Southeast Kentucky Community and
SACS Compliance Certification
Focused Report
August 2006
EXHIBIT TABLE
2.5 The institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that incorporate a systematic review of programs and services that (a) result in continuing improvement, and (b) demonstrates that the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission. (Institutional Effectiveness)
Non-Compliance
Comment: The College provided a strategic plan for 2002-2007. Twelve institutional goals were developed that are related to the College mission and to the 6 goals of the KCTCS.
The College has a further set of goals, objectives, and benchmarks that are planned and evaluated annually. Strategic Plan institutional goals differ from the goals in the Annual Plan. The Leadership Team sets the objectives and outcomes for the year and they are not necessarily the same as institutional goals. In addition the College wide objectives, there are measures and targets which service as benchmarks for enrollment, retention, graduation, etc. The plan is assessed at mid-year and in July of the following year. However, there was no documentation provided showing an actual evaluation of a unit’s plan, just a report on the results of assessment in the institutional plan. It was not evident that the institutional effectiveness system was linked to budgeting. Neither the Annual Report nor the Annual Plan alluded to budgeting.
Although cyclical, planning and evaluation seem disjointed. The leadership annual goals do not refer to the twelve institutional goals, to the 6 KCTCS goals, and thus to the mission statement. It is hard to determine if unit planning is related to institutional planning, and how the institutional plan relates to the Strategic Plan. The IE Manual did not adequately explain the “system.”
Furthermore, the documentation provided did not reflect how the evaluation of outcomes is connected to improvement of programs and services. Program review implies that improvements are made to programs, but since there was no example of completed end-of-cycle unit-level assessment reports, there is no way to tell that the results are used for improvement of services
The only way to verify much of the documentation was to load (and reload, and reload …) a 33 MB file. This process made it very cumbersome for the Off-Site Committee to check documentation. The On-Site Committee should explore the relevant evidence and determine if the institution is in compliance.
Response: Compliant
Although SKCTC has been involved in systematic planning, evaluation, and improving its programs and services since the early 1990’s, comments of the Off-Site Committee prompted the College to reexamine how it presented its institutional effectiveness processes and procedures in the Compliance Certification. SKCTC agrees that it did not present the information clearly, cogently, rationally, and relationally, even though a myriad of documents and data were submitted. Perhaps some of the lack of coherence can be attributed to the fact that the former Director of Institutional Effectiveness left the College abruptly in 2005. This created a hiatus in this crucial area for a period of time. To further complicate matters, the responsibilities for institutional effectiveness were subsequently divided between two individuals – one for planning and the other for institutional research. This arrangement proved to be problematic; and on August 7, 2006, the College assigned to the Director of Institutional Research the full responsibilities of institutional effectiveness. His title is now Director of Institutional Effectiveness.
In response to the Off-Site Committee’s comments, SKCTC modified its annual planning process. All planning at the College is now based on its mission statement and the 12 associated institutional goals. Through strategic planning, 70 priority initiatives were identified and are embedded within these 12 goals (Folder 2.5, Exhibit A). KCTCS goals have also been integrated into the 12 institutional goals. The College is required to set targets for each of the KCTCS goals. The Annual Report is now based on the results of the assessments of the 12 institutional goals, priority initiatives, the program and unit goals, and student learning outcomes. SKCTC’s Institutional Effectiveness Planning and Outcomes Assessment Framework (Exhibit B, Exhibit C) provide graphic depictions of the planning and outcomes assessments and the relationships among the components. Additionally, the Institutional Effectiveness Manual (Exhibit D) has been revised to be more descriptive, representative and directive of the institutional effectiveness processes and procedures at the College.
In an effort to make planning and assessment more systematic across the College, SKCTC developed a matrix (Institutional Effectiveness Planning and Outcomes Assessment Report) for reporting the results of assessment of goals at the academic program and support unit levels and the student learning outcomes at the academic program level on an annual basis (Exhibit E). In addition to the information submitted on the matrix, academic programs must undergo a formal program review every other year by the Program Review Committee. Additionally, as of Fall 2006, the Institutional Effectiveness Committee was appointed to monitor and assess institutional effectiveness processes and procedures at the College. Membership on the committee will be representative of all areas of the College.
The review of the Nursing Program for the year 2005-2006 is found in Exhibit F. SKCTC’s Institutional Effectiveness/Strategic Planning/Budgeting Process Annual Timeline is found in Exhibit G. This timeline links the processes and procedures of institutional effectiveness to the budgeting process.
2.8 The number of full-time faculty members is adequate to support the mission of the institution. The institution has adequate faculty resources to ensure the quality and integrity of its academic programs. In addition, upon application for candidacy, an applicant institution demonstrates that it meets the comprehensive standard for faculty qualification (Faculty)
Non-Compliance
Comment: The institution has a total of 100 teaching faculty with another 11 of faculty rank assigned administrative duties. A low student: teacher ratio is mentioned in the narrative, but not data or statistics are presented to verify the statement.
The Faculty Roster does not indicate the number of classes (sections) or their locations; nor does it indicate overloads (either voluntary or mandatory), students/per class, or advising or other professional assignments of specific individuals. There is no separate “load report” or other documentation to provide this type of information. Full-time/part-time status [FT/PT] is noted in terms of credit hours taught as 36.4% FT and 63.6% PT. This ratio appears to represent a very high part-time reliance, especially since some programs will have part-time numbers well above the average. This could be evidence of a need for more full-time faculty, or it may be a mistake in the narrative. The On-Site Committee should seek additional documentation, including specifics by campus and program, in making its compliance decision.
Response: Compliance
Southeast Kentucky Community and
First, as was suggested by the On-Site Committee, the full-time – part-time ratio in the initial response was reversed. It should have read that the institutional breakdown for faculty is 63.6% full time and 36.4 % part time. That number is supported by the documentation contained in IPEDS (Folder 2.8, Exhibit A). The percentage of full-time faculty teaching at SKCTC actually exceeds that cited in a briefing paper prepared in 2001 (and still widely circulated) by the American Association of Colleges and Universities. That report indicated that 43 percent of all post-secondary instructional faculty work part-time, with the number for those teaching at the community college level increasing to 66 percent. (Exhibit B)
Second, SKCTC follows Administrative Policy 2.11.1—Work Load KCTCS Colleges—in assigning work loads for teaching faculty. (Exhibit C) The policy stipulates that the normal teaching load for faculty members is a combination of credit and contact hours: 15 credit hours per semester or the equivalent, fall and spring semesters. The maximum number of contact hours per week for a full-time occupational/technical instructor is determined by the President/CEO but cannot exceed 30. Faculty load reports, which document adherence to this policy, are included for spring 2005, fall 2005, and spring 2006. (Exhibit D) Faculty whose teaching load exceeds the established limits, do so on a voluntary basis and are compensated in accordance with Administrative Policy 2.11.1.3.4 (Exhibit C). A listing of full-time faculty members who teach overloads is included as Exhibit E.
Classroom instruction comprises the bulk of faculty assignments. However, faculty are also involved in many other activities that support the mission of the College, all of which are included as part of the performance planning process. At the beginning of each academic year, faculty complete Section I of the KCTCS Performance Planning and Evaluation Form, Exhibit F, sample copies included with permission of the faculty members. On this form, faculty indicate goals and objectives in five areas:
1. Position Responsibility (teaching assignment indicated here)
2. Internal Service
3. External Service
4. Professional Development
5. Leadership
Once the faculty member and division chair have signed this document, it becomes the distribution of effort / individual plan for the academic year.
Third, the low student: teacher ratio referred to in the initial response is supported by information gleaned from course load reports, taken from PeopleSoft, the College’s data management system; a number of 19:1 was generated by totaling the number of students enrolled at SKCTC divided by the number of sections taught. This is consistent with the fact that in many of the allied health programs offered by SKCTC have low student: teacher ratios, mandated by their separate accrediting agencies.
2.11 The institution has a sound financial base and demonstrated financial stability, and adequate physical resources to support the mission of the institution and the scope of its programs and services.
The member institution provides the following financial statements: (a) an institutional audit (or
Standard Review Report issued in accordance with Statements on Standards for Accounting
and Review Services issued by the AICPA for those institutions audited as part of a system wide or statewide audit) and written institutional management letter for the most recent fiscal year prepared by an independent certified public accountant and/or an appropriate governmental auditing agency employing the appropriate audit (or Standard Review Report) guide; (b) a statement of financial position of unrestricted net assets, exclusive of plant assets and plant-related debt, which represents the change in unrestricted net assets attributable to operations for the most recent year; and, (c) an annual budget that is preceded by sound planning, is subject to sound fiscal procedures, and is approved by the governing board.
Audit requirements for applicant institutions may be found in the Commission policy entitled “Accreditation Procedures for Applicant Institutions. (Resources)
Non-Compliance
Comment: The institution does not make a
compelling case for a sound financial base. The documentation provided by SKCTC does not contain an institutional
audit. It appears that the institution
is audited only as a component of the Kentucky Community and Technical College
System. The most recent system audit is
included, but financial statements added in the back were the Statement of Net
Assets and Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets. It is unclear whether these statements were
prepared by the state auditors or management of the institution. There is also no Statement of Cash Flows or
notes to these statements for Southeast Kentucky Community and
There is also no statement of financial position of unrestricted net assets, exclusive of plant assets and plant-related debt for the most recent year. The operational budget does not list expenditures down to the unit level and by type for each unit in the College as stated in the narrative. The institution did not provide appropriate documentation that its budget has been approved by its governing board. The copy of board minutes provided was not signed.
Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College (SKCTC) demonstrates a history of financial stability as evidenced by the Analysis of Net Assets Report for years 2002 – 2005 included in Folder 2.11, Exhibit A, derived from audited financial statements and supplemental schedules for SKCTC, also included in the Exhibits as follows:
· Exhibit B :
· Exhibit C :
· Exhibit D :
· Exhibit E : Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College Financial Report 2004, pages 36-37;
· Exhibit F : Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College Financial Report 2005, pages 39-40.
Additional evidence is provided through sustained budget increases as shown in the document Kentucky Community and Technical College (KCTCS) Annual Budget Reports for 2003, listing SKCTC’s budget at a summary level, page C-20, 2004, page C-16, and 2005, page C-16, 2006 page C-15, and 2007 page C-29, all of which are included in as Exhibit G, Exhibit H, Exhibit I, Exhibit J, and K. Department budgets for FY 2005, 2006 and FY 2007 are herein provided to supplement the approved summary budget. (See Exhibit L, Exhibit M, and Exhibit N.)
2.11a: SKCTC is a
part of the
In the 2004-05 the A-133 report had management comments related to SKCTC on page 57; moreover, references are made to the college in the system wide management letter and the A-133 audit. The complete file of audit information for 2004-05 for SKCTC is included as Exhibit O.
The audited financial report from Crowe Chizek also includes a supplemental Statement of Net Assets and Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets for SKCTC. A specific statement of cash flows for SKCTC is not included as per understanding with SACS for institutions--who are part of a system--that are seeking reaffirmation versus initial accreditation. Inasmuch, KCTCS and SKCTC considered the cost/benefit of having a separate supplemental statement of cash flow prepared and, given the tremendous expense that the institution would incur, it was the opinion of the College--given the fact that other colleges in KCTCS have obtained SACS reaffirmation based on the same audited financial information presented--that the KCTCS audit, which includes specific financial information and management comment about SKCTC, would suffice.
2.11b: The Statement of Unrestricted Net Assets, Exclusive of Plant Assets and Plant-Related Debt is included as Exhibit P.
2.11c: The annual budget for SKCTC is approved by the SKCTC Board of Directors and the KCTCS Board of Regents. A signed copy of the SKCTC minutes showing approval of the budget is included in Exhibit R. A signed copy of the KCTCS Board of Regents minutes showing approval of the budget is included in Exhibit S. The FY2007 budget is included as Exhibit Q. The college budget is detailed on page C-29.
The operational budget expenditures down to the unit level with actual current expenses are listed for Fiscal year 2005 and 2006, as evidenced in as Exhibits L and Exhibit M. Also operational expenditures for FY2007 listed by type for each unit in the College are included in Exhibit N.
Budget development at SKCTC is derived from the KCTCS Budget Development Flowchart included as Exhibit T, and the State Biennial Budget Flowchart included as Exhibit U. Specifically SKCTC planning and development process is evidenced by the budget planning process found in Exhibit V.
3.2.1 The governing board of the institution is responsible for the selection and the evaluation of the chief executive officer.
Non-Compliance
Comment: Rules for selecting and evaluating the President/CEO are clearly outlined in state statute that is followed by the SKCTC Board of Directors, but there is no documentation that the annual evaluation of the President is conducted.
Response: Compliance
Copies of Board of Directors’ evaluation of Dr. W. Bruce Ayers, President / CEO of SKCTC, for the past two years are included in Folder 3.2.1, Exhibit A.
3.2.2 The legal authority and operating control of the institution are clearly defined for the following areas within the institution’s governance structure:
3.2.2.3: institutional policy, including policies concerning related and affiliated corporate entities and all auxiliary services;
Non-Compliance
3.2.2.3 - Non-Compliance: Institutional Policy – KCTCS policies were offered as evidence relating to fiscal control, affiliated corporate entities and all auxiliary services. SKCTC as a unit of KCTCS must follow these policies. Board of Regents Policy 1.1 gives the President and Board of KCTCS authority to determine the services, processes, and extent of KCTCS operations, including the use of equipment and materials, and determine the nature, extent, duration, character and method of operations, including, but not limited to, the right to contract out or sub-contract work. There was no indication within the policy how the institution relates to corporate entities and auxiliary services. There was no documentation offered of local policy concerning these issues although it was alluded to in the explanation.
Response: Compliance
Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College relates to corporate entities and auxiliary services through contracts issued for local and system-wide services as evidenced in Folder 3.2.2, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C, which show official contacts with Middlesboro Coca-Coal Bottling Company, Inc., Lance, Inc., and Barnes and Noble Booksellers, Inc., respectively.
3.2.10 The institution evaluates the effectiveness of its administrators, including the executive officer, on a periodic basis.
Non-Compliance
Comment: The President/CEO is evaluated on an annual basis according to state policy, and senior administrators who are part of the President’s Leadership Team are evaluated annually by faculty and staff. However, there was no evidence of the results of the evaluations.
Response: Compliance
Copies of Board of Directors’ evaluation of Dr. W. Bruce Ayers, President / CEO of SKCTC, for the past two years are included in Folder 3.2.10, Exhibit A. Also included is a summary of the faculty / staff evaluation of Dr. Ayers for the 2005-06 academic year. (Exhibit B)
Summary results of evaluations of members of the President’s Leadership Team by faculty and staff for the past two years are included in Exhibit C and Exhibit D.
3.2.12 The institution’s chief executive officer has ultimate control of the institution’s fund-raising activities.
Non-Compliance
Comment: As specified in state system and local College policy, the President/CEO controls all fundraising activities for the institution. However, there are inconsistencies in the various narratives concerning the College foundation which need to be rectified. See Section 3.2.13.
Compliance
Failure to mention
the Memorandum of Understanding that exists between Southeast Kentucky
Community and
In that document—both the old and new versions—there is reference to the fact that the Foundation qualifies for recognition as the official fund-raising arm of SKCTC, “…pursuant to the Policy for Recognition of Independent Foundations adopted by the Kentucky Community and Technical College Board of Regents on June 18, 1999 (See Paragraph 5, under Witnesseth, Page 1, Exhibit A). Moreover, Section 1, Obligations of the Foundation, states that “The Foundation agrees to abide by the KCTCS Policy for Recognition of Independent Foundations…” (Exhibit A) That policy, 7.4 (Exhibit B), specifically states that:
The college president/chief executive officer shall be an ex-officio, voting member of the foundation’s board of directors. Per the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) Principles of Accreditation, “The institution’s chief executive officer has ultimate control of the institution’s fund-raising activities.”
Exhibit A, Section 1, Obligations of the Foundation, stipulates that “The SKCTC President, SKCTC chief development and at least one member of the SKCTC Board of Directors shall serve as voting members of the directors at all times.
Presently, SKCTC President, W. Bruce Ayers, chief development officer, Judy Leonard, and two members of the Board of Directors, F. N. Hazen and Helen Smith, are members of the Foundation’s board of directors.
3.2.13 Any institution-related foundation not controlled by the institution has a contractual or other formal agreement that (a) accurately describes the relationship between the institution and the foundation, and (b) describes any liability associated with that relationship. In all cases, the institution ensures that the relationship is consistent with its mission.
Non-Compliance
Comment: The institution has a separately incorporated Foundation which is affiliated with the state system. For some reason, the narrative makes no mention of the MOU that is presented in the discussion of CS 3.2.2.4. The narrative states that “no liability exists in this relationship” [between SKCTC and the Foundation], but the MOU presented in the discussion of CS 3.2.2.4 explicitly deals with liability issues. In light of the conflicting statements, the On-Site Committee will need to seek additional information. Given that the MOU predates the recent mergers and renaming of the institution, the current validity of the agreement should be ascertained as well.
Response: Compliance
Failure to mention
the Memorandum of Understanding that exists between Southeast Kentucky
Community and
In the MOU—both the old and new versions—there is a reference to the fact that no liability exists in the relationship between the College and the Foundation. Specifically, paragraph f., Section 1, Obligations of the Foundation, reads as follows:
The Foundation shall indemnify and hold harmless SKCTC from and against any liability, losses, claims, demands, costs, and expenses, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses, arising out of any personal injury or property loss damage arising in connection with the activities of the Foundation.
3.2.14 The institution’s policies are clear concerning ownership of materials, compensation, copyright issues, and the use of revenues derived from the creation and production of all intellectual property. This applies to students, faculty and staff.
Non-Compliance
The institution follows KCTCS Administrative Policy 3.3.5 on Intellectual Property, which is also found in its Faculty and Staff Handbook. This policy addresses intellectual property rights and requires that the president appoint a standing committee on intellectual property whose membership includes legal counsel as well as faculty, staff and students. The purpose of the committee is “to administer the policy and oversee implementation of the procedures.” While the institution reports that a committee by that name exists, there is no evidence of faculty, staff, and student membership nor any activity on the committee in fulfilling its duties.
Response: Compliance
The KCTCS Intellectual Property
Committee was appointed on March 29, 2000, and membership included Professor
Anne Carr from Southeast Kentucky Community and
· April 18, 2000 (Exhibit B)
· May 31, 2000 (Exhibit C)
· January 25, 2001 (Exhibit D)
· November 14, 2002 (Exhibit E)
In these meetings, the committee concerned itself primarily with the review and—when needed—clarification of KCTCS Administrative Policy 3.3.5 on Intellectual Property.
A memorandum from KCTCS General Counsel Monica M. McFarlin, dated June 29, 2006 (Exhibit F) indicates that since November 14, 2002, “there have been no intellectual property issues brought forward for review by the Intellectual Property Committee.”
In a July 18, 2006 Memorandum, KCTCS President Michael B. McCall, made new appointments to the Intellectual Property Committee and reappointed five members, including Professor Carr from SKCTC. (Exhibit G) Moreover, Dr. McCall also expressed in this correspondence, his intent to appoint two student members after a meeting of student body presidents on August 11, 2006. (Exhibit H) Once this step is taken, the committee will include membership from faculty, staff and students.
Also, the memorandum charges the Office of Legal Counsel as follows:
“…to call an annual meeting of the committee for the purpose of orientation of new members/review of intellectual property laws. Additional meetings of the committee for the purpose of considering intellectual property issues from the colleges, policy revisions, implementation of procedures, and/or training recommendations are to be held on as-needed basis. Minutes of all committee meetings are to be maintained, posted, and distributed to the colleges.”
3.3.1 The institution identifies expected outcomes for its educational programs and its administrative and educational support services; assess whether it achieves these outcomes; and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of those results.
Non-Compliance
Comment: The institution did not provide documentation of assessment showing it achieves its outcomes. Nor was there adequate evidence that the institution uses the results of the assessment process to improve programs and services.
The Compliance Certification narrative contained a link to the Annual Plan, which included unit-level (administrative, educational support and educational units). However, there was no documentation of unit-level assessment of the outcomes. Program Reviews are conducted annually as mandated by KCTCS of retention and graduation rates, enrollments, transfers, and student satisfaction, etc. The Program Review template does address how improvements will be made in these areas. There is a more useful Program Review document presented for the AA/AS Pre-Baccalaureate Program “formal format”) which offers more specific outcomes and proposed use of results for program improvement. This appears to be the only such example provided. There is also a document on “Examples of Program/Unit Improvement” which appears to summarize results of several years’ of assessment. The document is undated, and there is no link from the document to the unit plans that track these improvements; this document is not discussed in the narrative.
The On-Site Committee may wish to examine additional materials to see if the institution has assessed its expected outcomes and uses the results of assessment to make program improvements.
Response: Compliant
The process for institutional effectiveness was described in the college’s response to Core Requirement 2.5. Please refer to the narrative as found there.
As stated in the response to CR 2.5, SKCTC has been engaged in the processes and procedures for institutional effectiveness since the 1990’s.
The College has a mission statement with 12 associated goals that determine how the mission of the College is accomplished. Each educational program and educational and administrative support unit has a purpose statement consistent with the mission of the college; goals for accomplishing their purpose statements; student learning outcomes for each educational program; and assessment measures for all of these components. In addition, all academic programs undergo an annual program review.
Improvements in educational programs and educational and administrative support units based on goals/expected results/outcomes have been absolute for many years at SKCTC. These improvements have been validated in such documents as the Annual Plan, the Annual Report, Academic Program Reviews, and documented assessments (Exit Surveys, Employer Surveys, Job Placement Data, Transfer Data, GPA’s, Focus Groups (Think Tanks), the CCSSE, TEDS Follow-Up DATA, and others).
The goals/expected results/outcomes associated with these improvements have been known to the faculty and staff and verbalized and, therefore, may have been obscure to the reader of the Compliance Certification. Goals/expected results/outcomes are now specified in written form and are aligned with specific assessment measures, data analysis, and resultant improvements as evidenced on the annual Institutional Effectiveness Planning and Outcomes Assessment Report.
Student learning outcomes/competencies/expected results for each academic program are specified by KCTCS and are found on its Docushare Website. Improvements in student learning have been continuous over the years at SKCTC. These improvements are now more clearly documented and evidenced on the annual Institutional Effectiveness Planning and Outcomes Assessment Report.
To demonstrate that SKCTC has assessed its expected outcomes and uses the results of assessment to make program improvements, the College is submitting in this Focused Report the annual Institutional Effectiveness Planning and Outcomes Assessment Reports for 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 for the Office of Academic Affairs and the Office of Institutional Effectiveness (educational and administrative support services.) For academic programs, the College is submitting the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 Institutional Effectiveness and Outcomes Assessment Reports for the AA/AS Pre-Baccalaureate Program, The Clinical Laboratory Program, and the Nursing Program.
Institutional Effectiveness Report (Academic Affairs) 05-06 |
|
Institutional Effectiveness Report (Academic Affairs) 04-05 |
|
Institutional Effectiveness Report (Institutional Effectiveness) 05-06 |
|
Institutional Effectiveness Report (Institutional Effectiveness) 04-05 |
|
Institutional Effectiveness Report (Associate of Arts/Associate of Science) 05-06 |
|
Institutional Effectiveness Report (Associate of Arts/Associate of Science) 04-05 |
|
Institutional Effectiveness Report (Clinical Lab Technology) 05-06 |
|
Institutional Effectiveness Report (Clinical Lab Technology) 04-05 |
|
Institutional Effectiveness Report (Nursing) 05-06 |
|
Institutional Effectiveness Report (Nursing) 04-05 |
3.4.1 The institution demonstrates that each educational program for which academic credit is awarded (a) is approved by the faculty and the administration, and (b) establishes and evaluates program and learning outcomes.
Non-Compliance
Comment: The College documents its policies for the program approval process by citing KCTCS sources. Faculty Minutes show part of that process with faculty approval of a new certificate program.
The narrative gives the following explicit lists of key indicators for each program: enrollment, retention rate, number of completers, job placement rate, and student satisfaction. While these are useful program indicators, they are not learning outcomes as required by the standard.
The narrative notes that each approved program has a specific set of program competencies or tasks with “program-specific goals”. The narrative continues, “To gauge the degree of student learning, program coordinators rely on one or more of the following methods of assessment: national/state licensure exams, department-produced comprehensive exams, and skills/tasks checklists. … Students enrolled in a practicum or cooperative education have their workplace skills and knowledge evaluated by the student’s worksite supervisor.” No evidence of the desired learning outcomes that these measures are meant to gauge is offered. Results of such measures are not offered in any systematic fashion. The On-Site Committee will need to determine whether or not the institution has demonstrated that it “establishes and evaluates program and learning outcomes.”
Response: Compliance
As stated in our narrative to Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1, all educational programs at SKCTC have program goals and program-specific student learning outcomes, often referred to as competencies by KCTCS. SKCTC utilizes several direct and indirect measures in the assessment of program goals and student learning outcomes. Program goals are assessed by tracking the following measures:
1. Results of national/state licensure exams
2. Employer satisfaction surveys (TEDS)
3. Program completion rates (TEDS)
4. Job placement rates (TEDS)
5. Success of transfer students at baccalaureate institutions
6. Student exit surveys that are program-specific
Program coordinators and individual instructors have been assessing program and student learning outcomes (competencies) for many years and have made significant improvements in their programs and in student learning. Much of the data resulting from these assessments, however, have been used only internally by programs and not reported to a centralized location on a consistent basis. To make the reporting of improvements in learning outcomes assessment more systematic and comprehensive, SKCTC has taken the following steps:
1. A matrix entitled “Institutional Effectiveness Planning and Outcomes Assessment Report” has been created, and three programs (AA/AS Transfer, Clinical Lab Technology, and Nursing) have completed assessment reports for 2004-05 and 2005-06 (Folder 3.4.1, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Exhibit D, Exhibit E, and Exhibit F)
2. A scoring rubric (Exhibit G) was developed to assess the level of mastery of student learning outcomes and will be piloted Fall 2006 by the program coordinators of Clinical Lab Technology, Radiography, and CAD Drafting. The rubric allows instructors and/or program coordinators to embed assessment in regular course assignments, such as tests, essays, presentations, demonstrations, or lab tasks.
3. Professional Development was offered in August 2006 to program coordinators and other instructors on methods of assessing student learning outcomes.
4. SKCTC’s QEP (implemented Fall 2006) calls for pre- and post-testing in our developmental math courses to measure the degree of learning between experimental and control groups. The COMPASS by ACT will serve as the assessment measure.
5. SKCTC administered the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) Spring 2006. The results have been analyzed and key items will help us assess general education outcomes.
6. SKCTC will administer the Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP) Fall 2006 to 100 freshmen as a pre-test of general education outcomes. In Spring 2007 MAPP will be administered to 100 sophomores as post-test of general education outcomes.
7. The Workkeys test has been administered to programs since 2003, and the data have been tracked by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and reported back to the programs for their use in planning and assessment.
8. The Language section of the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) has been administered in our developmental writing courses as a pre- and post-test to check for gain over time.
3.4.7 The institution ensures the quality of educational programs/courses offered through consortia relationships or contractual agreements, ensures ongoing compliance with the comprehensive requirements, and evaluates the consortial relationship and/or agreement against the purpose of the institution.
Non-Compliance
The
institution follows guidelines regarding consortia relationship and contractual
agreements found in KCTCS Administrative Policy and SACS policy
statements. Several consortia
relationships are described, including Memorandum of Agreements (MOAs) with
another KCTCS college for two AAS programs, the Kentucky Virtual University,
Kentucky Educational Television, and dual credit agreements with area high
schools through the
It is
unclear whether these relationships and agreement are routinely evaluated
against the purpose of the institution. MOA’s for dual credit and the
Response: Compliance
Southeast Kentucky
Community and
To illustrate that review of consortia relationships and contractual agreements has taken place in the past, copies of an addendum signed with Hazard Community and Technical College, indicating that both the MOA for the physical therapy and radiography programs was reviewed in August 2005, is attached as Exhibit B. (These documents were inadvertently left off the documentation list in the previous submittal.)
It should be noted that the MOAs for these programs were initially developed prior to the standardized KCTCS template and as per policy were approved via established procedures at that time. Under the old format, these agreements were written to be perpetual unless termination or change was agreed upon by both parties.
Moreover, copies of
the signed KCTCS consortia online agreement (KyVU) for 2003 and 2004 are also
included in Exhibit
C. SKCTC adheres to KCTCS Administrative Policy 4.14 (Exhibit D) as a participant in the
A secure Docushare site contains official transcripts for all KCTCS faculty who teach via KyVU. It is the responsibility of each participating college to ensure that its faculty meets the Credential Guidelines of SACS/COC.
3.4.9 The institution provides appropriate academic support services.
Non-Compliance
Comment: The College documentation for adequate academic support services includes placement test scores for the COMPASS Placement Test in the form of the KCTCS policy. No mention is made in the narrative of ACT or ASSET scores, which are also accepted under the KCTCS policy.
Based on the topics presented in the syllabus for GE 100, introduction to College, it seems hard to believe that students can obtain the many competencies listed in an eight-week course [e.g., “communicate effectively using standard written English,” “organize, analyze, and make information useful by employing mathematics, and “demonstrate an awareness of one’s interaction with the biological/physical environment”].
Tutoring options are asserted but not documented. No data was presented as to how often or which programs were used. After provision of addition documentation, the On-Site Committee will need to determine compliance.
Response: Compliance
The KCTCS Mandatory Placement guidelines do present the ACT and ASSET scores along with the COMPASS scores that are required for entering students. Students must score an 18 in each of the English, Reading Comprehension, and Mathematics sections on the ACT to be exempt from placement into a developmental course in that particular area. If students present an ACT score below 18 in any of those areas, they must be tested for developmental area placement using the ASSET or COMPASS as stated in the guidelines.
With regard to the GE 100 syllabus presented in the original exhibit, five of the competencies listed are common across all curricula.
· Communicate effectively using standard written English. (Writing)
· Analyze, summarize, and interpret a variety of
reading materials. (Analytical
· Think critically and make connections in learning across the disciplines. (Integrated Learning)
· Elaborate upon knowledge to create new thoughts, process, and/or products; (Creative Thinking)
· Demonstrate an awareness of ethical considerations in making value choices. (Ethics and values)
The other competencies listed are course specific, with the exception of the Writing competency listed above:
· Communicate in a clear oral and non-verbal fashion and employ active listening skills; (Oral Communication)
· Demonstrate basic skills in computer operations and/or software applications; (Computer Literacy)
· Organize, analyze, and make information useful by employing mathematics; (Mathematics)
· Demonstrate an awareness of one’s interaction with the biological/physical environment; (Science)
· Demonstrate an awareness of self as an individual, as a member of a multicultural society, and/or as a member of the world community; (Social Interaction)
· Recognize the impact of decisive ideas and events in human heritage (Heritage/Humanities)
· Develop and perform basic search strategies and access information in a variety of formats, print and non-print; (Information Access)
The syllabus should not have presented all eight course-specific competencies. This syllabus, and any syllabus which presents all eight course-specific competencies, will be corrected in the future. This report presents a different GE 100 syllabus with the proper competencies listed. (Folder 3.4.9, Exhibit A)
Academic Support data are provided that lists both computer and tutor usage. This data will be available in hard copy for the On-Site committee to review. (Exhibit B)
3.4.11 The institution protects the security, confidentiality, and integrity of its student academic records and maintains special security measures to protect and backup data.
Non-Compliance
The College documents policies and procedures in place for protecting the security, confidentiality, and integrity of its student records as outlined in the Council of Postsecondary Education Comprehensive Database Guidelines. Servers for the institution’s system are located at an off-campus site. Regular backups are conducted. The institution indicates it adheres to FERPA guidelines and FERPA training is provided for faculty and staff. FERPA information for students is in the College Catalog and on the website. The institution indicates it has established a disaster recovery plan; however, no disaster plan is documented. The On-Site Committee should verify the presence and implementation of this plan.
Response: Compliance
The Kentucky
Community and Technical College System contracts with CedarCrestone Managed
Services, Inc. of
In the event a
declared disaster at Southeast Kentucky Community and
DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN
Controls provide reasonable assurance that data is backed-up, retained, and available when necessary.
Controls Specified by the Company |
Test Procedures |
Backups are taken of all Oracle databases at the designated interval using the job-scheduling tool “cron” and retained according to the documented retention period. After each backup, the logs are checked and errors are documented and resolved. |
Databases are backed up to a file server on a nightly basis while running, commonly referred to as a “Hot” backup. At this time an export of the database is also saved to a file server. Monthly, a backup to a file server is completed for each Oracle database while it is offline, commonly referred to as “Cold” backup. For each backup activity, the system generates an email notifying the DBAs if the backup jobs or exports completed successfully or failed. In the event of failure notification the DBA researches the error message and determines a solution. The two DBAs have been fully trained to allow backup responsibility to be shifted to the secondary DBA if the primary DBA is unavailable |
Network fileservers are backed up using Veritas on a nightly basis and retained according to the documented retention period. Each morning, the backup logs are checked and any errors are documented and resolved. |
Backups are completed for both NT servers and UNIX servers nightly using NetBackup software and saved to tape media for offsite storage. The NetBackup backup software logs are reviewed every morning for critical errors. If an error is noted, the error is researched and resolution is determined to allow the backup to complete successfully on the next attempt. The Network Administrators coordinate with the UNIX administrator team to research and resolve UNIX server backup errors. Once the error is resolved, the backup job is restarted. The failed backup job is deleted from the NetBackup log in order to track resolved failures. |
Configuration files for physical network devices are backed up before and after changes are made and are retained according to the documented retention period. If the network device fails the verification tests, the configuration is restored. |
Changes affecting performance of the network are completed after hours. Simple changes, such as opening a cable port on a switch are completed during the day. Client requested changes and large changes require a HEAT (issue tracking and assignment software) ticket, change request form, or a project plan to be completed. Before each change, a backup file of the configuration is created in case a restore is required. After each change, a verification test is run to determine if the device is working as expected. If the verification test fail, the original configuration is restored. If the verification is successful the new configuration is saved to the device and the configuration change commands are copied and saved to a text file. Both backups are retained on a shared network drive and are organized by the date of change. The configuration backups can be retained on a file server indefinitely without disk space becoming an issue. |
Random samplings of backup tapes are tested semi-annually to assure the tape media is good and the restore process works as documented. After the tests are performed, management reviews the results and documentation is updated where appropriated. |
Random samplings of backup tapes are tested on a minimum semi-annual basis. All backup restoration tests require the review and sign-off of the IT director. |
The disaster recovery plan has been established and is documented. The disaster recovery plan defines the roles, responsibilities, hardware, software, timeframes, needed to assure high availability and system redundancy based on our service level agreements. The disaster recovery procedure is tested annually on a randomly selected client and the actual results are compared with the expected outcome based on the procedures. The procedures are updated as needed after the test results are analyzed. |
The UNIX administrator is responsible for maintaining the disaster recovery plan and conducting the recovery tests. Timely notification of upcoming testing is provided to the Network Administrator to evaluate the implications of the network. |
3.4.12 The institution places primary responsibility for the content, quality, and effectiveness of its curriculum with its faculty.
Non-Compliance
Comment: KCTCS BOR Policy 1.4 and 4.11 identify faculty as responsible for the content, quality, and effectiveness of the curriculum at SKCTC, and the Rules of the Faculty and minutes of Faculty meetings document faculty involvement in curriculum and program development. The narrative indicates that course syllabi and student evaluations demonstrate faculty’s responsibility. No syllabi or student evaluations are appended to support this assertion.
Undated Program Effectiveness Reviews further document faculty involvement in the reporting process, but evidence is lacking to indicate improvements in faculty shortages, faculty development opportunities, and equipment and facility needs reported in these Reviews.
Response: Compliance
Course syllabi are developed by faculty. The Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College (SKCTC) Office of Academic Affairs provides a basic syllabus format (Folder 3.4.12, Exhibit A) which faculty utilize in developing the course syllabus. Course descriptions, pre- and co-requisites, and competencies for each course are developed by curriculum committees at the KCTCS level (Exhibit B) all approved through the KCTCS curriculum development processes as explained in the original narrative for Section 3.4.12 of the Compliance Certification. (Exhibit C) As of fall 2006, College faculty have final approval authority on all curriculum rather than the system faculty senate.
Each faculty member submits a syllabus for each course taught to the Division Chair for review and approval (Exhibit D); the approved syllabus is then forwarded to the Office of Academic Affairs to become part of the permanent collection.
Student evaluation of faculty occurs annually. The underlying purpose of this review is to promote individual and institutional improvement. An instructor evaluation form (Exhibit E) is completed for each course taught to obtain relevant student feedback and comments. In an evaluative meeting, the instructor and division chair discuss strengths and weaknesses as indicated by student perception and make plans to modify specific elements in teaching. In some cases, if student evaluations are strongly negative, the implementation of the Teacher Consultation Program (TCP) (Exhibit F) may assist and improve instruction.
SKCTC faculty conduct annual written and bi-annual oral program reviews for all program areas. The Program Review Summary provided was undated; however, this follow up provides examples of program reviews (Exhibit G) and the summaries of oral reviews (Exhibit H), conducted during Fall 2005.
Other documentation is provided as follows:
1) SKCTC’s Strategic Needs Analysis discusses potential faculty positions, needs in equipment, and facility needs. (Exhibit I)
2) SKCTC’s Professional Development Committee provides documents that list available faculty development opportunities and participation in these opportunities. (Exhibit J). Additional professional development documentation and participation can be found in Comprehensive Standard 3.7.3.
3.4.13 For each major in a degree program, the institution assigns responsibility for program coordination, as well as for curriculum development and review, to persons academically qualified in the field. In those degree programs for which the institution does not identify a major, this requirement applies to a curricular area or concentration.
Non-Compliance
Comment: Program coordinators are responsible for program coordination and curriculum development and review. The responsibilities of program coordinators are outlined by KCTCS in its Administrative Policy and Procedures. Those responsible for program coordination are academically qualified in the field. It is difficult to obtain consistent documentation concerning the number and names of programs and majors. Since a consistent listing of programs and majors is not available, no evidence exists that indicates that all programs/majors have program coordinators. (Education AAS degree, General Occupational/Technical Studies AAS degree, and Professional Craft: Pottery AAS degree programs are listed in the Compliance Certification document, on the College website, and in the KCTCS 05-06 Catalog; no program coordinators are listed in the program coordinator documentation provided. Medical Information Technology and Fire/Rescue Science Technology AAS degrees are listed in the Catalog and on the website; however no program coordinator documentation is provided.)
Response: Compliance
An updated list of programs and credentials is provided. (Folder 3.4.13 Exhibit A) This list of programs, majors, and credentials is kept at the System Office of the Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS) and is updated continuously based on the creation and requests for new certificates. An updated list of program coordinators is also provided. (Exhibit B)
In regard to the programs that were cited for which coordinator were not listed, the following information is provided:
· Education: The program coordinator’s name, Roberta
Pratt, was inadvertently left off the original roster. Ms. Pratt, a professor in the Division of
Social Sciences and Related Technologies, holds a master’s degree in education
from
· General Occupational / Technical Studies: This is not considered to be a formal program, since it is individualized so as to provide a flexible curriculum that can be designed to meet specific student and workplace needs. Thus, courses can be taken in many different ‘program fields’; however, Dr. Wheeler Conover, interim dean of academic affairs, will become the official coordinator for GOTS in addition to overseeing the AA / AS pre-baccalaureate programs.
· Professional
Craft: Pottery AAS was deactivated, effective December 31, 2005 (Exhibit C); however, certificate programs
were kept in Kiln Building for Professional Potters and Professional Raku
Pottery. The associate degree
deactivation unfortunately was not reflected in the KCTCS Catalog. A letter has been written to KCTCS, asking
that all references to the associate degree be removed from the catalog. (Exhibit
D) It should be pointed out,
however, that Professor Joe Scopa, who holds a master’s degree in fine arts
from
· Medical Information Technology. SKCTC does not offer an associate degree in this field; however, it does offer certificate in medical transcription and medical coding—both of which are one-semester programs. Lynn Jones, coordinator of the Office Systems Technology Program, which leads to an AAS degree, will assume responsibility for coordinating these certificates.
· Fire/Rescue
Science Technology is an approved program for SKCTC; however, at the present
time, SKCTC does not offer programming in this particular area. A letter has
been written to KCTCS, requesting that this not be listed as an available
program at SKCTC. (Exhibit D) However, it should be pointed out that the program is coordinated statewide
through the KCTCS System Office by Mr. Ronnie Day, who serves as the Executive
Director of the Commission on Fire Protection, Personnel, Standards and
Education for the
3.5.1 The institution identifies college-level competencies within the general education core and provides evidence that graduates have attained those competencies.
Non-Compliance
Comment: The institution discusses its general education core and states that the general education core ensures that graduates are competent. The institution provides a link to the core courses. That link lists twelve competencies, not the five competencies cited in the narrative.
The institution indicates that competency attainment is based on the Kentucky Baccalaureate Transfer Frameworks and the Kentucky General Education Block Transfer Policy. Completion of a course/certificate/degree in the absence of other corroboration is not an adequate measure of competence. No other assessment measures for the AAS degree are indicated.
Sample syllabi support an effort to include general education competencies in courses throughout the curriculum, rather than relying on specific courses to fulfill specific competencies. Some of the syllabi offer clearer explanations of the inclusion of these general competencies than do others. From an assessment perspective, this approach does not appear to yield meaningful evaluation results on the competencies, as there is a single course grade and no means to relate that grade to achievement of any single (or even group of) general education competencies. The documentation provides no standard rubrics for collecting data on competencies across different courses, no evidence of faculty training on assessing general education competencies, and no evidence of direct measures for any of the listed competencies.
Response: Compliance
The purpose of the General Education program is to help students become productive citizens who are aware of the ideals and aspirations which motivate human thought and action, and who can successfully use their understanding of the world, themselves, and their roles in society. SKCTC’s General Education program has five stated goals (Folder 3.5.1, Exhibit A) with appropriate measures that assess the effectiveness of the program.
The 2005-2006 Catalog provides the student learning outcomes or competencies one meets upon completion of the AA, AS, or AAS degree.
o Communicate effectively using standard written English. (Writing)
o Analyze, summarize, and interpret a variety of
reading materials. (Analytical
o Think critically and make connections in learning across the disciplines. (Integrated Learning)
o Elaborate upon knowledge to create new thoughts, process, and/or products. (Creative Thinking)
o Demonstrate an awareness of ethical considerations in making value choices. (Ethics and values)
o Communicate in a clear oral and non-verbal fashion and employ active listening skills. (Oral Communication)
o Demonstrate basic skills in computer operations and/or software applications. (Computer Literacy)
o Organize, analyze, and make information useful by employing mathematics. (Mathematics)
o Demonstrate an awareness of one’s interaction with the biological/physical environment. (Science)
o Demonstrate an awareness of self as an individual, as a member of a multicultural society, and/or as a member of the world community. (Social Interaction)
o Recognize the impact of decisive ideas and events in human heritage. (Heritage/Humanities)
o Develop and perform basic search strategies and access information in a variety of formats, print and non-print. (Information Access)
While there have been several different assessments that measure the effectiveness of general education at SKCTC -- including exit surveys, student performance on laboratory practical examinations, employer-satisfaction surveys, and TEDS Follow-Up Data, and the CCSSE -- the results of assessment and improvements have not been reported in a systematic manner. This response provides exhibits that demonstrate improvements have been made in the General Education Program for both program goals and student learning outcomes for the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 (Exhibit B and Exhibit C).
The College has developed scoring rubrics for general education competencies. Several general education faculty, including Professors Conover, Foutch, Scopa, and Call have agreed to participate in a pilot program in Fall 2006 that will determine the validity of these rubrics to assess general education at SKCTC. If data analysis provides validity, the pilot will be expanded to the entire faculty in Fall 2007. In addition to the assessment measures already used for the General Education Program (goals and student learning outcomes), another measure that is being implemented for Fall 2006 include pre- and post-test data for the COMPASS.
The first five student learning outcomes listed above
were designed to assess learning across the General Education Program. These competencies were developed in the
former
3.7.1 The institution employs competent faculty members qualified to accomplish the mission and goals of the institution. When determining acceptable qualification of its faculty, an institution gives primary consideration to the highest earned degree in the discipline in accordance with the guidelines listed below. The institution also considers competence, effectiveness, and capacity, including, as appropriate, undergraduate and graduate degrees, related work experience in the field, professional licensure and certifications, honors and awards, continuous documented excellence in teaching, or other demonstrated competencies and achievements that contribute to effective and student learning outcomes. For all cases, the institution is responsible for justifying and documenting the qualifications of its faculty.
Non-Compliance
Comment: The compliance narrative states that the institution has adopted the minimum faculty requirements based on the Credentials Guidelines of SACS/COC. No local documentation is presented to verify this statement. Some faculty meet the qualification standards based on special certifications and experiences in the field, not on the basis of the Guidelines. These qualifications are listed on the Faculty Roster. Faculty restricted to certificate/diploma programs or developmental education due to their credentials are noted on the Faculty Roster. Licensure expirations are not noted on the Faculty Roster. See the attached “Request for Justifying and Documentation Qualifications of Faculty” for names of several faculty members who faculty qualifications need additional clarification.
Note: Because the supporting documentation contains sensitive information, no links are provided.
These documents can be viewed on-site.
Response: Compliance
Southeast Kentucky Community and
Faculty cited for a lack of specifics as to license/certificate currency and /or currency dates:
Ms. Byrd is certified by the American Society of Clinical Pathologists as a:
Medical Laboratory Technician,
Medical Technologist, and
Phlebotomy Technician
These certifications, once issued, do not require renewal.
Mr. Rose is certified by the American Society of Clinical Pathologists as a:
Medical Laboratory Technician
This certificate, once issued, does not require renewal.
Mr. Whitaker holds teaching certification for vocational education
with an endorsement for drafting from the
Mr. Hutson is a registered radiologic technologist [ RT(R)] with the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists. His licensure is valid through July 2007. He is also certified as a radiation operator by the Kentucky Cabinet for Health Services, with an expiration date 6/30/2008.
Ms. Miles is a Certified Respiratory Therapist (CRT) through the Kentucky Board of Respiratory Care, with expiration date of 1/30/2007.
Faculty cited for lacking specific qualifications related to the courses:
Mr. Biliter holds bachelor’s degrees
in both business administration and business and marketing education. He also
holds
Fundamentals of Accounting I and Computer Fundamentals are non-transfer courses.
Ms. Miller holds a master of arts degree in education and a bachelor of science degree in home economics and secretarial science; she also holds a secondary teaching certificate—with a business emphasis—that expires in 2009. She has also competed eighteen (18) graduate hours in computer science beyond the master’s degree. She has twelve (12) years teaching experience. Fundamentals of Accounting II is a non-transfer course.
Mr. Campbell holds a bachelor of science degree in education and has completed an additional fifteen (15) hours toward a
master’s degree in the same field. Moreover, he has five (5) years experience
working as an underground miner, having served as both a mine foreman and as an
electrician. Mr. Campbell has the following certifications from the
He is also certified by the U. S. Department of Labor to work as an electrician, both in surface and underground capacities (certification expires 12/2006). Roof Control and Ventilation is a non-transfer course, offered directly in support of individuals employed in the coal industry to meet state and federal regulations; it is not offered for transfer purposes.
Ms. Musgrave holds a bachelor of science degree in business; after earning the BS degree, she graduated from an associate of science degree program in nursing; and subsequently completed twelve (12) graduate hours in nursing. She also has twenty-three (23) years nursing experience.
In addition to completing a PhD in community college higher education, and both a MS and BS in business education, Dr. Gibson has earned eighteen (18) graduate hours in computer science, in combination from Morehead State University and the University of Kentucky.
Ms. Fields holds an associate of applied science degree in
applied legal studies and is a certified professional coder through the
3.7.2 The institution regularly evaluates the effectiveness of each faculty member in accord with published criteria regardless of contractual or tenure status.
Non-Compliance
Comment: The institution’s Performance, Planning, and Evaluation (PPE) process and the KCTCS Administrative Policy 2.5 outline the procedure for faculty evaluation, which is conducted in a year-long cycle. In addition to faculty self evaluation, the evaluation process includes peer review and student evaluation of instruction. Full-time faculty are evaluated each fall by students; adjunct instructors are evaluated each spring by students. There is no reference to contractual or tenure status. Detailed evaluation policies and applicable evaluation forms are provided, however, there is no evidence that evaluations are taking place and being used. The On-Site Committee will need to verify the evaluations occur in adherence to the policy.
Response: Compliance
As evidence that SKCTC is following administrative policy regarding the procedures for faculty evaluation, sample copies of contractual agreements and performance evaluation forms, included with permission from the employees, are attached. (Folder 3.7.2, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, and Exhibit D)
Moreover, to further document that these evaluations are in fact occurring, a summary of full-time faculty evaluation results—teaching and non-teaching—is included below:
2003-2004 Evaluation Rating |
Number of Faculty Rated: |
Made an Exceptional Contribution (E) |
48 |
Made a Reasonable and Positive Contribution (R) |
67 |
Failed to Make A Reasonable Contribution (F) |
01 |
*Reflects total number of faculty from SKCTC |
2004-2005 Evaluation Rating |
Number of Faculty Rated: |
Consistently Exceeds Expectations of Job Requirements (EE) |
23 |
Meets and Frequently Exceeds Job Requirements (ME) |
54 |
Fully Meets Job Requirement (M) |
34 |
Some Improvement Needed to Meet Job Requirements (NI) |
0 |
Fails to Meet Job Requirement (F) |
0 |
2005-2006 Evaluation Rating |
Number of Faculty Rated: * |
Consistently Exceeds Expectations of Job Requirements (EE) |
35 |
Meets and Frequently Exceeds Job Requirements (ME) |
43 |
Fully Meets Job Requirements (M) |
31 |
Some Improvement Needed to Meet Job Requirements(NI) |
0 |
Fails to Meet Job Requirements (F) |
0 |
*Two faculty were on leave and not included in the total |
Both tenure-tract and term contract faculty participate in the Performance, Planning and Evaluation (PPE) process, and this requirement is listed on the contracts that the individual signs with the institution.
For tenure-tract faculty, the contract reads as follows:
All faculty are subject to performance planning and evaluation and other applicable policies, procedures, regulations, and rules during the terms of their contracts. (Exhibit C [first paragraph])
For term contract faculty, the contract reads as follows:
All regular (non-temporary) faculty are subject to performance planning and evaluation and other applicable policies, procedures, regulations, and rules during the terms of their contracts.
(Exhibit D [Employment Terms])
3.7.3 The institution provides evidence of ongoing professional development of faculty as teachers, scholars, and practitioners.
Non-Compliance
Comment: Employee professional development is coordinated through the institution’s Professional and Organizational Development Committee. A variety of professional activities is available, including a technology “boot camp,” workshops, New Horizon Initiatives, tuition waiver for credit classes, and opportunities for sabbatical leave. The institution states that funding is available and identifies a variety of professional development opportunities, but no evidence of funding for and participation in specific ongoing professional development opportunities is documented. For example, what was the attendance at the events cited in the report? The standard calls for evidence of on-going professional development by the faculty – not evidence of opportunities presented to the faculty.
Response: Compliance
As indicated in the
compliance report, Southeast Kentucky Community and
· Business office spreadsheets showing fund expenditures for travel to professional development workshops, conferences, and classes. Travel expenditures are highlighted in yellow. Spreadsheets for 2004-2005, and 2005-2006 are included. There are three spreadsheets for each academic year, showing regular professional development funds, funds from Carl D. Perkins grant, and from the Presley endowment. (Folder 3.7.3, Exhibit A)
· Activity reports which the college submits to the system office (KCTCS) showing number of participants in different categories of Professional Development activities. (Exhibit B)
· Rosters of attendance for college-provided professional development workshops and activities. (Exhibit C)
· Evaluations of college sponsored professional development workshops. Representative evaluations are provided. (Exhibit D). The committee can review all evaluations on site if desired.
The Professional Development Committee’s website also tracks participation in college sponsored events. Faculty and staff can print a transcript of their professional development activities through this website. Off-site committee members can review this feature by accessing the PD website at:
http://www.ebsbi.com/ProfessionalDevelopment/index.php
Click on transcripts, then on individual workshops. At this point, faculty can enter their employee ID# to generate PD transcripts. Below are several employee ID#’s that can be entered by the on-site committee to view individual transcripts. These ID’s are representative of faculty from each campus, and are provided with permission of the individual faculty members. We can supply on-site reviewers with additional ID#’s if needed.
ID# 1012538 Mike Good Pineville Campus
ID# 1002034 Robin Haggerty Middlesboro Campus
ID# 1012489 Mary Leann Turner Harlan Campus
ID# 1001552 Sandy Holbrook Whitesburg Campus
ID# 1001717 Wanda Lewis
3.9.3 The institution provides services supporting its mission with qualified personnel to ensure the quality and effectiveness of its student affairs program.
Non-Compliance
Comment: The College provides support programs for all students through efforts of a highly qualified student affairs staff. The supporting documents contain a listing that provides name, job title, and academic qualifications for each student services staff member.
The institution indicated that “professional development through continuing education and involvement in professional organizations is encouraged.” However, documentation was not presented to demonstrate participation in the activities. The On-Site Committee may wish to verify that Student Services staff members stay current through participation in appropriate professional development activities.
Response: Compliance
A listing of professional development affiliations and activities for all student services staff is attached as Folder 3.9.3, Exhibit A.
3.10.1 The institution’s recent financial history demonstrates financial stability.
Non-Compliance
Comment: The institution’s documentation did not make a compelling case for financial stability. It is unclear whether these statements were prepared by the State Auditors or management of the institution.
Response: Compliance
Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College (SKCTC) demonstrates a history of financially stability as evidenced by the Analysis of Net Assets Report for years 2002 – 2005. Please see Folder 3.10.1, Exhibit A. In all instances the information is derived from audited financial statements.
The list of Exhibits as a source for Exhibit A is as follows:
· Exhibit B: Southeast Community College Financial Reports 2002, pages 24-25 ;
· Exhibit
C :
· Exhibit
D :
· Exhibit E: Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College Financial Report 2004, pages 36-37.
· Exhibit F : Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College Financial Report 2005, pages 39-40
These reports indicate that most recently in FY 2005, SKCTC had net assets of $33,211,000, an increase of $1,136,000 over the $32,076,000 net assets for FY2004. Moreover, $3,152,000 of FY 2005 net assets was exclusive of plant and plant related debt (See Exhibit G)
SKCTC is a part of
the
The audited
financial report of KCTCS includes a supplemental Statement of Net Assets and
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets for Southeast
Kentucky Community and
KCTCS and Southeast
Kentucky Community and
The
first consolidated budget for the combined institution of Southeast
Kentucky Community and
As evidenced by these sustained budget increases, the audited financial statements, and by the supplemental schedule of Statement of Unrestricted Net Assets, Exclusive of Plant Assets and Plant Related Debt, we believe the college has and continues to demonstrate strong financial stability with sound physical resources to support the mission of the institution and the scope of its programs and services.
3.10.2 The institution provides financial statements and related documents, including multiple measures for determining financial health as requested by the Commission, which accurately and appropriately represent the total operation of the institution.
Non-Compliance
Comment: The institution does not provide evidence that it has submitted the institutional profile for financial information or the institutional profile for general and enrollment information required by the Commission on Colleges.
Response: Compliance
3.10.3 The institution audits financial aid programs as required by federal and state regulations.
Non-Compliance
There is no evidence that the institution has conducted an audit of its financial aid programs. Financial aid programs are audited at the system level, but this does not appear to include an audit of the operations and activities of individual institution activities.
Response: Compliance
Southeast
Kentucky Community and
Specifically, in the most recent reports for FY 2004-05 Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College was cited (A-133 FINDING 05-02) for not reporting a refund to Title IV within the thirty (30) day required period. Reference to this finding can be found on pages 54-57 of Exhibit B. In response to these findings, the Coordinator of Financial Aid at the College now requires that a PeopleSoft data report to be run weekly that identifies withdrawals. (See page 57 of Exhibit C)
Additionally,
the audited financial report from Crowe Chizek also includes a supplemental
Statement of Net Assets and Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net
Assets for Southeast Kentucky Community and
3.10.4 The institution exercises appropriate control over all its financial and physical resources.
Non-Compliance
Comment: Institutional, system, and state policies, procedures, and guidelines regarding financial resources and physical resources are detailed and ensure appropriate control of those resources. The institution, however, provided neither evidence of the qualifications of its fiscal officer and business office staff nor job descriptions for these personnel.
Response: Compliance
Qualifications of Southeast
Kentucky Community and
3.10.6 The institution takes reasonable steps to provide a healthy, safe, and secure environment for all members of the campus community.
Non-Compliance
Comment: The institution appears to have detailed policies, procedures, and guidelines providing for the health, safety, and security of its staff and students. The institution does not, however, provide evidence that its safety committee meets regularly--as stated in the narrative.
Response: Compliance
Southeast Kentucky
Community and
3.10.7 The institution operates and maintains physical facilities, both on and off campus, that are adequate to serve the needs of the institution’s educational programs, support services, and other mission-related activities.
Non-Compliance
Comment: The institution documents with its 2004-2005 Plan et al. that it has five campus sites with routine maintenance and custodial schedules in place. The Maintenance and Operations Manual, however, seems to include only these routine items. It is not, as the narrative suggests, a compilation of maintenance projects and procedures. There is no evidence of a plan for preventive and deferred maintenance except for heating and air-conditioning.
There is clearly a standardized process for capital planning and budget allocations per KCTCS Policies and Procedures.
Off-campus facilities are not discussed; except as related to buildings as a whole, specific facilities for educational, support services, and other mission-related activities are not discussed. Exhibits 12 and 13 are not discussed in the narrative.
The lack of a visual "walking tour" makes it difficult to assess the quality and character of physical facilities. The On-Site Committee will need to examine facilities at the various campuses.
Response: Compliance
A plan for preventive and deferred maintenance is evidenced in the Preventive Maintenance and Major Projects section of the Maintenance Operations Manual found in Folder 3.10.7, Exhibit A
Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College (SKCTC) maintains, operates, and completes planning for facilities on five campuses, located in Bell, Harlan, and Letcher counties in mountainous eastern Kentucky; and there is considerable evidence to suggest that the institution is carrying out these functions well. In the past five years, for example, SKCTC has:
· Completed
major renovation of facilities on both its Harlan and
· Completed construction on a new academic / technical building on the Whitesburg Campus, costing more than $5 million.
· Completed
planning for a major new structure in
Moreover, these
steps have followed Campus Development Plans that have been approved and
updated for campus development in