COM-FSM Quality, Sustainability, and Success: A Framework for Planning and Action—Status Report

Formally assessing our recent round of planning, program review, and SLO efforts to demonstrate that we have completed a full planning cycle.

Task 1:

Conduct an immediate and comprehensive assessment of the most recent Strategic Plan, its components, processes, and outcomes. This assessment will inform our on-going planning work and must be completed by the end of May 2012, with recommendations for action by COM-FSM governance bodies and stakeholder groups and must then be reported to the ACCJC before its June 2012 meeting.

Work Completed

• The COM-FSM 2006-2011 Strategic Plan was formally assessed on May 13, 2012. Carrying out the assessment involved three steps:
  • interviewing college administrators to gather information regarding each of the nine strategic goals;
  • working with the college’s Institutional Research and Planning Office (IRPO) to obtain copies of quantitative and qualitative data regarding the nine strategic goals;
  • and meeting with the Planning and Resource Committee (PRC) to better understand their role in the planning process.
• A May 2012 report, Assessment of the 2006-2011 College of Micronesia-FSM Strategic Plan, detailed this process.
• Resource allocations have been tied to strategic plan goals. Yet during interviews with college faculty and administrators it was discovered that many perceive neither tracking of annual expenses by the goals, nor annual discussions about the effectiveness in relation to the nine goals has occurred in a systematic way.

Work Remaining

The lessons from the assessment of the previous strategic plan need to be transparently incorporated into the development of the new strategic plan. Specifically:

• Develop a formal method for regularly assessing the college’s strategic plan.
• Set targets (sometimes known as strategic institutional outcomes, milestones, or benchmarks) for each strategic goal so that progress toward meeting/achieving each goal can be measured and assessed.
• Widely and regularly report progress for meeting each strategic goal.

Task 2:

Complete a review of the status of Student Learning Outcomes at COM-FSM. That review will form the basis of a report due to the ACCJC in October 2012 and also serve as an important evidentiary base for our Master Plan for Integrated Assessments (MPIA), which will include broad, purposeful institutional dialogue about SLOs, the alignment of course SLOs with program and degree SLOs, and special emphasis on authentic assessment.

Work Completed

• COM-FSM has embedded Student Learning Outcome assessment in identified courses. For years the college has assessed course-level SLOs, and these course-level SLOs are found in all master course files and in faculty members’ syllabi.
• Program-level SLOs are located in the college’s Catalog, and course-level SLOs have been mapped to program-level SLOs via matrices.
• Institutional-level SLOs have been written and an assessment plan has been outlined.Resource allocations have been tied to strategic plan goals. Yet during interviews with college faculty and administrators it was discovered that many perceive neither tracking of annual expenses by the goals, nor annual discussions about the effectiveness in relation to the nine goals has occurred in a systematic way.

Work Remaining

• The SLO report to the ACCJC was moved from October 2012 to March 2013 and will be submitted as part of the Midterm Report/Follow-Up Report.
• Assessment results for all program-level SLOs are to be reported in the ACCJC report.
• Assessment of institutional-level SLOs needs to be completed for inclusion in the March 2013 report.

Insuring that we engage in an ongoing, robust and purposeful dialogue about institutional effectiveness. That discussion must be based on evidence and informed by widely disseminated, data-informed analyses.

Task 1:

Complete the current dialogue about institutional effectiveness, communications and governance, especially by revising our recent communications survey (April), re-issuing it (April 2012), engaging the college community in a review of its results May 2012, and implementing recommended changes (June – August 2012).

Work Completed

• The revised communications survey was administered in April of 2012. The results were distributed in a report, Purposeful Dialogue at COM-FSM: An Analysis of the COM-FSM Communications Plan and ACCJC Recommendation One with Recommendations that was issued on April 31, 2012. The report was then discussed in a college-wide forum in May of 2012, with observations and recommendations recorded.
• In September of 2012, the president requested a further analysis of all of the information arising from evaluation of the existing Communications Plan. That analysis, Strengthening Purposeful Dialogue was prepared on Sept. 21, 2012. This report also included specific recommendations:
  • By the end of 2012, dissolve the existing Communications Plan and transfer its useful elements throughout a new strategy that is linked to a well-developed goal for purposeful dialogue from the new Strategic Plan.
  • By the end of 2012, promulgate a new Communications Policy for BOR approval, a policy that facilitates the new strategy.
  • By the end of January 2013, develop guiding principles and protocols for implementing the strategy across the college in terms of both internal and external communication. Publish these principles and protocols, with advice on their implementation.
  • By June 2013, embed evaluation of purposeful dialogue in academic programs, non-academic programs, college offices and governance entities.
• In an October 2012 “Message to the Community,” the college president reported that “communications” must be front and center and integrated into the next strategic plan. Additionally, president also reported the recommendation of the Council of Chairs to establish the Executive Committee addressing the emerging governance piece

Work Remaining

• The evolving governance structure awaits final definition and approval. The refinement of procedures and responsibilities across the college cannot proceed in a timely fashion until this is accomplished.

Task 2:

Put in place the recommended changes as we begin the new academic year next fall. By December 2012 we should have the next round of assessment in the form of a follow-up communications survey. Then the cycle will begin again as we will have closed the second assessment loop.

Work Completed

• Still awaiting ratification.

Work Remaining

• Recommendations need to be officially ratified and implemented and a new cycle of evaluation then stipulated. Much will depend on the new strategic goal devoted to purposeful dialogue.

Task 3:

Engage all stakeholder groups in a continuing cycle of dialogue based on the findings of our assessments.

Work Completed

• One full cycle of review was completed in April and May of 2012.

Work Remaining

• The next full cycle of review is scheduled to be completed before the end of the spring 2013 semester. This especially includes the strategic plan goal of strengthening purposeful dialogue and the goal for revising the governance structure.

Engaging in a systematic and regular review of the allocation of resources to assure that we fulfill our mission and maintain institutional effectiveness. In light of the significant financial constraints we face as a result of the JEMCO decrement, more than ever before it will be essential for us to integrate our finances with our planning process. An ongoing, transparent financial planning process which informs our integrated planning process will enable us to prioritize our broad educational objectives and effectively deploy our human, physical, technological and financial resources.

Task 1:

Review immediately the alignment of our operational and financial plans for FY 2013 and if necessary re-prioritize these plans. We must also carefully review the financial resources in our plan implementation through FY 2015.

Work Completed

• The college has created a five-year financial plan that is tied to the Integrated Educational Master Plan (IEMP).
• The FSM National Government has reiterated its commitment to the college, as evidenced by its approval to restore the first $700,000 of the JEMCO decrement.

Work Remaining

• The college ought to prioritize the plans within the IEMP through an approved governance structure.
• The college should determine the long-term level of financial commitment of the FSM National Government to the college as related to the remaining $2.1 million JEMCO decrement.
• The college should consider establishing documented contingency scenarios for replacing the JEMCO decrement.

Task 2:

Institute program reviews for all non-academic areas beginning in FY 2013 and link the results of academic and non-academic program reviews to resource allocations that will achieve our institutional learning outcomes.

Work Completed

NOTE: All goals listed on Worksheets 1 and 2 should be goals that are listed in the Integrated Educational Master Plan (IEMP).

• Non-academic areas of the college began completing program assessment (via Worksheets 1, 2, and 3) in 2005. Some areas have completed assessments annually; while other areas have completed assessments on a less frequent cycle. These program assessments will serve as program reviews for non-academic areas.

Work Remaining

• A standard naming convention for the completed worksheets should be created. The Director for Information Technology (Gordon Segal) and the Director for Institutional Research and Planning (Jimmy Hicks) will be creating the standard.
• All completed worksheets should be posted to the college’s Wiki no later than the end of November 2012.
• A diagram showing the flow of academic and non-academic program reviews (from originator, to supervisor, to VP, to respective committee) should be created and adopted by the college. In addition, a specific timeline for submission of the program assessment worksheets should be created and adopted by the college. The diagram and timelines will help ensure that both “sides of the house” will know to whom worksheets are being submitted and when they are to be submitted.
• A diagram should be created that shows the relationship among mission fulfillment, strategic planning, the IEMP, and program reviews via Worksheet 1, 2, and 3.

Maintaining a focus on student success and improving student outcomes.

Task 1:

Provide ongoing, regular, and structured opportunities for a purposeful and robust dialogue about student learning.

Work Completed

• Several trainings and forums, a revised committee structure, and campus-wide visioning and mission workshops have created for faculty and other campus stakeholders regular and structured opportunities for dialogue regarding student learning.

Work Remaining

• Students could also be engaged in the regular and structured opportunities regarding their learning. Efforts to assist with this could include: student appointments to college committees; posing questions regarding student learning outcomes (at the course, program, and institutional levels) at the beginning of each course and on end of semester student/faculty evaluations; having elected student government officer positions mirror the college’s president’s structure so that employees can mentor the students; and required student engagement (i.e., mandatory) student orientation and academic advising.

Task 2:

Fully align Student Learning Outcomes with those at the program and institutional levels.

Work Completed

• COM-FSM has embedded Student Learning Outcome assessment in identified courses. For years the college has assessed course-level SLOs, and these course-level SLOs are found in all master course files and in faculty members’ syllabi
• Program-level SLOs are located in the college’s Catalog, and course-level SLOs have been mapped to program-level SLOs via matrices.
• Institutional-level SLOs have been written, and an assessment plan has been outlined.

Work Remaining

NOTE: This was also reported above in Step 1, Task 2.

• The report to the ACCJC was moved from October 2012 to March 2013 and will be submitted as part of the Midterm Report/Follow-Up Report.
• Assessment results for all program-level SLOs are to be reported in the ACCJC report.
• Assessment of institutional-level SLOs needs to be completed for inclusion in the March 2013 report.

Task 3:

Provide evidence of ongoing and systematic assessment of Student learning Outcomes and use that
evidence for continuous quality improvement.

Work Completed

• Reported above in Step 4, Tasks 1 and 2.

Work Remaining

• Reported above in Step 4, Tasks 1 and 2.

Setting concrete goals to reach Proficiency level for all three ACCJC Institutional Effectiveness Rubrics by December 2012 and Continuous Quality Improvement level by Dec. 2013

Task 1:

Assure that results of all program reviews are integrated into institution-wide planning by August 2012.

Work Completed

• All goals on Worksheets 1 and 2 have been linked to goals in the IEMP.
• In a September 2012 “Message to the Community,” the college president established a Mid-Level Management Team with, among other duties, responsibility for non-academic program review, program prioritization, and ensuring goal alignment.

Work Remaining

• Proceed to complete the program review,  program prioritization, and goals linkage (i.e., worksheet goals to IEMP goals) processes

Task 2:

Assess, review, and refine program review processes by August 2012.

Work Completed

• The process for non-academic program review was assessed with the aid of external consultation in October 2012 and recommendations were provided to the college president, the college’s accreditation liaison officer, and the college’s academic assessment dean.

Work Remaining

• A governance component ought to be developed to review and approve program review processes, then proceed to conduct the approval processes well before the Midterm Report/Follow-Up Report.

Task 3:

Assure that Learning Outcomes are specifically linked to program reviews by December 2012.

Work Completed

• In October of 2012, the Mid-Level Management team and all Student Services directors were trained in developing non-academic student learning outcomes and how to include them in the program review process.

Work Remaining

• Evidence that the non-academic student learning outcomes are in all non-academic program reviews should be amassed.