Top of Page


Meeting Notes

January 12, 2006


Kathy Damon Report

Kathy was recently on an accreditation visitation team and was asked to share her experience. The following are things she discussed.

·        It is important to address the themes. Kathy created an, “Accreditation Grid for Review” which we may want to use to insure themes are addressed by all standards. [Note: Laurel revised the grid in two different formats after the meeting so we would have it in electronic format. Both are at the end of these meeting notes.]

o       Once the grid is completed we should be able to write a summarizing statement for each theme showing that they were all addressed appropriately.


·        Kathy stated that the burden of proof is on the “presenter” which basically means “we” are responsible for “proving” what “we” write. There must be documentation to support what is written.


·        Kathy stated that the mission is the driving force behind things and there should be references to the mission…”are we paying attention to the mission?” Bottom line, for Standard 1 is that “the mission is key.”

o       We need to clearly identify evidence; how was it used; was it good; and did it come out of dialogue, documented meetings or what. [Refer to Characteristics of Evidence in theGuide to Evaluating Institutions, page 10.] click on Core Documents and Publications, click on Guide to Evaluating Institutions.]


·        Kathy also stated that we need to check publications, such as ads for vacancies, college catalogues, etc., to insure they are up-to-date and consistent, especially for things like serving students with disabilities.


·        Kathy discussed that it is not appropriate to rename course objectives as student learning outcomes. SLOs and objectives are not necessarily the same. A course outline should include Student Learning Outcomes, Objectives, and Tasks.

o       The committee dialogued on Student Learning Objectives. One concise definition was: Objectives are what “we” teach; SLOs are what “we” learn and assess. Kathy suggested Ruth Stiehl be consulted when in doubt. Trina reminded us Ruth Stiehl will be coming in February for additional training.


·        Kathy said we should expect the visiting team to

o       check if the college did or did not follow up from previous recommendations from the 2000 accreditation and midterm report

o       check to see how the college addressed progress reports (recommendations).

o       verify what is said in the self-study (they want to see the documentation and/or have the information confirmed in their discussions with people).

§         Therefore, it is important for the VCAA to be familiar with the student services section of the accreditation report and the Dean of Student Services is familiar with the instructional/academic sections so their responses are consistent.


·        Kathy suggested we use the Guide to Evaluating Institutions to be sure each item in the respective standards is addressed. The visitation team she was on paid close attention to the Guide to Evaluating Institutions.

o       The guide is available on line at (click on Core Documents and Publications, click on Guide to Evaluating Institutions.)


·        Kathy suggested that Planning Agendas in the self study should include those things that “we” want to see happen at the college. For example, if we need to improve technology resources, then this should be in the planning agenda.

o       This lead to a discussion on system issues lead by Trina. Bottom line: put it in the Planning Agenda if you want a change to occur.


Self-Study Manual

Trina distributed copies of the Self Study Manual:  ACCJC Standards Adopted June 2002 for standard chairs. [The guide is available on line at (click on Core Documents and Publications, click on Guide to Evaluating Institutions.)]


Self-Study Draft 2 Format

Beth was to have come up with a revised template (the template was originally approved March 3 and amended April 7; available on the accreditation website, under the April 7 minutes  Beth stated she did not know how to do the revised format because in all the self study reports she had located, including UH Hilo’s that was suggested as a prime example, there were no citations or lists evidence. Rather everything appeared as hyperlinks.


After considerable discussion, the committee agreed that for the 2nd Draft,

  1. Sources will be underlined (Sources include documentation, references, evidence, citations or anything that the visiting team may wish to view.)
  2. Each standard will include a list of documents, sources, etc. that need to be in the library as evidence (rather as hard copy or electronic).
  3. The headings and standard descriptions will be italicized and bolded (previously these were just italicized).

The revised format is on page 5 of these meeting notes .

Approval of Minutes

Beth will send a complete set of minutes from the fall 2005 Steering Committee meetings to members for review. Members should email corrections to her so minutes can be approved at the Jan 26 meeting and posted to the Accreditation website.

2nd Draft Distribution

The second draft will be posted for the college community’s review and feedback. Unlike the 1st draft that was available via an unpublished link, the 2nd draft will have a link on the Accreditation website.

Library Issues

Standard chairs were asked to send copies of all of their standard committee meetings to Osh for inclusion in the Accreditation Library.


Summary of Agreed to Items

1.      The standards will follow the format that appears on page 5 of these minutes when writing the 2nd Draft.

2.      The standards will prepare a List of Documents, References, and Sources of Evidence

3.      We will utilize Kathy’s grid as we write and review the self study.

4.      Everyone will review minutes from the fall 2005 meetings. Beth will email a complete set.

5.      The 2nd draft will have a direct link on the Accreditation website so it can be reviewed by the college community

6.      Standard chairs will send Osh copies of their standard committee meetings for the library.


Next Meeting

The next meeting will be Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 9 a.m. in conference room 6A.


Kathy Damon Sample Grid 1 prepared by Laurel Gregory




 Institutional Commitment

Evaluation, Planning, Improvement

 Student Learning Outcomes (Measurable)



 Institutional integrity

Theme Addressed? (Yes/No) Where?

Theme Addressed? (Yes/No) Where?

Theme Addressed? (Yes/No) Where?

Theme Addressed? (Yes/No) Where?

Theme Addressed? (Yes/No) Where?

Theme Addressed? (Yes/No) Where?

I. Mission and Effectiveness








A. Mission








B. Improving Inst. Effectiveness








Sources of Evidence







II. Student Learning Programs/Services








A. Instructional Programs








B. Student Support Services








C. Library and Learning Support








Sources of Evidence







III. Resources








A. Human Resources








B. Physical Resources








C. Technology Resources








D. Financial Resources








Sources of Evidence







IV. Leadership/Governance








A. Decision Making Roles and Processes








B. Board and Admin Organization








Sources of Evidence









Kathy Damon Sample Grid 2 prepared by Laurel Gregory




1. Institutional Commitment

2. Evaluation, Planning, Improvement

3. Student Learning Outcomes (Measurable)

4. Organization

5. Dialogue

6. Institutional integrity

Theme Addressed? (Yes/No) Where?

Theme Addressed? (Yes/No) Where?

Theme Addressed? (Yes/No) Where?

Theme Addressed? (Yes/No) Where?

Theme Addressed? (Yes/No) Where?

Theme Addressed? (Yes/No) Where?

I. Mission and Effectiveness








A. Mission








B. Improving Institutional Effectiveness








Sources of Evidence









Format for Self Study Report – Draft 2


Standard I

Institutional Mission and Effectiveness


A.  Mission

The institution has a statement of mission that defines the institution’s broad educational purposes, its intended student population, and its commitment to achieving student learning.

A.1. The institution establishes student learning programs and services aligned with its purposes, its character, and its student population.


Descriptive Summary:

The agendas and minutes of the college council…document the extensive discussion that has occurred…  The college’s mission statement is reflected in…



The college meets (does not meet, partially meets) the standard.  Evidence that the College is addressing the needs of its student population is documented in many ways including the 2002 – 2010 HawCC Academic Development Plan.


Planning Agenda:

Hawaii Community College will re-evaluate its mission statement…  The development of student learning outcomes (SLOs) is ongoing and institutional dialogue regarding SLOs are taking place on a regular basis