2017 Accreditation Process
The process of developing the Cypress College Institutional Self-Evaluation Report involved collaboration from a large number of members of the campus community. The result of this work is shared in the 2017 Institutional Self-Evaluation Report. Below are drafts and comments that shaped the development of the final report prepared for ACCJC and members of the site-visit team.
As part of the ACCJC accreditation process, Cypress College shares the following draft of the Institutional Self Evaluation. Your input on any or all sections helps strengthen the self-examination process preceding the site visit in Fall 2017.
To comment on the Draft Self Study, use this link. Please keep in mind that this is a working draft of the final report. We would appreciate your focus on the substance of the content to ensure its completeness and accuracy. Feedback can be submitted as frequently as you’d like so that it does not have to all be done in one sitting and to facilitate response to comments made by others. Comments will be appended to the bottom of this page.
Draft Self Study, Version #3
Draft Self Study, Version #2
As part of the ACCJC accreditation process, Cypress College completed a second draft of the Institutional Self Evaluation Report in April.
Self Study, Full Draft #1
On February 14, 2017, a full draft was presented to the North Orange County Community College District Board of Trustees. This complete version includes some revisions to the individual sections posted above. View the first full draft of the self study here.
Feedback on the Draft Self Study
The following is feedback about the Draft Self Study received as of 1/3/2017. Submit your feedback to the Draft Self Study, or any portion of it, here.
Standard 1A – Mission
- 1A1 the first sentence says the mission was approved by the BOT on Oct 11, 2016, but then later says the mission was approved by the BOT on Dec 13, 2016. The timeline for the mission should be reviewed and updated in other parts of this substandard to avoid discrepancies because some places it says Oct and other places it says Dec. Also, it says this new mission is in the catalog, schedule, and webpage, but all still contain the old mission. I would reconsider stating that the DE population does not differ from the on-campus population because I don’t believe that is an accurate statement based on the data. In the evidence, it says 1A1.5 when it should say 1A1.9.
- IA1 – CC Mission/Vision webpage needs to be updated with most recent mission after board approval, the October 11th date needs to be changed to December 13th
- 1A2 the diagram is not clear very clear as to what each set of boxes is representing. Also, should the Educational Master Plan be included in the diagram and in this section as part of the guide to fulfilling the mission?
- 1A3 Maybe some mention of the Educational Master Plan earlier in the document.
- 1A4 Update mission approval date.
- IA4 – The date for BOT approving the new mission needs to be updated to December 13th, 2016, not October 11th
- Standard IA appears to be accurate and complete
Standard 1B – Academic Quality and Institutional Effectiveness
- IB1 – Program review is now every four years, with CTE programs completing a short form every two years
- IB1 – The new Program Review handbook needs to be posted on the website once it is completed
- IB2 – Instructional programs are now on a four-year cycle while I believe student/learning support services are on a three year cycle (it was backwards in the report)
- IB6 – BSC should be changed to BSI for basic skills
- IB7 – It should be mentioned that one time funding requests are tied to the program review process in that programs that mention their needs in their program review documents receive priority in the one time funding process
- IB8 – The Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) should be mentioned alongside the campus climate survey
- IB9 – The DE section of IB9 will need substantial revision once the DE Program Review is completed and/or a new DE Plan is developed.
- Direction IB: (R. Fee) I think that I have collected a lot of the highlighted evidentiary documents. Contact me after break to see what I can do for you.
Standard 1C – Institutional Integrity
- IC1 – The IR webpage does not refer to the most recent accreditation data. It still states the visit is going to be in 2011.
- IC1 – I’m not sure why there’s a whole paragraph on DE. This standard does not refer to DE specifically and the information presented doesn’t make as much sense compared to the remainder of IC1.
- IC2 – Again, I’m not sure why DE is mentioned specifically and separately as it is not noted in the standard.
- IC3 – This states that ” Cypress College completion and transfer rates are published in the College Catalog” however, with the Student Right to Know Campus Security Act, three-year completion and transfer rates are presented, but this data is very outdated (Fall 2011 cohort) whereas for this three-year period of reporting, the cohort should have started in Fall 2013. The catalog is two years behind in this.
- IC5 – college’s mission instead of colleges’ mission (first paragraph)
- IC5 – For the analysis and evaluation section, I think the last part of the last sentence should be cut out. It should end with “while the College has developed new program Review and SLO manuals, the College will embark upon initiatives to develop additional procedure manuals for different areas across the campus”
- IC5 – This section should also include the role of the District Consultation Council (DCC) which reviews all changes to policies and procedures and forwards these recommendations to Chancellor’s staff. There is broad representation on this committee which may be worthwhile to address in some detail. Evidence would come from almost any DCC Agenda. There is also a statement to the effect that “the responsible person … may need to seek approval from a committee.” Which person? Which Committee?
- IC6 – in addition to the information provided, Financial Aid holds a number of workshops to help students make informed financial decisions (ask Rick or Chinh for details)
- IC9 – Do we want to discuss the process by which we handle those situations where an instructor crosses the line?
- College should not be capitalized. If the full college name is used then the word college in Cypress College is capitalized, but when referring to Cypress College as “the college” the word college should not be capitalized. Mission, Vision, and Core Values should also not be capitalized.
- There are a lot of inconsistencies with dates and documents, and it will be important to do a very comprehensive review to make sure the documents included as evidence are the most up to date. The word college shouldn’t be capitalized unless it refers to Cypress College. A lot of the same evidence is presented in a variety of different places; however, this is just leading to the same thing being said in multiple places. It’s not as succinct.
- It looks good. I see a nice balance of narrative and evidence.