American Samoa Community College

Responses to the Commission Identified Deficiencies

Recommendation 1
In order to meet the Standard, the team recommends that the College in cooperation with the governance process, fully develop program review processes, systematic course review, and authentic assessment of SLOs and analyze and use the results of assessments to improve continuously. (Standards I.A.2, I.B.1, I.B.2, II.A.2, II.B.3, I.B.6, I.B.7, I.B.8, I.B.9, II.C.2, II.C.3, IV.A.1, IV.A.2, IV.A.3)

The College has clarified program review processes, planning processes, and assessment processes through established policy and in the development of the Participatory Governance Structural Manual.

The College adopted the new Policy 1004: Comprehensive Program Review and Assessment of Instructional Programs, Student Services, and Administrative Services to clearly outline the processes that authentically measure the work of the institution toward achieving its mission.

The Participatory Governance Structural Manual clarified further all processes in program review, planning, and assessment through the identification of the constituent roles in governance and decision-making, the types of decision-making groups, and the roles and responsibilities of constituent groups. The manual clarifies the College’s communication protocol and operational functions as set by the organizational structure (Organizational Chart 2015)

The College invited Dr. Mary Allen to conduct a 3-day training on authentic assessment entitled Closing the Loop, Authentic Assessment, Rubrics, Calibration, and Inter and Intra-rater Reliability. This training took place during the Fall 2015 orientation week for faculty. All College employees were encouraged to attend this training to learn how best practices in assessment can be used in providing programs and services for student learning and achievement of outcomes.

Evidence:


Recommendation 2
In order to meet the Standard, the team recommends that the College, in cooperation with the governance process, expand access to program evaluation and assessment data and promote collegial dialogue surrounding student learning and student success. (Standards I.B.1, I.B.4, I.B.5, I.B.6, I.B.7, I.B.8, I.B.9, IV.A.1, IV.A.2, IV.A.3)

The College took several actions to better clarify program review processes, planning processes, and assessment processes in the development of the Participatory Governance Manual and the clear definition of roles of constituencies and decision-making groups. The College encourages collegial dialogue in student learning and student success at the department/program, committee, and institutional levels as defined in the purpose, composition, and outcomes of Governance Groups, Operational Groups, and Task Force Groups.  A Convocation was held for all College administrators, staff and faculty in August 2015 that centered on accreditation purposes, roles in planning, and achievement of student learning outcomes.

The College adopted the Policy 1004: Comprehensive Program Review and Assessment of Instructional Programs, Student Services, and Administrative Services to establish and implement assessment and review processes that involve the entire College in the student learning and student success. Policy 1001: Governance and Organization Structure define the how individuals are involved in governance in one or more of the following ways:

  • Through the organizational structure;
  • By serving on or presenting information to a standing committee;
  • By serving on or working with advisory, ad hoc, and task force committees;
  • Through the Faculty Senate;
  • By participating in academic department and staff meetings; and
  • Through Student Government

Evidence:


Recommendation 3
In order to meet the Standard, the team recommends that the College set institutional standards for student achievement and use them as the basis for evaluation in the program review and institutional planning processes. (Standards I.B.3, I.B.6, I.B.7, I.B.8, I.B.9, IV.B.3, IV.C.8; ER11)

The College has clarified, defined and set Student Achievement Standards. In order to set institutional achievement standards the College identified data sets for student Career Pathway milestones. This identification of data sets required extensive dialogue by the academic faculty and committees to review program review data and provide an analysis of Assessed Courses (Developmental courses, Gateway courses), Degree Program Requirements (Core Foundational, Co-Foundational), Degree /Certificate Completion and Transfer Outcomes. The process of establishment of the institutional standards was identified in the Academic Excellence Subcommittee Report.

In order to ensure the continuance of this process of institution set standards, the Board adopted Policy 1004 Comprehensive Program Review and Assessment of Instructional Programs, Student Services, and Administrative Services.  A summary all academic department assessment reports is found in the Assessing Student Learning & Achievement document. This document provides an analysis of assessment data that was used in the establishment of Institutional Achievement Standards.

The revised Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs) clearly defines the expectations of the College for all graduates. The revised ILOs guide institutional planning and goals for programs and services.

Evidence:


Recommendation 4
In order to meet the Standard, the team recommends that the College address the previous recommendation to improve services to support the College’s mission to transfer student to institutions of higher learning. (2008 Recommendation 5, Standard II.C.2)

The College’s commitment to provide high quality programs and services requires continuous and ongoing review of all academic programs and student support services. The institution clarified program review processes, planning processes, and assessment processes in the establishment of the Policy 1004 Comprehensive Program Review and Assessment of Instructional Programs, Student Services, and Administrative Services. The policy identified all College divisions as responsible in the achievement of student learning outcomes. The thorough analysis of the institutional processes identified the accountability for both academic divisions and student support services in the attainment of Career Pathway milestones. The Data Sets for Career Pathway Milestones were identified as

  • Developmental Courses
  • Gateway Courses
  • Degree Program Requirements
  • Persistence
  • Degree/Certificate Completion and Transfer

In order to improve support services and to provide more comprehensive services to students, the student support service divisions were consolidated under the supervision of the Dean of Student Services. This organizational restructure placed the divisions of Admissions, Records, Financial Aid, Library Services, Counseling, and Student Support and Learning Services as the Division of Student Services (DOSS).

The Career Transfer Center (CTC) provides specific services to students who seek assistance and guidance in career exploration and options for transfer to institutions of higher learning or employment. The Counseling Program of DOSS and all consolidated services assures better tracking of students throughout their college experience and in the attainment of the Career Pathway milestones.

Evidence:


Recommendation 5
In order to meet the Standard, the team recommends that the College revise its employment policies to ensure equity, diversity, and fairness.  (Standard III.A.12)

The College thoroughly reviewed policies and processes on employment for equity, diversity, and fairness through ongoing meetings of the Staffing Subcommittee and in reviewing procedures for hiring, recruitment, and employee performance evaluation. Policies and procedures were reviewed in the Personnel Manual, the Governance Policy Manual (2008), and the Employee Handbook. These actions resulted in clarifications of employment processes and revisions in policies to ensure equity, diversity and fairness.

Revisions were made to the following policies:

  • Revision of Policy 4006.1: Degree Requirements (Adopted)
  • Revision of Policy 4008.1 Staff Appointment Types (Adopted)
  • Revision of Policy 4200: Employment of Non Residents (Adopted)
  • Revision of Policy 4208.1: Employment Preference (Adopted)
  • Revision of Policy 5108: Faculty Teaching Load (Adopted)
  • Revision of Faculty Evaluation Form (Approved)

Standard Operating Procedures for Human Resources were reviewed and revised to improve the consistent provision of services to College personnel. Forms used by the institution and initiated by the Human Resources Division were revised to reflect fair practices in recruitment, hiring, and performance evaluation.

Evidence:


Recommendation 6
In order to meet the Standard, the team recommends that the College revise and conduct performance evaluations that include considerations of how employees use the results of assessment of learning outcomes to improve teaching and learning. (Standard III.A.6; ER14)

The College took action to review all performance evaluation instruments and procedures in the performance evaluation process. This review resulted in the development of a Flow Chart for evaluation processes and the revision of the Faculty Performance Evaluation Instrument to include the participation in Institutional Program Review and assessment. The ASCC Participatory Governance Structural Manual outlines the entire process of assessment and program review and the link to Institutional Student Achievement Standards.

Evidence:


Recommendation 7
The College manages its fiscal resources to effectively achieve the mission, manage its cash position, and maintain a minimum 5% reserve to ensure financial stability. (Standards III.D.9, III.D.11; ER18)

The College took action to clarify the ongoing procedures in place and the compliance to policies on the management of its fiscal resources through the processes of planned purchases and resource allocation. Several new policies were adopted to assure financial stability of the College. The new policies adopted include Policy 7212: Reserve Funds andPolicy 7005.5(E): Financial Emergency Plan. The revisions made to policies to assure financial stability include Policy 3007: Budgeting and Forecasting and Policy 7001: Budget.

Evidence:


Recommendation 8
In order to meet the Standard, the team recommends that the College evaluate the organizational structure and governance processes to increase opportunities for broad-based participation, purposeful dialogue, and involvement in decision-making processes. (Standards IV.A.1, IV.A.2, IV.A.3, IV.B.2)

The College evaluated the organizational structure and governance by reviewing the authority of the Leadership Triangle and the responsibilities placed on the Leadership Team accountable for the provision of quality programs and services. Several organizational changes were made as reflected in the Organizational Chart 2015:

  • Institutional Effectiveness Division placed under the authority of the President
  • All divisions placed under the authority of the Vice Presidents
  • All divisions providing community, extension, and research under the authority of the Vice Presidents
  • All student support divisions placed under the authority of the Dean of Student Services
  • Title changes made for distinction between responsibilities in academic, program, and service divisions

The College developed the ASCC Participatory Governance Structural Manual to clarify the roles and responsibilities of constituencies in governance and decision-making.

Evidence:


Recommendation 9
In order to meet the Standard, the team recommends that the College use and publish the results of Board of Higher Education self-evaluations to improve Board performance. (Standard IV.C.10)

The Board of Higher Education took action to clarify the roles and practices it has in place for self-evaluation and publication of roles and actions. The Board took action to ensure that it meets this Standard by revising Policy 2005: Board of Higher Education Establishment of Board and College Policies, adopting new Policy 2007.1: Board of Higher Education Self Evaluation, A revision to the Self Evaluation Instrument was made in order to better evaluate the Board performance in meeting their Annual goals. The Board assures transparency and accountability for their performance by publishing on the College website the Self Evaluation results, the 2015-2016 Annual Goals, and Board meeting minutes.

Evidence:


Recommendation 10
In order to meet the Standard, the team recommends that the College establish and implement a Board code of ethics and conflict of interest policy that clearly defines conflict of interest and the process for dealing with behavior that violates its code. (Standard IV.C.11; ER7)

The College took action by the establishment of Board Policies that clearly defined the conflict of interest and process for dealing with behavior that violates this code. The policies that were revised include Policy 2001: Board of Higher Education Code of Ethics and Policy 2002: Board of Higher Education Code of Conduct. New policies were adopted to clearly identify the actions of the Board for violation of its code of conduct which include Policy 2002.1: Board of Higher Education Violation of the Law, Code of Ethics, and Conduct andPolicy 2002.2: Board of Higher Education Conflict of Interest. The Board Trustee with a conflict of interest resigned in August of 2015, resolving the conflict of issue code.
Evidence:


10 Recommendation Response Evidence Listing:
Recommendation 1:
Evidence:


Recommendation 2
Evidence:


Recommendation 3
Evidence:


Recommendation 4
Evidence:


Recommendation 6
Evidence:


Recommendation 7
Evidence:


Recommendation 8
Evidence:


Recommendation 9
Evidence:
Publishing of Board Rulings for institutional Access:


Recommendation 10
Evidence: