiring procedures. The hiring of a new Vice Chancellor of Human Resources has helped in responding to this recommendation.

Overall the team noted the good progress that has been made to address this recommendation and supports the College in their efforts to complete the processes which has been undertaken to review and appropriately revise and update the hiring procedures for all employee groups. In addition, The Team supports the College's recommendation to increase awareness of the revised policy and hiring procedures for all employee groups; however, the College needs to recognize its role in disseminating the information.

Conclusions

There is evidence to support the progress made to address this recommendation.

 

Recommendation Five

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

Observation

In its Progress Report prepared for the April 2002 Team Visit, Ventura College responded to this recommendation by providing a comprehensive and
extensive list of individual staff development activities undertaken within the last several years. The report also outlined evaluation activities. The report
concluded that the College has made significant progress in addressing this recommendation.

In preparation for the team visit, the College identified a committee chaired by a manager and a faculty member to respond to Recommendation Five. The committee represented a broad spectrum of the college community with membership from classified staff, faculty, and management. All members of
the Recommendation Five Committee are also members of the Ventura College Staff Development Committee. Committee membership includes a faculty representative from each academic division, classified staff, managers, and presidential appointments.

Over the past two years, the Staff Development Team prepared a Staff Development Comprehensive Plan. This plan is divided into four sections. The sections include 1) Recruitment and Selection, 2) Orientation, 3) Care and Communication, and 4) Ongoing Staff Development. Each section of the plan addresses activities, cost, responsibility, implementation date, and method of evaluation. The plan is updated and activities are prioritized on an annual basis.

Analysis/Evaluation

The essence of the recommendation was that the College address a Acoordinated effort@ toward meeting their staff development goals. The Progress Report failed to communicate the passion and enthusiasm with which the Staff Development Committee addresses its charge. Although this coordinated effort was not reflected in the written report, the meeting with the Recommendation Five Committee and a review of the Staff Development Comprehensive Plan affirmed that this coordination is occurring.

There was evidence that the Staff Development Committee reviews all applications and proposals and awards resources based on criteria that reflect overall college impact and institutional goals. As money becomes more scarce, the Committee is cognizant of the need for innovation and to develop activities that require no or minimal financial resources. Each unit has an individual staff development plan and contractual funds ($100 per FTE) are administered at the unit level.

The Committee reported that the role has changed somewhat to that of becoming a Amorale booster@ as the College faces serious budget constraints. Again, they take this role very seriously. They believe that their efforts are making a difference in overall morale at Ventura College.

Conclusion

The College, through evidence provided in its Progress Report and site team visit, demonstrated a strong commitment to staff development by its activities and the coordination of them through the staff development plan. Throughout the College there is a highly valued attention to inclusive and diverse opportunity for staff. Thus, the College has made sufficient progress in
addressing Recommendation Five.

 

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)

Observation

The College has responded to this recommendation by providing a listing of a variety of departments= plans related to technology produced since 1996. These planning products reflect numerous efforts at the division and department level, and they are supplemented by the work from standing committees that have addressed more campus-wide issues. Only the Ventura College Distance Education Plan (Fall 2002) and the Ventura College Technology Plan Framework (December 2002), appear to be new finished products since the last team's visit, in part due to the receipt of a Title V grant in October of 2002. To move the College forward, pertinent discussions among key personnel are occurring and the Technology Committee structure is in place. Additionally, funds from Measure S and the establishment of the new Learning Resources building will act as catalysts for additional work. College leaders anticipate renewed efforts in creating a plan will be the focus of work in the next six months.

Analysis/Evaluation

Clear written evidence of movement toward Aa single, comprehensive, institutional, multi-year technology plan@ is not apparent from the response of the College. Due to the need to be attentive to more pressing issues (passage of Measure S, accreditation reporting responsibilities, the Educational Master Plan, fiscal crises, etc.), the College has been forced instead to address technology needs in a very piecemeal fashion. As a result, dedicated and interested personnel, departments, and areas aggressively seek grants that can provide the funding necessary to acquire and support technology. They accomplish notable achievements (Multi-media Program, CISCO and Oracle Certification, upgrading of classrooms, etc.) Successful campus-wide efforts include the baseline of infrastructure inventory and needs, the insights gained through the Facilities Oversight Group, and efforts to reallocate technology support resources. Planning discussions are occurring, and partnerships with key district personnel are in place. Hence, more progress is apparent than the written response manifests. Although no central committee has been activated to give direction to these efforts through a broad-based plan or to determine priorities for funding and implementation, the College does perceive the need for a comprehensive approach and anticipates completion of such a plan by December 2003. Much is in place to make that happen and the College is moving in the right direction.

Conclusions

While work remains to combine and coordinate College technology efforts into a single plan, this recommendation is partially satisfied. The College has made more progress than its response delineates and renewed focus by key personnel will help complete this goal in the future accreditation cycle.

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. (Standard 1.2, Standards 9A.1, A.2)

Observations

The Progress Report stated that considerable progress had been made in documenting the accomplishments in enrollment management and in integrating those activities into the entire planning process. The intension is that the Enrollment Management Plan will continue to guide the decision-making and resource allocation process as well as being incorporated into the Educational Master Plan. There is a newly formed Enrollment Management Team that has a representative committee membership.

Interviews were conducted with the Executive Vice President, Vice President of College Services, all instructional Deans, four Department Chairs, Chair of the Student Success Team, Chair of the Administrative Council, Coordinator of the East Campus and Dean, and the members of the Enrollment Management Team.

Analysis/Evaluation

Based upon the interviews, it became evident there is an Enrollment Management Plan that is incorporated in the new Educational Master Plan (completed March 2003), and it guides the enrollment planning for the college. The enrollment management plan is understood and supported by the Instructional Deans and Department Chairs. There is evidence those involved in enrollment management have arrived at this plan through a participatory process. To the credit of the college, there is now a foundation for action that incorporates the Facilities Plan, Distance Education Plan, Enrollment Management Plan, and Educational Master Plan. The faculty, department chairs, deans, vice presidents, and president share a common goal of maintaining the integrity of programs during this time of budget constrains and when there will be the opportunity to increase courses and enrollments. Faculty, staff and managers are working together to maintain a comprehensive college, even if it means serving fewer students. There is a plan to become more efficient where possible to serve more students with selective courses/programs by developing new scheduling patterns and expanding the distance education program. Furthermore, the enrollment management planning is done with complete awareness of the resource allocation process. Although the college is less than satisfied with the District's funding plan for 2003-04, the college faculty and managers are able to proceed with the enrollment management plan.

Conclusion

The college has met the recommendation to develop a comprehensive enrollment management plan to guide the decision-making process and resource allocation of Ventura College.

 

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)

Observations

During the 2002 visit, Ventura College reported that the revenue-based allocation model developed six years ago was not clearly understood and was a source of continuing conflict with the district and Ventura's sister colleges. Moreover, the model was not serving the college well in terms of its financial needs and stability. To meet budget, the College had made transfers of general fund expenditures to grants and other Asoft@ revenue sources to balance the budget. Thus, the previous team was concerned about the College's use and understanding of the allocation model, as well as its overall financial stability.

In meetings with the Recommendation 8 Committee, it was learned that 758 thousand dollars of Asoft@ costs and positions used to balance the previous year were moved back into the general fund, thus restoring some stability. They also reported that due to the State budget picture, the college had undergone a series of budget cuts, undermining stability once again.

For the development of the 02-03 budget, the college was allocated a $148,000 reduction of resources below the 01-02 level, while its expenses were increasing approximately 3 million dollars. The college initiated budget cuts and transfers of over one million dollars. In the Fall semester, another review of the allocation model was conducted by the district, resulting in a recommendation that the model be suspended for the 2003-04-budget development. The district-wide agreement was to move to an expenditure model for the next fiscal year, with the base being the ending year balance of 01-02. Any budgetary needs beyond that level are to be borne by the college. Also as a result of these budget discussions, the district agreed to assist Ventura College to achieve financial stability by providing the remaining funds to remove the deficit by use of reserves and transfers from other colleges.

By mid-December the district was aware of overstated revenues in its Adopted Budget and began to prepare for the Governor's mid-year reductions. Ventura College's share of the reduction was $678,000 from the General Funds and $373,000 from categorical programs. The College made plans to achieve these reductions, but also has an unanticipated $487,000 beyond that level. At the point of the visit, the College had identified all but the last $487,000 in reductions and is anticipating reductions in force to cover the remaining deficit.

Analysis/Evaluation

At the time of the visit, the College achieved the first part of the 2002 recommendation since the allocation model has been suspended. Interviews with the Vice President of College Services and the Deputy Chancellor provided evidence that the district was supportive of finding a new fiscal model that allowed all the district's colleges to be on equal footing. In addition, the movement of funds by the district to assist Ventura in achieving financial stability was additional evidence that the district intends to play an active role in leveling the field. It is also important to report that the district believes these measures will result in Ventura College reaching the state of
stability and self-sufficiency within the agreed upon model. The college reports a more clear understanding of the budget process and fiscal issues facing the college as well as an appreciation for the district's assistance in adopting an equitable fiscal model.

The second part of the 2002 recommendation calls for the College to use the model to assure financial self-sufficiency. Ventura, like all California colleges, is facing unprecedented budget shortfalls as a result of revenue reductions by the State. Its financial future is thus unclear. With the actions of the college to drastically reduce its budget (several times) and the recognition that it must meet the demands of a new, expenditure-based allocation model, there is a reasonable expectation that Ventura will come out of this austere period a much-changed but more stable institution. In light of this dire fiscal situation, the college administration made extra efforts to assure that the college community was kept current on the changing conditions within the district, and the state. Several budget forums that were conducted to apprise the college community of the changing budget circumstances. This open communication, guided by the President, created an appreciation for the budget dilemma and fostered an environment of trust that encouraged faculty and managers to work cooperatively.

Conclusion

Ventura College has made sufficient progress toward meeting Recommendation Eight by entering into a new allocation model and taking serious steps to achieve financial stability in unstable times.

Recommendation Nine

The College should identify the nature and scope of administrative tasks to be preformed 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)

Description/Observations

During the past year, the College has developed job descriptions for the President, Executive Vice President and the deans that detail the administrative tasks assigned to each position. Minutes of the Administrative Council meetings confirm that numerous discussions have focused on the effectiveness of the management structure and on various realignments designed to make improvements and to respond to changes in personnel and staffing levels. The deans report that the executive management team has also conducted extensive deliberations on modifications to the structure and that two-way communication between that team and the deans group has been consistent and productive. The loss of management positions at the College due to the current budget crisis and to recurring budget problems in previous years have added to the difficulty of this task.

Although additional changes in management personnel have occurred over the past year, interviews conducted during the visit with faculty and managers confirm the statement in the report that indicates that AY the Administrative Council has evolved into an effective group@ is accurate and, further, that the Executive Vice President's approach to structuring the management team is working very well. Contributing to these positive assessments is a consistently reported finding that the level of communication among the executive managers, the Administrative Council, and the entire college community is very high.

Analysis/Evaluation

By developing management position descriptions and through the informal assessments of the management structure made by the Administrative Council, the College has made progress in addressing this recommendation.

The conclusions in the 2002 team report point strongly to the need for evaluation of both the sufficiency of the overall level of administrative staffing and the range of skills needed to accomplish key administrative tasks. No formal evaluations of the management structure have been conducted, but interviews with Administrative Council members confirm that discussions of staffing levels and needed skill sets have been included in their deliberations.

While many other responses to the recommendations list plans that describe additional steps to be taken in the report, no planning section is included in the response to Recommendation 9. Conducting a more visible and inclusive evaluation of the effectiveness of the structure would provide an opportunity to communicate management team goals and to gather valuable feedback.

Conclusions

The college has made good progress toward meeting this goal. Conducting an evaluation that includes input from staff and faculty in addition to the self-assessment of the management team would be a good next step to completely satisfy the recommendation.

Recommendation Ten

The College take immediate steps to reestablish a relationship of integrity with the Commission by ensuring that it is accurate in all communications 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)

Observations

Ventura College was placed on warning due to the circumstances surrounding the report and visit in 2002. The Commission's concern regarding this situation is reflected in Recommendation 10. The College took this recommendation very seriously and developed a very participative structure for the 2003 report and site visit. The Accreditation Liaison Officer was in constant communication with the Commission staff during the study period and preparation of the report. Commission staff were invited to present a workshop at the college to assist them in the development of the report and to further explain commission requirements and procedures.

In order to give appropriate attention to each issue, twenty committees were created, one for each recommendation and one for each Standard to address the Self-identified Issues portion of the report. The College educated itself on the 1996 Standards through the study period and believes itself to be far better prepared for the next comprehensive self study as a result of the work it has done this year.

Analysis/Evaluation

The team confirmed through interviews and review of documents that there was broad involvement in the progress report preparation and great concern about the college portraying itself accurately. The steering committee structured the entire report to reflect the college's concern to demonstrate integrity in each recommendation and standard review. The Recommendation 10 committee met with other groups to discuss and agree on a working definition of integrity and how it should be reflected in the progress report. The committee reported, and the team confirmed, that there was active, willing participation in these discussions and in all activities which led to the final report. The eagerness with which the college responded was in part, a demonstration of their great concern to rectify the reputation of the college and of their ability to respond professionally. The team validated the presence of this sincere attitude within all committees.

There was also attention paid to following Commission guidelines for the proper report format and also that the college was responding to the Commission's concern for accuracy. From the team's viewpoint however, the report suffered from a lack of consistency in formatting since it was not edited for tone and level as a complete document. The college chose to present all the original work that was done as a demonstration of participation. While understandable, especially in the context of the recommendation, the College missed the opportunity to assure that all parts of the recommendation were addressed and that all pertinent activities and/or documents were cited. As an example, several responses were lengthy in descriptions of activities and silent on coordination or program components, which were the essence of the recommendations. e.g. (Recs 1 and 5). When the team arrived, they found ample evidence of coordination and/or the existence of a program, which satisfied the recommendation. It is hoped that the college can reflect upon this experience and continue to refine its approach to report development.

In summary, the College is proud of its accomplishments and eager to demonstrate that it has learned from this experience. The team observed that the college took responsibility for the situation and set out to rectify the elements that resulted in the warning status. This began at the opening session of the visit with an apology by the President to the visiting team and the college members involved in the progress report for his role in the situation that led to the sanction.

The team went on to find that, indeed, there was a demonstrable difference in participation, involvement and communication about the issues of accreditation.

Conclusion

The College has appropriately addressed Recommendation Ten by its participation in report preparation, by its concern for accurate reports and its attention to providing required information.

 

Summary

As a result of the progress report and the site visit, the team recommends that Recommendations 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 be retired since the progress demonstrated by the college has sufficiently addressed the concerns. Recommendations 1, 3, 6, and 9 also have shown progress since the previous visit, but are not sufficiently addressed at this point.

SELF-IDENTIFIED ISSUES

The College was required to analyze itself in light of the ten 1996 Standards of Accreditation. This part of the report was completed as directed by the Commission. For each Standard, the committee identified issues which require attention by the College. The team makes no comment on these issues, except to observe that the organization of these issues into a usable and easily understandable format would be helpful. Again, the College chose to present the original work of ten committees, which led to variation in form and tone. Although a planning agenda was not required for this report, it would nonetheless be useful.