Olympic College Mid-cycle Review

1. Mission Fulfillment

The institution provides an executive summary of no more than three pages, which describes the institution’s framework for its ongoing accreditation efforts. This might include evidence of institutional effectiveness, Core Themes, or other appropriate mechanisms for measuring fulfillment of its mission.

The mission of Olympic College (OC) is to enrich “our diverse communities through quality education and support so students achieve their educational goals.” In the 2018 Mission Fulfillment and Sustainability evaluation, OC measured mission fulfillment based on meeting or exceeding the thresholds established for its Core Theme indicators. Considering the changes to the NWCCU standards that no longer required Core Themes, OC opted to align its mission fulfillment indicators to the current Strategic Framework instead of Core Themes. Table 1 shows the crosswalk between the Core Themes and Strategic Framework.

Table 1. Crosswalk of Core Themes to Strategic Framework

2018 Core Themes	2021 Strategic Planning Framework
Student Learning and Quality Teaching	Teaching and Learning
Student Access and Support	Student Access and Success
College Environment	Campus Climate and Intergroup Relations
Community Enrichment & Responsiveness	Institutional Capacity Building

Mission Fulfillment Indicators

The previous Core Theme indicators and measures were reviewed by the Accreditation Leadership Team and revised as needed to reflect relevance to the Strategic Planning Framework, meaningfulness of the measure to mission fulfilment, and data accuracy and availability. To support the Strategic Planning Framework, new indicators have been added while others are still being considered. Some indicators have been expanded including completion data that is now disaggregated to evaluate equity gaps. Baccalaureate degree data now includes on-time and total completions. Basic Studies outcomes have been expanded to include credential/diploma attainment and employment. Other indicators have been revised to address changes to the data sources including faculty course evaluations and employment after graduation. Examples of indicators no longer considered viable include graduate and employer surveys with low response rates and transfer student graduation rates that are no longer available. The data and brief analyses are available in Appendix A.

Student Access and Success

OC’s mission requires a commitment to serving the educational needs of the service area and its diverse community. Student access and success incorporates goals for equitable enrollment, progression, completion, and achievement for groups that have been historically underrepresented. In the 2018 Mission Fulfillment report, data was included for part-time and full-time; however, because student status can vary quarter to quarter, this data is not consistent or meaningful. Indicators include course completion rates, pass rates on standardized and national exams, baccalaureate degree completion, basic studies outcomes, and employment for professional-technical completers.

Teaching and Learning

Teaching and learning have always been the central focus of OC. Student perceptions of instruction and quality of relationships with instructors are important to the ongoing assessment of teaching effectiveness. Indicators include course evaluations and the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) survey. Professional development of faculty impacts student learning when faculty bring their interests, enhanced skills, and competencies back to the classroom to enrich the learning environment. Indicators include faculty participation in a variety of development and training that support equity efforts.

Campus Climate and Intergroup Relations

Campus Climate and Intergroup Relations describes the psychological and behavioral environment of the campus. Providing a campus climate that is welcoming to all is vital to OC’s mission to enrich our diverse communities. Beginning in 2022, all Washington community and technical colleges must have strategic plans for achieving diversity, equity, and inclusion on their campuses. Indicators and measures are being developed as part of a college-wide Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Strategic Plan.

Institutional Capacity Building

Institutional Capacity Building includes equity commitment and capacity, engagement with external stakeholders, professional development and training, and diverse faculty and staff. Indicators include regular meetings of professional technical advisory groups and articulation agreements with are high schools. Additional measures being considered are the ratio of students to like-self faculty and equity-focused professional development and training for all employees.

Realizing Mission Fulfillment

The shift from Core Themes to the Strategic Framework should result in better alignment with key focus areas of OC’s mission and goals. Since the development of the Core Themes, reviewing the Mission Fulfillment Indicators has been the purview of the Accreditation Leadership Team which includes cross-campus representation, but the data has not been widely shared in a regular, systematic manner. With the establishment of the governance model outlined in Recommendation 1, the goal is to share data and assessment of the indicators with related committees and councils to support systematic, college-wide assessment as part of the broader planning cycle. Relevant data will also be shared with stakeholders across the college as part of the strategic planning assessment process.

2. Student Achievement

The institution provides a brief overview of the student achievement measures it uses as part of its ongoing self-reflection, along with comparative data and information from at least five institutions it uses in benchmarking its student achievement efforts. In providing the overview, the institution may consider including published indicators including (but not limited to) persistence, completion, retention, and postgraduation success student achievement measures. Additionally, the report must include the widely published indicators disaggregated by race, ethnicity, age, gender, socioeconomic status, first generation college student, Pell status, and any other institutionally meaningful categories that may help promote student achievement and close equity gaps, i.e., barriers to academic excellence and success amongst students from underserved communities.

Student Achievement Measures

OC measures student achievement using academic benchmarks that students must meet to successfully complete degrees and certificates as defined by the State Board of Community and Technical Colleges Student Achievement Initiative. These targets represent meaningful milestones of student success across all groups of students. These measures include:

· First year retention (first quarter and first year);

· First year progression (earning 15 then 30 college-level credits);

· Completing college-level Math and English/Writing, and;

· Completions (degrees, certificates).

Comparative and Benchmark Data

Peer institutions were selected based on the following factors: availability of data, similar enrollments and demographics, geographic location, and Carnegie Classification®. The Carnegie Classification® has been the leading framework for recognizing and describing institutional diversity in U.S. higher education. Three regional peers and two national peers were selected. Data for national peers is limited to available Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data. Standard measures for disaggregated student populations that are in common use at the state level are used for comparison. OC is working on developing more nuanced peer group comparisons for specific student populations.

Regional Peers

Pierce College District has a more metropolitan location but is the closest peer institution in Washington state that also serves a large number of military-affiliated students. Enrollments at each of the two campuses are similar to OC. Skagit Valley College has a similar enrollment and similar geographic location of semi-rural with close proximity to a metropolitan area (Everett). South Puget Sound (South PS) College has a similar demographic mix of populations, similar enrollment, and similar geographic location of semi-rural with close proximity to a metropolitan area (Olympia).

National Peers

Holyoke Community College in Holyoke, Massachusetts, has a Carnegie Classification® of Associate’s Colleges: High Transfer-High Traditional. OC has High Transfer but is not High Traditional. Holyoke’s population is 40,117, close to Bremerton at 37,729. The demographic makeup of both the city and county are closer to Bremerton and Kitsap County than other colleges with the same Carnegie Classification®.

Cayuga County Community College in Auburn, New York has a Carnegie Classification® of Associate’s Colleges: High Transfer-High Nontraditional, which is closer to OC than Holyoke (High Transfer-High Traditional). Auburn’s population is 27,687, close to Bremerton at 37,729, but the county population is 80,026, much smaller than Kitsap County at 251,133. The demographics of Bremerton and Kitsap County are only slightly more diverse than Cayuga’s. It is also a multi-campus school like OC.

Gender, Age, and Race

Data is by headcount for Fall 2020.

Table 2. Gender

College	Female	Male	Not Reported
Olympic	55%	40%	5%
Pierce	62%	33%	5%
Skagit Valley	56%	44%	0%
South Puget Sound	57%	37%	6%

Table 3. Age

College	<20	20-24	25-29	30-39	40<
Olympic	35%	22%	15%	17%	11%
Pierce	40%	24%	12%	14%	10%
Skagit Valley	34%	22%	14%	18%	12%
South Puget Sound	42%	20%	11%	15%	12%

Table 4. Race

College	Am. Indian AK Native	Asian	Black Afr. Am.	Hispanic	Pacific Islander	White	2+ Races	Not Reported
Olympic	1%	7%	3%	4%	1%	62%	17%	5%
Pierce	1%	9%	8%	8%	2%	48%	21%	5%
Skagit Valley	1%	4%	2%	15%	1%	61%	15%	2%
South PS	2%	7%	3%	5%	1%	52%	18%	12%

Retention

Retention is for first-time degree seeking students who entered college in Summer or Fall. National comparisons are only available for full-time students for the entire college. For system (in-state) peers, data with full-time and part-time students is available. H U is an abbreviation for historically underserved students of color, which is defined as any student with a reported census race code of Black/African American, Native American (American Indian or Alaskan Native), Hispanic, or Pacific Islander. LatinX refers to students with a reported census ethnicity code of Hispanic or Latino/Latina. Tables 5-7 provide data on Fall-to-Fall retention and Tables 8-10 provide data on first Fall-to-Winter retention.

Unless noted, data is for Full-time and Part-time students with no national comparisons available.

Retention, Fall-to-Fall

Table 5. Entire College

Full-time Students Only, national comparisons available

College	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Olympic	62%	62%	62%	64%	63%
Pierce	63%	63%	60%	61%	62%
Skagit Valley	60%	56%	59%	59%	54%
South Puget Sound	64%	65%	62%	65%	62%
Holyoke	52%	58%	59%	59%	57%
Cayuga County	59%	55%	54%	55%	N/A

Table 6. Historically Underrepresented Students of Color

College	H U/Non-H U	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Olympic	H U	43%	50%	55%	54%	45%
Olympic	Non-H U	49%	58%	58%	54%	54%
Pierce	H U	50%	50%	49%	53%	47%
Pierce	Non-H U	58%	56%	57%	56%	58%
Skagit Valley	H U	48%	49%	54%	53%	50%
Skagit Valley	Non-H U	54%	53%	55%	55%	50%
South Puget Sound	H U	58%	57%	51%	49%	56%
South Puget Sound	Non-H U	57%	61%	58%	59%	57%

Table 7. LatinX Students

College	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Olympic	53%	58%	59%	62%	48%
Pierce	53%	62%	58%	60%	53%
Skagit Valley	58%	57%	59%	62%	56%
South Puget Sound	63%	63%	60%	58%	62%

Retention, 1st Fall-to-Winter (First Quarter)

Table 8. All Students

College	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Olympic	85%	82%	85%	84%	84%
Pierce	84%	85%	81%	83%	84%
Skagit Valley	80%	83%	85%	87%	82%
South Puget Sound	86%	85%	84%	84%	86%

Table 9. Historically Underrepresented Students of Color

College	H U/Non-H U	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Olympic	H U	79%	78%	84%	78%	79%
Olympic	Non-H U	86%	83%	86%	86%	86%
Pierce	H U	81%	80%	77%	81%	79%
Pierce	Non-H U	85%	86%	83%	83%	86%
Skagit Valley	H U	74%	79%	81%	86%	81%
Skagit Valley	Non-H U	82%	85%	86%	88%	82%
South Puget Sound	H U	85%	83%	80%	80%	85%
South Puget Sound	Non-H U	86%	85%	85%	84%	86%

Table 10. LatinX Students

College	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Olympic	85%	82%	85%	84%	84%
Pierce	84%	85%	81%	83%	84%
Skagit Valley	80%	83%	85%	87%	82%
South Puget Sound	86%	85%	84%	84%	86%

Progression

Progression is for first-time degree seeking students who started in Summer or Fall, both full-time and part-time, who earn 15 credits (Tables 11-13) or 30 credits (Tables 14-16) within their first year. National comparisons not available.

Progression, 15 credits within 1^st year

Table 11. All Students

College	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Olympic	55%	65%	70%	64%	65%
Pierce	71%	69%	68%	69%	65%
Skagit Valley	68%	72%	73%	75%	69%
South Puget Sound	75%	76%	73%	73%	72%

Table 12. Historically Underrepresented Students of Color

College	H U/Non-H U	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Olympic	H U	50%	57%	67%	62%	57%
Olympic	Non-H U	56%	68%	70%	65%	67%
Pierce	H U	63%	62%	59%	65%	58%
Pierce	Non-H U	73%	70%	71%	71%	69%
Skagit Valley	H U	60%	67%	66%	70%	63%
Skagit Valley	Non-H U	70%	74%	75%	76%	71%
South Puget Sound	H U	73%	72%	68%	67%	70%
South Puget Sound	Non-H U	75%	77%	75%	75%	73%

Table 13. LatinX Students

College	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Olympic	50%	65%	70%	67%	59%
Pierce	63%	67%	60%	65%	59%
Skagit Valley	62%	70%	65%	70%	63%
South Puget Sound	78%	72%	72%	66%	77%

Progression, 30 credits within 1^st year

Table 14. All Students

College	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Olympic	37%	44%	49%	44%	46%
Pierce	40%	38%	38%	38%	51%
Skagit Valley	42%	48%	52%	52%	45%
South Puget Sound	52%	57%	50%	53%	51%

Table 15. Historically Underrepresented Students of Color

College	H U/Non-H U	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Olympic	H U	31%	36%	43%	39%	35%
Olympic	Non-H U	39%	46%	50%	46%	49%
Pierce	H U	35%	32%	32%	34%	43%
Pierce	Non-H U	40%	39%	40%	40%	56%
Skagit Valley	H U	29%	39%	42%	46%	42%
Skagit Valley	Non-H U	46%	50%	55%	55%	47%
South Puget Sound	H U	49%	55%	44%	47%	46%
South Puget Sound	Non-H U	53%	58%	51%	55%	53%

Table 16. LatinX Students

College	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Olympic	32%	41%	46%	40%	36%
Pierce	32%	37%	30%	34%	44%
Skagit Valley	27%	41%	43%	47%	42%
South Puget Sound	51%	57%	47%	44%	49%

College-Level English and Math

Cohort is first-time degree seeking (transfer or professional/technical) students who entered in either summer or fall quarters and completed at least one college-level English (Tables 17-19) or Math (Tables 20-22) course in their first year. Includes Full-time and Part-time Students, national comparisons not available.

College-Level English

Table 17. All Students

College	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Olympic	45%	54%	52%	47%	51%
Pierce	66%	64%	58%	58%	57%
Skagit Valley	53%	58%	56%	54%	54%
South Puget Sound	56%	59%	57%	60%	58%

Table 18. Historically Underrepresented Students of Color

College	H U/Non-H U	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Olympic	H U	40%	48%	44%	39%	44%
Olympic	Non-H U	47%	56%	54%	50%	53%
Pierce	H U	60%	56%	51%	52%	53%
Pierce	Non-H U	67%	65%	61%	62%	61%
Skagit Valley	H U	46%	54%	53%	52%	53%
Skagit Valley	Non-H U	55%	60%	57%	55%	54%
South Puget Sound	H U	52%	54%	53%	59%	58%
South Puget Sound	Non-H U	57%	62%	59%	61%	58%

Table 19. LatinX Students

College	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Olympic	39%	54%	48%	41%	46%
Pierce	61%	63%	56%	53%	53%
Skagit Valley	51%	56%	55%	56%	52%
South Puget Sound	54%	54%	56%	59%	61%

College Level Math

Table 20. All Students

College	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Olympic	26%	29%	31%	28%	32%
Pierce	40%	39%	38%	37%	38%
Skagit Valley	26%	30%	32%	27%	30%
South Puget Sound	34%	32%	28%	40%	41%

Table 21. Historically Underrepresented Students of Color

College	H U/Non-H U	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Olympic	H U	23%	23%	26%	23%	25%
Olympic	Non-H U	27%	30%	32%	30%	34%
Pierce	H U	32%	33%	28%	31%	32%
Pierce	Non-H U	44%	41%	42%	40%	42%
Skagit Valley	H U	21%	24%	28%	22%	26%
Skagit Valley	Non-H U	28%	31%	34%	30%	31%
South Puget Sound	H U	30%	28%	21%	35%	37%
South Puget Sound	Non-H U	36%	34%	31%	42%	43%

Table 22. LatinX Students

College	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Olympic	28%	27%	28%	25%	25%
Pierce	31%	35%	32%	32%	34%
Skagit Valley	20%	25%	29%	23%	27%
South Puget Sound	32%	30%	22%	36%	37%

Completions

Completion is for first-time full-time degree seeking students who completed in 2017, within three years of entering or 150% time.

Table 23. Completions by Y3, 2017

College	Entire College	LatinX	H U	Non-H U
Olympic	33%	27%	23%	30%
Pierce	33%	27%	21%	29%
Skagit Valley	38%	29%	24%	33%
South Puget Sound	35%	35%	25%	29%

Data Analysis

OC is performing at a similar level to its peers for first year retention of full-time students. It appeared that the gap was closing in first year retention for historically underrepresented students of color in aggregate and LatinX specifically, both full-time and part-time, but the gap returned in 2019. The gaps between historically underrepresented students of color and their peers remain persistent. LatinX students appear to do slightly better than their historically underrepresented students of color in aggregate, but gaps remain. First quarter retention of all students is at a similar level to peers. OC is still in its infancy in terms of completing the Guided Pathways work around three of the four pillars: simplifying the path; helping students stay on the path; ensuring students are learning. OC began Guided Pathways work in 2019 with the creation and delineation of pathways and is still working on rolling those out to students as part of the outreach, intake, and advising processes. Guided Pathways work is a main focus of the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 academic years. The three in-state peers were all early adopters of Guided Pathways, and consequently show improvements in attainment of the 15 and 30 credit milestones during the first year. All colleges in the State Board of Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) system struggle with persistent equity gaps. It is also important to note that all SBCTC colleges suffered large drops in enrollment from historically underserved populations during the COVID pandemic. This is reflected in the data that is coming in now for 2020 and will make it more challenging to interpret outcomes for the next few years.

3. Programmatic Assessment

The institution must provide programmatic assessment of at least two programs as evidence of a continuous process of improvement. The programs should be broadly representative of institutional efforts.

Three programs were selected as a broad representation of ongoing assessment work in various areas of the college including non-instructional and instructional programs. Advising Services represents a non-instructional program in Student Services and is in the process of a significant restructuring in response to assessment data and Guided Pathways research. Digital Filmmaking (BAS-DF) is the newest of four baccalaureate programs at OC, but its enrollment and cohort approach is consistent with the other baccalaureate programs. Faculty have consistently used data and analysis to inform improvements and restructuring. Early Childhood Education (ECED) provides an example of certificate and Applied Associates of Science – Transfer (AAS-T) programs. ECED also serves as an example of an emphasis area discipline for the Associate of Arts – Direct Transfer Agreement (AA-DTA). ECED has undergone significant restructuring of their degrees as a result of recent alignment with state modifications to Early Childhood Education expectations. These are not exhaustive representations of these assessment efforts, but they demonstrate different levels of institutional and programmatic assessment.

Advising Services

Advising Services contributes to OC's mission, vision, and values by providing personalized support for students in achieving their goals. The primary outcomes for advising are to ensure that:

· Students are connected with advising support that is timely, consistent, and aligned with their educational pathway.

· Students will have timely access to the support services they need to accomplish their educational and career goals.

Assessment of Key Outcomes

To determine if the program is achieving these outcomes, multiple approaches are used to collect data and student feedback to identify areas of improvement. Services are formally evaluated typically every two years via the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) and Survey of Entering Student Engagement (SENSE).

Students who meet with an advisor are more engaged across all CCSSE benchmarks than those who haven’t. Section 12 of the CCSSEE 2018 survey includes questions on use of services, satisfaction and importance. Tables 24-26 include advising specific responses for OC.

Table 24. 12.1a. How often have you used the academic advising/planning during the current academic year?

Responses	OC	Medium Colleges	2018 Cohort
Never	28.2%	19.3%	19%
1 time	25.6%	25.5%	25.9%
2-4 times	38.5%	43.6%	43.3%
5 or more times	7.7%	11.6%	11.8%

Table 25. 12.2a. How satisfied are you with academic advising/planning?

Responses	OC	Medium Colleges	2018 Cohort
Not at all	9.8%	6.7%	7.1%
Somewhat	32%	38.1%	38.5%
Very	33.3%	37.1%	36.5%
N/A	24.8%	18.1%	17.8%

Table 26. 12.3a How important is academic advising/planning to you at this college?

Responses	OC	Medium Colleges	2018 Cohort
Not at all	16.4%	8.9%	8.7%
Somewhat	27.6%	24.3%	24.9%
Very	55.9%	66.8%	67.3%

For the SENSE survey, academic goal setting and planning was the focus of analysis to determine if all entering students, both full-time and part-time, are starting right. Section 18 of the SENSE survey focuses on academic planning during the first three weeks of the quarter with specific questions on advising.

· 18e. An advisor helped me to select a course of study, program, or major

· 18f. An advisor helped me to set academic goals and to create a plan for achieving them

· 18g. An advisor helped me to identify the courses I needed to take during my quarter

Table 27. Responses from Full-time and Part-time Students

Response	18 e. Full-time	18e. Part-time	18 f. Full-time	18 f. Part-time	18 g. Full-time	18 g. Part-time
Strongly Agree	31.4%	25.9%	24.2%	17.9%	33.2%	28.6%
Agree	36.4%	30.4%	27.7%	26.8%	43.5%	41.1%
Neutral	19.2%	20.5%	25.8%	19.6%	13.4%	9.8%
Disagree	6.1%	6.3%	15.0%	13.4%	5.7%	3.6%
Strongly Disagree	6.9%	17.0%	7.3%	22.3%	4.2%	17.0%

As OC began implementing Guided Pathways, research on the model was also reviewed. One example is Show Me the Way: The Power of Advising in Community Colleges, a 2018 national report from the Center for Community College Student Engagement. The report highlights how the transition to Guided Pathways requires advising to re-evaluate and update models to improve student outcomes. Using national SENSE and CCSSEE data, the report also notes the need for an advising process that is intrusive, equitable, and holistic.

Since OC started transitioning to a Student Success Coaching model, data from the student scheduling portal, Who’s Next, is also being analyzed to determine the length of time from request to appointment, identify which programs have the highest demand to assess coach caseload availability, and where to allocate resources and need for adding additional coaches.

Analysis of Results

Student feedback from the 2017 SENSE and 2018 CCSSEE reports, Guided Pathways research, and staff and faculty feedback, revealed several concerns about the prior advising model:

1. Issues with advising processes including number of steps in new student onboarding, lack of drop-in hours for immediate help, and long wait times.

2. Lack of assigned advisors that resulted in students not feeling connected and not knowing who specifically to turn to for academic support. There was also a lack of continuity and consistency of ongoing communication and follow up. While true for all students, this was particularly notable for part-time students.

3. Lack of alignment and collaboration with other student services and registration departments led to inconsistent messaging of processes and requirements, with students being sent back and forth to multiple offices, often receiving conflicting information.

4. Lack of clear identification of, and transition to, program Faculty Advisors resulted in many students not connecting to their Faculty Advisors.

5. Lack of consistent meetings within the department, across departments, and between campuses resulted in decreased collaboration.

Implementation of changes

In Fall 2020, the Advising Center began the transition to a Student Success Coaching caseload model in alignment with the Guided Pathways initiative that seeks to streamline a student’s journey through college by providing structured choice, revamped support, and clear learning outcomes. This model will

establish proactive and holistic student engagement that is a leading factor in student satisfaction and retention. Streamlining the steps and process for students will help to eliminate the “run-around” that can lead to confusion and dissatisfaction. The new model aims to provide year-round, proactive, engaging, and welcoming experiences for students from admission through completion, with well-defined processes for students to identify resources and transition to faculty advisors. In the new model, new student advising for all degree-seeking students will be mandatory. Each quarter, coaches will encourage continuing students on their caseload to meet with their coach or faculty advisor for educational planning. As a result, all degree seeking students will experience advising and fewer students will fall through the cracks without services.

Student success coaches work with new and continuing undecided students to explore pathway options, expectations, and requirements, and serve as bridges to support services. Student success coaches engage with students to promote learning and academic excellence, and guide students on their educational journey from admission to completion to create a better experience for students from registration to completion and across campus.

The following describes changes implemented in relation to concerns identified through the advising assessment process.

1. Issues with advising processes including number of steps in new student onboarding, lack of drop-in hours for immediate help, and long wait times.

Staffing is being expanded and reconfigured across the Advising Center since 2020. There are currently six new positions: a full-time exempt student success coach manager and five full-time exempt student success coaches. These exempt positions increase advising availability to students year-round. Further increased staffing of student success coaches will enable us to offer in person and virtual drop-in hours in the future.

The Advising Center now dedicates an assigned Coach-of-the-Day to respond to general Advising Center emails and voicemails. Emails and voicemails are now answered same or next day, dramatically reducing response times. The Coach-of-the-Day will be in the Student Services Virtual Lobby when available.

Two new scheduling tools have been implemented to increase the ease and efficiency for students to make appointments. The Advising Appointment Request Form, available on the Advising Center website, provides intake information that enables the scheduling staff to connect students to the appropriate coach in their pathway, or route undecided students to the first available coach. Calendly licenses have been purchased so that students can book with a coach directly. Currently, coaches give their Calendly link to students on their caseload only. As coaching capacity is increased to fully cover each program and pathway, direct booking through Calendly will be made available on the Advising website. Appointment reminders are sent either automatically (Calendly) or manually by front desk staff to minimize missed appointments.

To improve the student enrollment experience and reduce the number of steps in new student onboarding, the Student Success Coaches are cross trained to answer basic registration and basic financial aid questions and execute many of the registration processes. Coaches are now able to do transcript reviews, and based on the review, can assign permission codes, course overrides, and enroll students for their first quarter classes.

Student success coaches are accountable to their assigned students and offer follow-through so that no student falls through the cracks. Students are assigned to a coach based on their pathway for their entire time at OC. This coach knows the student’s history, eliminating the need for the student to start over at each appointment. Advising Notes in the electronic student records in the statewide enterprise and student management system (ctcLink) furthers this holistic support by enabling student success coaches, faculty, and staff to communicate with each other about a student. Students are contacted by both phone and email each quarter by student success coaches and advising staff and encouraged to schedule an appointment to discuss course planning, campus resources, programs of study, etc. This outreach will be assessed to determine a) the percentage of students who meet with an advisor after being contacted; b) whether those students who meet with an advisor are retained at a higher rate than those who did not; and c) whether there is an increase in satisfaction of advising.

The aim of the Student Success Coaching model is to streamline the steps and processes for students and eliminate the “run-around” that can lead to confusion and dissatisfaction. Since Fall 2020, the Student Success Coaching model is decreasing registration steps for all students. Student success coaches are cross-trained in registration and basic financial aid which provides a “one-stop-shop” model that reduces the number of offices a student needs to visit. Student success coaches meet weekly as a group, as well as with the larger student services division, to stay connected and ensure that consistent information is provided to students.

4. Lack of consistent departmental, cross-departmental, and cross-campuses meetings resulted in decreased collaboration within and across campuses, operating in a more siloed capacity.

The Advising Center has reestablished weekly meetings with the student success coaches and departmental coaches across the college where representatives from multiple areas will be invited to share information and address questions. Since student success coaches will be aligned with individual Guided Pathways clusters, they will work closely with each department within that pathway and collaborate across divisions. Student success coaches will work with instructional faculty to develop current, accurate, and consistent program information for students.

5. Lack of clear identification and transition to program Faculty Advisors resulted in many students not connecting to Faculty Advisors.

The Advising Center will be implementing a “Declared and Prepared” model of transitioning students to faculty advisors. Once a student is “Declared and Prepared” (they have declared their program and are prepared to take classes within the program), student success coaches will provide an intentional transition to the faculty advisor, who provides specialized knowledge of that program, career, and transfer options. By making the bridge to faculty advising explicit, student success coaches will assist OC in realizing its goal of helping all students identify a plan early in their studies and connect with the best resources available for helping them achieve it.

The CSSEE and SENSE surveys have not been collected since 2018 due to COVID-19, but feedback so far has shown that the new Student Success Coaching model is proving beneficial. Examples of feedback from staff, faculty and students since implementing the Student Success Coach model:

“I wanted … to express my appreciation to you, because a couple of my team members have mentioned that you have been instrumental in helping them to graduate, get their schedules in order, and taken the time to really listen to them. This has set them up for success, not only in college, but outside of it too….” (Staff)

“Thank you for going above and beyond for me! I am very grateful that so many people took an interest to make sure I was on the right path. I am now confident that I am now enrolled in the right classes to finish my degree.” (Student)

“Wow! This is super helpful. Thank you for taking such good care of this student’s needs.” (Faculty)

Lessons Learned

Ongoing and systematic collection and analysis of data and student feedback is essential to identify ways to refine and strengthen support for students. Positive results of these changes should include increased student satisfaction and frequency of use in the CCSSEE survey results and a decrease in the gaps between full-time and part-time students in the SENSE survey results. The Advising Center will be engaging with college stakeholders over the next year in establishing frameworks and benchmarks and designing an assessment plan to collect and analyze data to improve student learning, student development, and operational effectiveness. A comprehensive self-study will be undertaken to identify program improvements to be implemented by the end of the current three-year assessment cycle. OC’s strategic planning process will also provide opportunities for assessment of department level goals.

Digital Filmmaking – BAS Degree

OC’s Baccalaureate in Applied Science (BAS) in Digital Filmmaking was approved in 2016-17 and the first cohort started in the fall of 2017. Designed as a two-year upper-division program that allows students to complete an Applied Science bachelor’s degree in Filmmaking, this program differs from others in the state and many in the nation in that the focus is not on Film Studies, but instead on the art and science of making films.

The BAS-DF is a practitioner-oriented, applied degree that prepares students for a range of positions in the rapidly changing field of digital film, including jobs in video production, directing, cinematography, screenwriting, and acting. The degree also prepares them for digital content production in a variety of industries, including jobs with branding, marketing, and advertising companies, businesses in any industry that creates digital content for training purposes, and entrepreneurial opportunities. While the degree stands apart from others by enabling students to learn a broad range of creative and technical skills in all film subjects, students may focus on an area of study for the senior thesis project to deepen skills in a specific role.

The BAS-DF program developed six program outcomes to guide and assess student success. The BAS DF program adds knowledge, skills, and abilities in filmmaking expertise to students' professional technical education and work experience. Upon successful completion of the program, all students will be able to:

1. Consciously develop a responsible, socially, culturally, and historically relevant aesthetic and apply it to filmmaking disciplines (such as producing, directing, acting, scriptwriting, editing, cinematography, and post-production).

2. Demonstrate competency as a practitioner in a range of filmmaking disciplines.

3. Assess productions for quality control, ethical compliance, and sound business practices.

4. Demonstrate leadership, project management, and effective collaboration on filmmaking teams.

5. Evaluate emerging technologies in filmmaking and industry trends to maintain currency and drive innovation.

6. Integrate specialization in two or more filmmaking disciplines in an advanced film project.

Assessment of Key Outcomes

The program has multiple approaches for assessing success in meeting these outcomes. Individual courses are reviewed – using student evaluations, student success on course assignments aligned to the course outcomes (including those that align to the program outcomes), and the use of a collective review and assessment of the capstone products developed in the program. The portfolio of films and specific work on films produced during the program are reviewed, assessed through a capstone rubric, and used to evaluate students for further instruction as well as to evaluate the success of the program. Individually, students are also asked to do a self-evaluation of their progress, using their initial entry portfolios as a baseline, and to compare their growth in content knowledge and skills over the course of the entire program – with the capstone product again providing a useful culminating measurement of growth throughout the program. Using these combined elements, the faculty have generated data that not only measures the success of the program in meeting the program outcomes, but it has also used the resulting information generated to further refine and improve the program.

Analysis of Results

To assess learning and student success in the BAS-DF program, the faculty utilize student evaluations from each class in the program, evaluate student success in meeting course outcomes, are increasing use of Canvas tools to align student learning activities to course learning outcomes, and evaluate the results of this data. They additionally have aligned the student learning outcomes in each course to the program outcomes and use these in their weekly staff meetings to identify trends that inform potential actions for improvement. The program began in Fall 2017 and the typical revisions have included the sequencing of the courses in the program, redesigning some courses to maximize student success, and examining how the Associate program successfully feeds into the BAS-DF program. This latter component has been particularly important as the faculty designed their first Articulation Agreement for students from other institutions to transition into OC’s BAS-DF successfully.

Other informal factors that are used by the faculty and students includes Portfolios, student forums and input from specialists in the field including the Advisory Council for DF. The Portfolio required of students entering the program is used to track improvement of individuals (self-evaluations) and aggregate improvement over the course of the cohort program. Faculty also coordinate student forums annually, and sometimes quarterly, to solicit feedback from students within and across cohorts. This not only helps aid in communication between students and faculty but provides further informal input in the success and challenges of the program. An example of informal feedback informing action includes the recent decision to add a Documentary Filmmaking certificate to the program. Cold calls from people in the region, input from current faculty with specialization in the area, input from the Advisor Council, and requests of students confirmed an increasing demand for this addition to a largely narrative film program. Research using Economic Modeling Specialists, International (EMSI) and regional articles on the growing call for skills in filmmaking for Public Service Announcements, corporate videos, and informational videos confirmed the demand for this specialized certificate. The certificate has been approved for inclusion at the college level and OC is currently seeking approval for this certificate from the state.

Implementation of Changes

Three examples were selected to highlight the assessment process in the program including course sequencing and course redesign to improve student outcomes.

A. Course Sequencing

Student Evaluations and course outcomes were used to evaluate program outcomes. A small but consistent percentage of students revealed struggling with specific areas in courses. In later courses students suggested having specific information sooner in the curriculum; Faculty saw alignment between student success rates with specific outcomes that aligned with student evaluation comments.

Faculty restructured sequencing of Advanced Directing, Producing & Master Storytelling courses to address sequential skill acquisition, and reinforcement of knowledge and skills. Master Storytelling was placed in the first year, followed by the other two classes.

Student performance on learning outcomes for affected courses improved; student evaluations confirmed benefits of sequence changes to reinforce learning. Program learning outcomes 2 and 4 are evaluated across a variety of courses. Students are required to complete courses that introduce and reinforce a breadth of skills. Evidence from portfolios and final projects demonstrates a range of skills achieved across the filmmaking disciplines. Feedback from student evaluations and in student forums confirmed that the revisions in course sequencing assisted students in their preparation for higher levels of achievement and success in courses that were shifted to the second year of instruction. Program learning outcome 6 builds upon outcomes 2 and 4 and is evaluated through the final film project. The data demonstrates that all students have achieved this program learning outcome, even though some students were unable to complete all requirements for the program. Additional evidence of success can be found through the number of student final projects that have been submitted for screening at regional, national and even international film festivals, with several students placing in the semi-finalists, finalists, and winning the competitions.

B. Course Redesign – Production Workshop

Faculty used the student evaluations, student performance on course learning outcomes, and evidence of student performance on program outcomes from the first cohort of BAS-DF students. They identified trends in student performance and concerns related to the Production Workshop course – namely the workload challenges - and aligned those to SLO results. The ability for students to significantly improve and build upon prior skills was limited due to the lack of sufficient time to reinforce and master the plethora of skills targeted for the course.

Faculty in the BAS-DF decided to divide the student learning outcomes and learning activities within Production Workshop into two courses – PW I and PW II. By reducing the expectations for the students to review, reinforce and master for a single class, and providing two separate classes in two sequential quarters, the goal was to give students time and space to address skills that needed additional work, reinforce those skills, and build upon them in the following PW II quarter.

Based on the student performance and products (films, sections of films, team projects), the division of the Production Workshop into two classes improved the opportunity for students to identify weak areas, review and reinforce their skills in those areas, and time to master specific skills. The increased number of students with films receiving local, regional, national and international awards supports the assessment of the program products in line with the program outcomes.

C. Course Redesign – Master Storytelling

Based on review of student learning outcomes and student work, as well as feedback from student evaluations, the faculty identified that students perceived significant repetition in the BAS level course from the Associate’s level Screenwriting courses. This perception of redundancy was also apparent in the average level of improvement on the part of students in the Master Storytelling course.

To ensure students new to the OC Film school had the necessary preparation, the Film faculty reviewed all course and program outcomes, identifying requirements necessary to be met by incoming students to OC’s BAS-DF or course(s) necessary to take to meet those requirements. To ensure students were challenged to meet the higher BAS-DF Master Storytelling standards, a workshop component was added to the class, with new materials covered at the start of class and the second half of class workshopped student work.

The identification of “pre-requisite” skills and learning to succeed in the BAS-DF program assisted the faculty in developing a framework for designing Articulation agreements with other Community and Technical Colleges. The addition of a workshop component to the Master Storytelling class challenged students to critically examine their own and peer work and accelerated the learning process. Student evaluations and student work demonstrate the success in this course revision.

The faculty use of qualitative, quantitative, formal and informal assessment to gather information about the courses and program sequencing has helped guide revisions to the program. The open communications and modifications also resulted in excellent retention of students within each cohort. The following data reveals the enrollment per cohort and the Fall-to-Fall retention rates for each cohort. The analysis indicates a remarkably high retention of students in the program. Recruitment for 2021/22 is still underway so the numbers are not final.

Table 28. BAS-DF Cohort Enrollment (annual)

Cohort / Year	2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22
Cohort (a)	17	18	18	20	12
Cohort (b)	N/A	16	18	18	20
Total Enrolled	17	34	36	38	32
Retention rate (1^st to 2^ndyear)	N/A	94%	100%	100%	100%

Similar to the retention rates, the consistent focus on open lines of communication, listening to student input, and modifying courses, sequences, and program requirements to address student concerns has resulted in outstanding completion rates for the program. The analysis of student completion (graduating from the BAS-DF program) indicates consistent student success in the program. The numbers of students retained from fall-to-fall in each cohort slightly differs from the completion rate, as some students completed the coursework but did not achieve the level of GPA required for the program or did not complete the state required Math distribution credit that is required for the awarding of a bachelor (applied) degree in the State of Washington.

Table 29. BAS-DF Cohort Completion (by two-year cohorts)

Year	2017-19	2018-20	2019-21
Enrolled	17	18	18
Completed	16	18	17

Lessons Learned

The program has set up a systematic process for reviewing work that helps inform the assessment of course and program outcomes. These processes include the incorporation of student evaluations, student success with course SLOs, student self-evaluations, and student forums. Faculty also review formal and informal data during regular meetings. Increased usage of the Canvas system for gathering data will improve the incorporation of quantitative data and will provide opportunities to disaggregate data to assess equity gaps for specific learning outcomes. Additionally, as the program matures, it will be important to build systematic processes for gathering quantitative and qualitative data that will continue to inform the assessment and review of the program outcomes.

Early Childhood Education Program: AAS-T & ATA Degrees

The Early Childhood Education program (ECED) is long-standing at OC and is comprised of various degrees and certificates. In the last three years, OC’s ECED program has worked very closely with the State in reviewing degree outcomes and course offerings, as well as the development of stackable certificates that help guide students toward degree completion. Part of this effort has included close collaboration with the Early Childhood Education program at Western Washington University and created a seamless pathway for students from initial certificates to an Associate degree, to a bachelor’s degree. Upon completion of the two-year associate degrees at OC, students should be able to work in programs involving young children, from Head Start, childcare, parent cooperatives, private preschools and other child care facilities. The OC Education Program is based on the Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families Core Competencies.

Upon successful completion of the AAS-T and ATA program, students will be able to:

1. Acquire, interpret, and use information and resources that support industry defined appropriate practice;

2. Work as a team member and demonstrate respect for diversity in an early childhood environment to accomplish family, child and program goals;

3. Demonstrate professional and personal accountability in decision making and practices relative to children, families, colleagues, and the community;

4. Effectively communicate orally and in writing in the context of early childhood settings;

5. Design, maintain, document, and evaluate early childhood environments and programming on a regular basis.

Assessment of Key Outcomes

The ECED program faculty have taken into consideration overall program outcomes along with state licensing requirements, which graduates of the program need to meet, and national standards in the field. Specifically, ECED faculty chose to focus the past few years on SLOs that included components of cultural responsiveness to parallel the National Association of the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Advancing Equity in Early Childhood Education Position Statement that aligned with OC’s priority focus on equity and inclusion.

Analysis of Results

Based on the state and college priorities of equity and cultural responsiveness, the faculty identified SLOs and courses, then infused these priorities not only in any new ECED course that meets OC's Diversity and Social Justice (DSJ) requirements within the program, but also assessed student awareness and mastery of culturally responsive teaching across the curriculum. This includes review of student lesson plans, execution of lesson plans including video recording and critique, written plans that meet the culture of families served and reflection of personal biases that impact direct work with children and families. Faculty also observe students in all levels of practicum to be certain that culturally responsive teaching practices are followed.

Implementation of Changes

The program focus for the past and upcoming year is to identify specific key assessments in the ECED State Stackable certificates so that faculty can work together to assess all students. This also allows specific assignments to be developed in one course, then revised and mastered in supportive courses. Examples include observation requirements and lesson plan work that increases in expectations over the course of a series of classes. As specific assignments are identified and aligned with SLOs, tracking of student completion and success of key assessments will be included in advising notes for each student. Key assessments will be aligned with NAEYC professional preparation standards in order to prepare for future accreditation efforts. The ECED Key Assessment Alignment chart (Appendix B) indicates the progress thus far is and will be completed this academic year once ECED adjunct faculty are able to be included in the discussion.

Lessons Learned

The ECED program has learned a number of lessons over the course of the assessment work of the past few years. The changes in curriculum and improvements in advisement and pathways work created a need to vary the annual schedule of ECED courses. Some classes were moved to other quarters, some were adjusted by offering online offerings one quarter and face-to-face another quarter, as well as day and evening offerings. The program staff will continue to review and adjust the annual schedule as needed.

Specific course assignments are now being aligned with student learning outcomes for the courses. For example, if students are asked to complete an observation of a child, then this assignment is tied to a specific student learning outcome that addresses observation. An example includes the EDUC& 121 Child Development class that requires students to observe infants, toddlers and preschoolers. The specific assignment instructions align the activity to NAEYC Standard One: Promoting Child Development and Learning:

· 1a: Knowing and understanding young children’s characteristics and needs;

· 1b: Knowing and understanding the multiple influences on development and learning; and

· 1c: Using developmental knowledge to create healthy, respectful, supportive, and challenging learning environments).

The students are given directions for their observation assignment and asked to write a comparison and contrast paper that explains development patterns of growth for typically developing children based on their observations and knowledge.

Finally, the work with the state and Western Washington University (WWU) on curriculum alignment created a practice of meeting quarterly that has strengthened communications between the two institutions. The quarterly meetings have also resulted in changes that include moving the ECED Children’s Literature class from an ECED designated course to an ENGL (English) Children’s Literature Humanities course offering. Another adjustment was to start a class, ECED 220 History and Theory of Early Childhood, that builds on the theoretical foundation of early learning and bridges nicely into WWU’s course offerings. ECED 220 is being offered for the first time this summer. The benefits from the improved communications, shared curricular development, and more fluid pathways for Olympic College students to matriculate to WWU have helped systematize collaboration and alignment of work that will continue over the years.

4. Moving Forward

The institution must provide its reflections on any additional efforts or initiatives it plans on undertaking as it prepares for the Year Seven Evaluation of Institutional Effectiveness Report.

OC is starting a new Strategic Planning cycle and initiating a Governance system in Fall 2021. Both efforts will improve transparency and college-wide involvement of all constituencies while also aligning and integrating institutional planning and the allocation of resources for achieving goals. College Governance fosters a culture of collaboration, engagement, and collective investment in the mutual goals of fulfilling OC’s vision, mission, values, student success, and institutional effectiveness. The Governance System clearly defines and align the authorities, roles, responsibilities, and relationships among the BOT, Students, Classified Staff, Faculty, and Administrators. Stakeholders have shared roles, that is, roles shared by all members, functional/operational roles within the institution, and governance roles within the Governance System. The Governance System is responsible for college policy, planning and assessment. See Recommendation 1 for additional information on the Governance System.

OC’s Strategic Plan is a living document that will be continually updated throughout the planning process and used as a tool to enable the college to accomplish it shared goals. A key objective of the Strategic Planning process is to connect the dots between major strategic initiatives taking place at the college. This includes, but is not limited to Achieving the Dream, Guided Pathways, and Accreditation. Division and department level plans are shared across the college to increase transparency and foster collaboration and annual assessment is built into the process. The new Budget Council will be considering how to connect the strategic plan with resource allocation.

In tandem, these two efforts will provide frameworks for decision-making, resource allocation, collaboration, engagement, and collective investment in the mutual goals of fulfilling OC’s vision, mission, values, student success, and institutional effectiveness.

5. Addenda

Institutions which have been asked to address prior recommendations or which have been asked to address any transitional efforts to the 2020 Standards may be included in an Addendums section.

Recommendation 1

Improve transparency and college-wide involvement of all constituencies to increase investment in strategic decision-making through a comprehensive review and revision of its shared governance policies and procedures that include: Clear identification of roles, responsibilities, and authority of the president, administrators, staff, and faculty with particular attention on identifying the executive responsibilities of the president, the primary operational responsibilities of administrators and staff, and the primary instructional responsibilities of the faculty. (2020 Standard 2.A.1)

One of the goals that President Cavalluzzi had when he started at OC in February of 2018 was to replace the existing committee system with an effective participatory governance system to enhance transparency and participation of all stakeholder groups in reviewing and developing college policies and procedures. To meet this goal and to address this recommendation, the Board of Trustees approved a policy in October 2019 on Participatory Governance that authorized the President to start development of a governance system. Focus groups were conducted in order to assess the state of decision-making processes at OC. A Governance Task Force was initially convened in December of 2019 that included representatives from stakeholder groups including administration, tenured and adjunct faculty, classified staff, Poulsbo and Shelton campuses, and faculty and staff unions. This task force worked with two consultants to develop a governance model and clearly define the roles, responsibilities, and authority of the president, administrators, staff, and faculty. Drafts of the model were shared with stakeholder groups for feedback to inform the work of the task force. The Governance Task Force’s final recommendations were accepted by President Cavalluzzi in April 2021.

The Governance System includes an overarching Governance Coordinating Council and five functional councils that will be co-chaired by the Executive administrator and either a student, classified professional or faculty member. The five functional councils will be Budget, Learning, Student Advancement, Data and Technology, and Facilities and Safety. Each of the Councils includes representatives from the Diversity Advisory Committee, the Sustainability Advisory Committee, faculty, classified staff, students, and exempt.

The Governance Coordinating Council will be responsible for forwarding policy and plans to the President. The Executive Team (E-Team), made up of the President and his direct reports, will develop plans for implementation. E-Team will be expected to consult with Governance Councils about approaches to implementation, but such consultations will not be subject to the consensus decision-making protocols practiced in the College Governance System. The Faculty Senate is a board-approved body in compliance with RCW 28B.50.145 with a communication link to the Governance Coordinating Council and a reporting link to the College President. Where appropriate, policy and implementation recommendations/decisions among President, Governance, and E-Team will be presented to the Board of Trustees. In some cases, authority will reside with the President, in alignment with Board policy.

Image 1 illustrates the relationships and communication between and among the various governance groups. This includes reporting relationships, communication links, and relationships in terms of influence and representation. (See image description.)

Image 1. Relationship of Advisory Committees to Governance Structure

Relationship of Advisory Committees to Governance Structure

An Implementation Team, including some members from the Task Force, is developing an Implementation Manual which will further describe topics such as appointment procedures; lateral and vertical communications lines; decision making process; council charters; and workplans.

Next steps and timeline

· Appointments to the Governance Coordinating Council and the Functional Councils will be initiated over the summer of 2021 and finalized following faculty and students returning in September. Governance training will be provided to ensure that all council members are informed about how the governance system will operate.

· An all-college forum is planned during Opening Days in September 2021.

· An end-of-year assessment of the effectiveness of the governance system is planned for May of 2022. This assessment will be repeated annually.

Recommendation 6

Define procedures for evaluating the alignment and integration of institutional planning and the allocation of resources for achieving the intended outcomes of programs and services with respect to accomplishment of core theme objectives. (2020 Standards 1.B.1, 1.B.3)

Strategic planning efforts for this strategic planning cycle (2021-2026) incorporate several college-wide efforts into a holistic plan for better alignment with the budget cycle. This planning process was centered on an equity framework and uses the Society for College and University Planning (SCUP) integrated planning model. This planning model requires alignment between departments and routine measures and reporting to ensure work is assessed on an ongoing basis. This process also follows a defined communication plan with multiple communications, forums, and opportunities for communication with the college community. Departments and divisions were asked to create annual work plans with measures and routine reporting in order to monitor progress, identify and share successes, and ensure effective ongoing collaboration between stakeholders. Draft work plans are prepared and shared via the Strategic Planning Sharepoint site for transparency and ongoing reporting.

OC is currently planning the implementation of a new shared governance structure during the 2021-22 academic year (see Recommendation 1 for details.) This shared governance structure defines college policy making as a board prerogative, college operational policy making as the responsibility of a shared governance council, and policy implementation as the responsibility of administration. Additionally, the Board of Trustees reviewed its current slate of college policies and has identified a prioritized list of policies in need of review and refreshment as needed. This operational policy review work and draft strategic plan will be a starting point for the Governance Coordinating Council.

OC used ad hoc budget councils for two years while the governance system was being developed. As OC prepares for implementation of the new Budget Council this year, the E-Team is using a rubric based on the draft strategic goals to make budget allocations. The typical budget cycle used has required submissions of budget requests by January, with evaluation and allocation taking place by April so that annual budgets can be drafted on time for the next fiscal year. Both permanent and temporary funds have been allocated in this manner. This has sometimes resulted in an unclear path to temporary funding at other points in the year. One of the first tasks for the new Budget Council will be to decide if permanent and temporary allocations should be split into two separate budget request cycles. The ad hoc budget council suggested a separate allocation process be developed and used for new innovative projects, which could coincide with the temporary funds allocation cycle.

Recommendation 7

Systematically evaluate its non-instructional programs and services to provide direction for the institution that leads to accomplishment of its core themes, and fulfillment of its mission. (2020 Standard 1.B.1)

OC continues to develop a comprehensive evaluation system of non-instructional programs and services that focuses on the overall quality and the cumulative contribution of a program towards mission fulfillment. Several factors impacted the anticipated goals and progress relating to this evaluation including increased workhour demands related to institution-wide preparation for the shift to the statewide enterprise management system (ctcLink), as well as shifting budget contexts and demands of COVID-19 responses However, OC has also made progress on strategic planning and directions, which will significantly inform divisional workplans and the ability to effectively plan and coordinate evaluation work.

While evaluation of non-instructional programs and services continues within each division, the context for this work shall be significantly informed by the advent of a shared governance system, which is anticipated to be formed in earnest in Fall 2021. Shared governance processes will support not only the evaluation of non-instructional services and programs within the Budget, Data & Technology, Student Achievement, Facilities & Safety, and Learning councils, but also coordinate a system across those councils as well. Coordinating through this shared governance framework will promote integration of services, consistency, predictability, and information sharing.

As an example, in Student Services, each program completed a program review consistent with prior iterations of OC’s strategic resource allocation program review process. The division’s Student Services Leadership Council has also established an Assessment Sub-committee, which will look at developing a divisional approach to both evaluating services and assessing student learning and support outcomes. Representatives of each program area also engaged in an 8-week/module online assessment course provided by Student Affairs Assessment Leaders (SAAL) in March 2021. In conjunction with this course, programs and departments developed work plans that included goals, metrics, and deliverables, which are coordinated with assessment and strategic planning activities. Programs and departments will continue to work with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness to determine the availability, selection, and integrity of data sources and measures. The division has also invested in implementing a self-study process in alignment with the standards for student affairs, as established by the Council for the Advancement of Standards (CAS) in Higher Education and is currently drafting proposed assessment and evaluation schedules to be aligned with anticipated College processes.

In Fall 2021-22, OC will be drafting evaluation tools and processes for the assessment of non-instructional programs. The goal is to develop a system of comprehensive program reviews, including a self-study, internal/external evaluation, and report of findings.

Recommendation 8

Implement an effective, regular, and comprehensive system of assessment of student learning outcomes at the course, program, degree, general education, and related instruction levels, and use the results to inform academic and learning-support planning and practices that lead to enhancement of student learning achievements. (2020 Standards 1.C.5, 1.C.7)

The recommendation received after the NWCCU Mission Fulfillment review was not unexpected. Although much prior work that decade had been devoted to thoughtful assessment of Core Abilities at biannual institutes, this work did not constitute an “effective, regular, and comprehensive system” of assessing learning outcomes at every level. Faculty also individually and often informally collected evidence of student learning against stated outcomes, but by 2018 no formal reporting mechanisms had yet been established.

In Summer 2019, a team of deans and faculty convened to write a collegewide Learning Assessment Action Plan to develop a more robust, sustainable, and transparent system of learning outcomes assessment. The plan called for three main areas of focus: Policy and Procedure, System Design/Architecture, and Professional Development. Each of these areas has received significant attention. While OC has already addressed aspects of Recommendation 8, much more is currently underway despite the pandemic.

Policy and Procedure

This area includes:

· Developing a shared vocabulary and a common understanding of goals, methods, policies, and procedures—and how we use results;

· Implementing a clear process to support writing measurable course and program outcomes and for reviewing those outcomes; guidelines and professional development will be offered to coordinate this effort;

· Scaling use of Canvas to document learning assessment results; report those results; and archive assessment artifacts; document potential workflows to/from Canvas and the current curriculum management system, Curricunet, and;

· Clarifying roles and responsibilities in shared governance among stakeholders: faculty, deans, Institutional Effectiveness, instructional committees (IAC, FCC, IPPR), assessment coordinator, Center for Learning Innovation, etc.

The Instructional Assessment Council (IAC) guides and supports a faculty-led assessment process both to continually improve teaching and learning and to help OC meet accreditation standards. The IAC charter is revised annually to reflect an evolving understanding of the council’s role, particularly in relation to the Faculty Curriculum Committee (FCC) and Instructional Program Planning and Review (IPPR) Committee. In 2018-19, gaps in responsibilities and workflows were identified by an inter-committee workgroup with membership from all three committees. As a result of this work, the IAC added responsibilities for reviewing and approving learning outcomes not tied to a specific course or program, such as general education outcomes and core abilities. IAC chairs were also added to technical review approvals in the curriculum management software. Finally, an IAC workgroup formed in 2019-2020 with the goal of drafting a peer review process for ensuring new course and program learning outcomes met specific criteria in order to create a quality baseline. However, due to the pandemic, this workgroup disbanded without meeting its goal.

In 2020-2021, the Instructional Assessment Council (IAC) worked with the Instructional Program Planning and Review (IPPR) Committee to add two prompts to IPPR’s 5-year program review questionnaire:

· Provide evidence of program learning outcomes assessment collected over the past 5 years; and

· Describe your program improvement plan based on the evidence collected.

In Spring 2017 - Fall 2018, the Center for Teaching & Learning (now Center for Learning Innovation) ran a pilot program with some 20 faculty to study the promise of representing course learning outcomes in the Canvas learning management system. This pilot yielded promising results but was not scaled due to lack of staff support. However, with increased staffing, the Center for Learning Innovation imported learning outcomes for every course at OC into the Canvas Learning Management System (LMS). This months-long effort gives all faculty at OC a clear-cut way to collect student learning data for any outcome across multiple sections, with CSV exports for easy conversion to useful pivot tables and charts. Program learning outcomes are now being verified in preparation for import. Center eLearning faculty are also working with faculty subject matter experts to create Canvas-based repositories by program to store evidence of student learning. These repositories will be easy to access with one click from a shared Canvas site. The shared site will be linked in the Center’s Training and Resources Canvas hub. In addition, Center staff have built common surveys to capture faculty assessment reports on a periodic basis.

As the college moved from Curricunet to a new curriculum management system, Curriculog, IAC developed learning outcomes formatting requirements and best practices guidelines for writing learning outcomes that faculty will use when they propose new or revised course and program proposals.

At the same time, OC continued to work on a new shared governance model. This model, with its proposed new Learning Council, may shape other councils/committees like IAC and IPPR. Chairs of these bodies are aware of the need for strategic alignment and will continue to monitor as the shared governance model is fleshed out and implemented, expected Fall, 2021.

System Design/Architecture

This area includes:

· Integrating the development of the Diversity and Social Justice (DSJ) graduation requirement into the larger assessment system design;

· Formally adopting and publishing distribution level learning outcomes in humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences; map course level outcomes to distribution outcomes and assessments as relevant, and;

· Revising and simplifying outcomes architecture—i.e., where do course, program, distribution, Core Abilities, etc. “live” and how should outcomes at these levels be aligned.

In Spring 2017 - Fall 2018, academic transfer faculty developed draft distribution area learning outcomes representing Humanities, Natural Science, and Social Science distributions in general education. These outcomes filled a “missing middle” in programmatic assessment of general education, positioned between the course and core abilities levels.

In 2018-2019, new Diversity and Social Justice (DSJ) outcomes were approved by the Faculty Curriculum Committee (FCC) in anticipation of a new DSJ graduation requirement. In 2019 - 2020, the Instructional Assessment Council voted to sunset the core abilities graduation requirement (not the core abilities themselves), which it determined to be burdensome to students, difficult to track, and unhelpful for assessing student achievement. Beginning in Fall 2021, the DSJ graduation requirement will stand alone as an additional requirement for graduation with a transfer degree from OC.

In Spring 2021, faculty leads for guided pathways completed program maps, outlining course sequences and mapping courses to program outcomes. This work was especially challenging for academic transfer faculty, many of whom had not been accustomed to thinking of the DTA degree in terms of “programs.” This mapping led faculty to reexamine and, in some cases, revise the distribution area learning outcomes developed in 2018-2019 to better reflect student learning goals.

Professional Development

This area includes:

· Providing multifaceted professional development offerings through quarterly Institutes for Inquiry and Innovation, faculty learning communities, faculty development courses;

· Offering introductory, intermediate, and advanced levels, with on-ramps for faculty new to the work; opportunities to progress, model, and mentor, and;

· Developing a communication plan to make transparent a coherent, interconnected program of Professional Development for assessment.

OC has integrated assessment-related professional development opportunities into the regular academic calendar. These opportunities now include two formal Assessment Days, non-instructional contract days for full-time faculty in November and May. Adjunct faculty receive stipends for participation. Agendas for these days feature facilitated sessions, such as workshops and roundtables on the Transparency in Learning and Teaching (TILT) framework, formative assessment, use of Canvas Outcomes, authentic assessment, and integrative learning. Agendas also incorporate time for disciplines and programs to meet to analyze evidence and progress for their own assessment plans. This work is documented through work plans and post-meeting reports, now archived in Canvas. The Center for Learning Innovation offers additional synchronous and asynchronous opportunities throughout the year to learn about outcomes assessment or engage in best practices. These opportunities are promoted via email, and links and resources are hosted within the Center’s Training and Resources Canvas hub.

In 2020-21, OC held two faculty Assessment Days, including the inaugural May Assessment Day. On May 14, faculty were shown how to add learning outcomes for their courses within the Canvas LMS. Center faculty are assisting teaching faculty across divisions in Spring 2021 with adding outcomes to rubrics, collecting evidence, downloading artifacts/exporting data, and analyzing findings. This evidence of student learning will then be added to easy-access program-specific repositories.

IAC co-chairs Martin Cockroft (Center for Learning Innovation) and Allison Phayre (Office of Institutional Effectiveness) are 2020-2021 NWCCU Mission Fulfilment Fellows. Their project seeks to encompass Recommendation 8 work as part of clarifying and aligning the college’s major pieces of work. OC’s eight recommendations revealed the college’s extensive gaps in institutional structures, processes, and roles. The breadth of these gaps renders much of the college paralyzed, as employees struggle to understand the scope of the problems and identify solutions across a multi-year timespan. Allison and Martin are collaborating to define the scope, interdependencies, and timing for extensive collegewide work items in response to NWCCU recommendations, SBCTC system wide work, and the college’s focus on closing equity gaps and increasing credential attainment.

Next Steps and Timeline

Summer 2021

· Update Learning Assessment Action Plan for 2021 – 2023

· Develop Assessment Repositories for each discipline and program to use beginning Fall 2021

· Refine curriculum workflows from Faculty Curriculum Committee (FCC) to Center for Learning Innovation to ensure Canvas Outcomes reflect new and recent changes to learning outcomes

Fall 2021

· Offer Faculty Institute for Inquiry and Innovation week of September 6 – 10 to help faculty prepare assessment plans for 2021-2022 academic year and familiarize faculty with tools and support; offer Faculty Institute November 24 to continue assessment work

· Clarify program learning outcomes assessment reporting expectations for faculty submitting IPPR program review questionnaires in 2021-2022; identify program assessment exemplars to use as models demonstrating evidence of student learning

· Pilot Instructional Assessment Council (IAC) course learning outcomes peer review process for select new and revised course proposals submitted to FCC in 2021-2022

Winter 2022

· Pilot Canvas-based course assessment report built into term course shells

· Select key courses in distribution areas and courses meeting DSJ graduation requirement (planned for implementation in Fall 2022) for general education assessment

· Determine which college committee (e.g., IAC, IPPR) will define general education assessment reporting requirements and assessment results

Spring 2022

· Offer Faculty Institute for Inquiry and Innovation on May 13, 2022, to give faculty time to review evidence of student learning and plan strategies for improvement

· Review results of course outcome peer review pilot and course assessment report pilot

· Solicit feedback from faculty submitting program learning outcomes reports through IPPR in 2021-2022

· Assess completed work in 2021-2022 against Learning Assessment Action Plan goals

6. Appendices

A. Mission Fulfillment Indicators

Student Access and Success

Table A1. Student Course Completion Rates

Population	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2025 Target
Entire College	89%	89%	90%	TBD
Asian	91%	92%	93%	93%
Black/African American	81%	81%	84%	90%
Hispanic	85%	83%	88%	90%
Native American/Alaskan Native	82%	82%	85%	90%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	90%	88%	82%	90%
White	89%	90%	90%	90%

Table A2. Student Completion 15cr. in Year 1

Population	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2025 Target
Entire College	46%	48%	N/A	50%
Asian	49%	50%	N/A	50%
Black/African American	35%	36%	N/A	50%
Hispanic	44%	36%	N/A	50%
Native American/Alaskan Native	18%	33%	N/A	50%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	26%	50%	N/A	50%
White	46%	50%	N/A	50%

Table A3. Student Completion - 30 cr. in Year 1

Population	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2025 Target
Entire College	27%	28%	N/A	TBD
Asian	27%	39%	N/A	TBD
Black/African American	21%	11%	N/A	TBD
Hispanic	19%	13%	N/A	TBD
Native American/Alaskan Native	6%	14%	N/A	TBD
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	13%	39%	N/A	TBD
White	29%	30%	N/A	TBD

Table A4. Completion by Year 3 (equiv. 150% time) for Academic/Transfer Intents

Population	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2025 Target
Entire College	22%	21%	20%	25%
Asian	39%	24%	30%	25%
Black/African American	10%	14%	14%	25%
Hispanic	9%	15%	17%	25%
Native American/Alaskan Native	N/A	0%	20%	25%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	27%	25%	33%	33%
White	22%	23%	20%	25%

Table A5. First time pass rates on standardized and national state exams

Program	2018	2019	2020	2025 Target
Associate Degree, Nursing	95%	96%	N/A	>80%
Medical Assisting	N/A	N/A	72%	>65%
Nursing Assistant	70%	73%	94%	>80%
Practical Nursing	92%	83%	N/A	>80%
Physical Therapist Assistant	97%	92%	95%	>90%

Table A6. Overall pass rates on standardized and national state exams

Program	2018	2019	2020	2025 Target
Associate Degree, Nursing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Medical Assisting	100%	97%	71%	>64%
Nursing Assistant	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Practical Nursing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Physical Therapist Assistant	100%	100%	100%	N/A

Table A7. Students completing OC baccalaureate programs, total

Program	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2025 Target
Digital Film	94%	100%	94%	>94%
Information Systems	100%	N/A	80%	>90%
Nursing	N/A	N/A	N/A	>70%
Org. Leadership & Tech. Mgmt.	100%	95%	88%	>90%

Table A8. Basic Studies – Outcomes after exit

Program	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2025 Target
Attained a secondary diploma and postsecondary credential within one year of exit	71%	52%	N/A	TBD
Attained any credential	40%	36%	N/A	TBD
Employment 2nd quarter after exit	28%	39%	N/A	TBD
Employment 4th quarter after exit	28%	36%	N/A	TBD

Overall completion and credit attainment data shows that there are equity gaps in student achievement that need to be addressed. Pass rates on standardized and national state exams are consistently at or above the targets based on national averages.

Baccalaureate degree completion fluctuates by program.

· Digital Film (BAS-DF): Student completion rates are consistently high, sometimes 100%.

· Information Systems (BAS-IS): Many BAS IS students accept full-time employment while in the BAS program. To accommodate work schedules, they sometimes reduce their school class loads by waiting to enroll in general education courses until after their cohort graduates. This impacts the on-time completions.

· Nursing (BSN): Unlike the other programs, Nursing on-time completion is 4 years instead of 2 years. This is a challenging program as indicated by the fluctuations in completions.

· Organizational Leadership & Technical Management (BAS OLTM): Although most students complete on time, a few complete in subsequent years.

For Basic Studies, the fluctuations in data can be partly attributed to fluctuations in the political and economic climate at a regional and national level as well as the COVID-19 pandemic.

· Attained a Secondary School Diploma/Recognized Equivalent and Postsecondary Credential Within One Year of Exit: For 2018,19, OC was at 70% which is slightly higher than the state average of 63% for this period. For 2019-2020, it was 52% compared to a state average of 64%.

· Attained any credential unduplicated: For 2018-19, OC was at 40% compared to a state average if 52%. For 2019-2020, it was 36% compared to a state average of 53%.

· Employment 2nd Quarter After Exit: On average, 32% of the former program participants were employed the 2nd quarter after exit over the past three years, compared to a state average of 27%.

· Employment 4th Quarter After Exit: On average 31% of the former program participants were employed the 4nd quarter after exit over the past three years, compared to a state average of 28%.

Teaching and Learning

Table A9. Student Perceptions of Quality of Interactions/Relationships with Instructors

Indicator	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2025 Target
Course evaluations on instructor interaction, 5 = mostly	N/A	N/A	82%	TBD

Table A10. Faculty Completion of Professional Development Plans (PDP)

Indicator	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2025 Target
Professional Technical PDP	95%	87%	89%	100%

Table A11. Faculty Participation in Professional Development and Training

Indicator	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2025 Target
Transparency in Learning and Teaching (TILT) workshop	27	31	N/A	TBD
Assessment Institutes participation	127	77	248	TBD
Equity Institutes	53	30	7	TBD

OC moved to a new faculty evaluation tool and only Winter and Spring 2021 quarters are available. Two questions were selected: 3.2 Instructor interactions were available and helpful and 3.6 I felt free to ask questions. More data will need to be gathered to determine an adequate target. The CCSSE survey was not administered in 2020 due to COVID-19, but future years will be included. Faculty completion of PDPs remains a challenge. Data on the PDPs required upon completion of tenure and post-tenure review are not available at this time but will be included in the future. While the number of professional development and training offerings may also vary year to year, thus impacting the participation numbers, the intent is to look at the cumulative impact over multiple years.

Institutional Capacity Building

Table A12. Ongoing partnerships and collaborations with community

Indicator	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2025 Target
Advisory Group meetings	100%	100%	100%	100%
High School Articulation Agreements	119	124	179	>150

As in previous years, 100% of advisory committees met a minimum of twice a year. In 2019-20, this includes two committees that received a pandemic waiver for their second meeting from the State Board of Community and Technical Colleges. The number of active High School Articulation Agreements continues to grow. For 2018-19, there were 11 new agreements. For 2019-20, 20 were new and for 2020-21, 34 were new.

B. Early Childhood Education Key Assessment Alignment

Early Childhood Education Key Assessments by Course

Course #	Course Title	Offered	Key Assessment Assignment	NAEYC standard met
ECED& 120	Practicum I	F, W, Sp
ECED& 107	Health, Safety and Nutrition	Su, F, W
ECED& 105	Introduction to Early Childhood Ed	F, W, Sp	Research project on a topic in early childhood (of the student’s choosing) that demonstrates knowledge of a trend or issue impacting the field of early learning.	6d. Integrating knowledgeable, reflective, and critical perspectives on early education.
EDUC& 121	Child Development	F, W, Sp	Observation assignments of infants, toddlers and preschoolers and writing a compare/contrast paper that explains development patterns of growth for typically developing children.	1a. Knowing and understanding young children’s characteristics and needs. 1b. Knowing and understanding the multiple influences on development and learning.
EDUC& 130	Guiding Children’s Behavior	F, W, Sp
ECED& 139	Administration of Early Learning Prgms	Su, W
ECED& 132	Infant/Toddlers Caregiving	W
ECED& 134	Family Child Care	W
EDUC& 136	School Age Care	Su, W
ECED& 138	Home Visitor/Family Engagement	Sp
ECED& 164	Mathematics for Early Childhood Ed	F, W, Sp

Course #

Course Title

Offered

Key Assessment Assignment

NAEYC standard met

ECED& 160

Curriculum Development

Su, W

Completion of a developmentally appropriate thematic curriculum project that includes the following elements:

· Goals and student outcomes appropriate for the age written

· Schedule and routine of the chosen developmentally appropriate environment

· Curriculum map and written lesson plans in the following content areas: art, math, science, language arts, sensory, large and fine motor, social studies, dramatic or creative play

· Delivery and evaluation of two student written lesson plans

· Literature list of appropriate genres/titles

1 c. Using developmental knowledge to create healthy, respectful, supportive, and challenging learning environments.

4b. Knowing and understanding effective strategies and tools for early education

4c. Using a broad repertoire of developmentally appropriate teaching/learning practices.

5a. understanding content knowledge and resources in academic disciplines.

5b. Knowing and using the central concepts, inquiry tools, and structures of content areas or academic disciplines.

5c. Using their own knowledge, appropriate early learning standards, and other resources to design, implement, and evaluate meaningful, challenging curricula for each child.

ECED& 170

Environments for Young Children

F, W

Course #	Course Title	Offered	Key Assessment Assignment	NAEYC standard met
ECED& 180	Language and Literacy Development	F, Sp
ECED& 190	Observation and Assessment	F, Sp
EDUC& 150	Child/Family and Community	Sp
ENGL& 101	English Composition	Su, F, W, Sp	Decided by English faculty	NA

NAEYC Standards Alignment with Course Key Assessments

In process, to be completed AY 2021-22

Standard One: Promoting Child Development and Learning

Candidates prepared in early childhood degree programs are grounded in a child development knowledge base. They use their understanding of young children’s characteristics and needs, and of multiple interacting influences on children’s development and learning, to create environments that are healthy, respectful, supportive and challenging for each child.

NAEYC Standards	Course(s) where met
1a. Knowing and understanding young children’s characteristics and needs	EDUC& 121 Child Development
1b. Knowing and understanding the multiple influences on development and learning.	EDUC& 121 Child Development
1c. Using developmental knowledge to create health, respectful, supportive, and challenging learning environments.	EDUC& 160 Curriculum Development

Standard Two: Building Family and Community Relationships

Candidates prepared in early childhood degree programs understand that successful early childhood education depends upon partnerships with children’s families and communities. They know about, understand, and value the importance and complex characteristics of children’s families and communities. They use this understanding to create respectful, reciprocal relationships that support and empower families, and to involve all families in their children’s development and learning.

· 2a. Knowing about and understanding diverse family and community characteristics.

· 2b: Supporting and engaging families and communities through respectful, reciprocal relationships.

· 2c: Involving families and communities in young children’s development and learning.

Standard 3. Observing, documenting, and assessing to support young children and families.

Candidates prepared in early childhood degree programs understand that child observation, documentation, and other forms of assessment are central to the practice of all early childhood professionals. They know about and understand the goals, benefits, and uses of assessment. They know about and use systematic observations, documentation, and other effective assessment strategies in a responsible way, in partnership with families and other professionals, to positively influence the development of every child.

· 3a: Understanding the goals, benefits, and uses of assessment – including its use in development of appropriate goals, curriculum, and teaching strategies for young children

· 3b: Knowing about and using observation, documentation, and other appropriate assessment tools and approaches, including the use of technology in documentation, assessment and data collection.

· 3c: Understanding and practicing responsible assessment to promote positive outcomes for each child, including the use of assistive technology for children with disabilities.

· 3d: Knowing about assessment partnerships with families and with professional colleagues to build effective learning environments.

Standard 4. Using developmentally effective approaches.

Candidates prepared in early childhood degree programs understand that teaching and learning with young children is a complex enterprise, and its details vary depending on children’s ages, characteristics, and the settings within which teaching and learning occur. They understand and use positive relationships and supportive interactions as the foundation for their work with young children and families. Candidates know, understand, and use a wide array of developmentally appropriate approaches, instructional strategies, and tools to connect with children and families and positively influence each child’s development and learning.

· 4a: Understanding positive relationships and supportive interactions as the foundation of their work with young children

· 4b: Knowing and understanding effective strategies and tools for early education, including appropriate uses of technology

· 4c: Using a broad repertoire of developmentally appropriate teaching /learning approaches

· 4d: Reflecting on own practice to promote positive outcomes for each child

Standard 5. Using content knowledge to build meaningful curriculum.

Candidates prepared in early childhood degree programs use their knowledge of academic disciplines to design, implement, and evaluate experiences that promote positive development and learning for each and every young child. Candidates understand the importance of developmental domains and academic (or content) disciplines in early childhood curriculum. They know the essential concepts, inquiry tools, and structure of content areas, including academic subjects, and can identify resources to deepen their understanding. Candidates use their own knowledge and other resources to design, implement, and evaluate meaningful, challenging curriculum that promotes comprehensive developmental and learning outcomes for every young child.

· 5a: Understanding content knowledge and resources in academic disciplines: language and literacy; the arts – music, creative movement, dance, drama, visual arts; mathematics; science, physical activity, physical education, health and safety; and social studies.

· 5b: Knowing and using the central concepts, inquiry tools, and structures of content areas or academic disciplines.

· 5c: Using own knowledge, appropriate early learning standards, and other resources to design, implement, and evaluate developmentally meaningful and challenging curriculum for each child.

Standard 6. Becoming a professional.

Candidates prepared in early childhood degree programs identify and conduct themselves as members of the early childhood profession. They know and use ethical guidelines and other professional standards related to early childhood practice. They are continuous, collaborative learners who demonstrate knowledgeable, reflective and critical perspectives on their work, making informed decisions that integrate knowledge from a variety of sources. They are informed advocates for sound educational practices and policies.

· 6a: Identifying and involving oneself with the early childhood field

· 6b: Knowing about and upholding ethical standards and other early childhood professional guidelines.

· 6c: Engaging in continuous, collaborative learning to inform practice; using technology effectively with young children, with peers, and as a professional resource.

· 6d: Integrating knowledgeable, reflective, and critical perspectives on early education.

· 6e: Engaging in informed advocacy for young children and the early childhood profession.

Standard 7. Early childhood field experiences.

Field experiences and clinical practice are planned and sequenced so that candidates develop the knowledge, skills and professional dispositions necessary to promote the development and learning of young children across the entire developmental period of early childhood – in at least two of the three early childhood age groups (birth – age 3, 3 through 5, 5 through 8 years) and in the variety of settings that offer early education (early school grades, child care centers and homes, Head Start programs).

· 7a. Opportunities to observe and practice in at least two of the three early childhood age groups (birth – age 3, 3-5, 5-8).

· 7b. Opportunities to observe and practice in at least two of the four main types of early education settings (early school grades, child care centers, family and home-based child care settings, and Head Start or equivalent programs).

Teaching and Learning

Regional Peers

National Peers

Gender, Age, and Race

Retention

Retention, Fall-to-Fall

Retention, 1st Fall-to-Winter (First Quarter)

Progression

Progression, 15 credits within 1st year

Progression, 30 credits within 1st year

College-Level English and Math

College-Level English

College Level Math

Completions

Data Analysis

Assessment of Key Outcomes

Analysis of Results

Implementation of changes

Lessons Learned

Assessment of Key Outcomes

Analysis of Results

Implementation of Changes

A. Course Sequencing

B. Course Redesign – Production Workshop

C. Course Redesign – Master Storytelling

Lessons Learned

Assessment of Key Outcomes

Analysis of Results

Implementation of Changes

Lessons Learned

Policy and Procedure

System Design/Architecture

Professional Development

Next Steps and Timeline

Summer 2021

Fall 2021

Winter 2022

Spring 2022

A. Mission Fulfillment Indicators

Student Access and Success

Teaching and Learning

B. Early Childhood Education Key Assessment Alignment

Early Childhood Education Key Assessments by Course

NAEYC Standards Alignment with Course Key Assessments

Progression, 15 credits within 1^st year

Progression, 30 credits within 1^st year