SLO Scorecard

Last updated: November 6th, 2013

Current goals:

  1. Ensure college-wide assessment data inform college-wide planning.
  2. Engage in college-wide dialogue of SLO data for GEOs and ILOs.
  3. Ensure that all Fall Program Reviews report robustly on how dialogue and discussion of SLO data has resulted in completed and/or planned program improvements.
  4. Complete and continue ongoing ILO and GEO assessments.
  5. Ensure SLOs exist for all college services (including administrative services).
  6. Purchase new software to allow us to make progress on the above tasks.

Accreditation Standards

The ACCJC implemented SLO-related standards in 2002. In 2007, they circulated a Rubric for Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness to help institutions progress towards complete fulfillment of these still-new standards and assess their current stage. In 2009, the ACCJC notified all colleges that they would be required to meet the Proficiency Rubric Level by Fall 2012. All colleges were directed to submit an self-evaluation report on the SLO progress -- 1/2 were due November 15 2012, the other 1/2 March 15, 2013. City College submitted its ACCJC-mandated SLO Progress Report on March 15, 2013.

In June 2013, the ACCJC produced the a report on the overall SLO Assessment Implementation across all their colleges.

In September 2013, CCSF requested a specific feedback report on our performance relative to the rubric and other colleges. We wanted to see where the ACCJC saw us as deficient, and where we should focus our future energy. The official ACCJC feedback arrived on October 30, 2013.

On Wednesday, November 6th, the two SLO Coordinators and the Accreditation Liaison Office spoke with an ACCJC representative to get further clarification on one of the elements of our particular feedback. We took notes on that phone call.

Based on all the above, we revised our scorecard, as you can see below.

*IMPORTANT NOTE*: At an ACCJC-sponsored conference in September, we asked one of the ACCJC officers what the timeline was for reaching the final stage of SLO implementation -- Sustainable Continuous Quality Improvement (SCQI). The answer was that there is no timeline -- that as long as colleges focus on Proficiency and continue with the processes that they built up to reach Proficiency, they will naturall get to SCQI. They also indicated that the rubric is NO LONGER IN USE by the ACCJC as a way of measuring achievement of the SLO standards. The standards themselves are what we will be measured on.

 

Grade Translation

In the following grading scheme, some folks might find the following translation useful:

  • 5: exceeds norm of effective practice
  • 4: solidly meets expectation of effective practice
  • 3: barely meets expectation of effective practice (might be just starting or at a basic level)
  • 2: doesn't fully meet expectation of effective practice (some aspects aren't present)
  • 1: doesn't meet expectation of effective practice (peformance in this are is deficient)

Proficiency -- Required by ACCJC by Fall 2012

SLOs and authentic assessments are in place for ALL courses, programs, support services, certificates, and degrees.

The ACCJC scores below are based on work done through March 15, 2013. They are followed by the SLO Coordinators scoring of work and improvement since March. 

3/15/2013 Report -- ACCJC Score:

  • Courses:  4 (ave: 3.66)
  • Programs:  3 (ave: 3.49)
  • Student Learning and Support Activities:  5 (ave: 4.14)
  • Institutional Learning Outcomes: 1 (ave: 4.07)
  • Narrative: 4 (ave: 3.51) (addresses authentic assessment that leads to understanding about student learning and gaps to be addressed)

11/6/2013 Self-assessed current score:

  • 5: 90+% of all courses, programs (certificates and degrees), and student services have undergone SLO assessment. Reports filed. Quality verified.
  • 4: ILOs/GEOs (to get a 4, at least 75% of ILO/GEOs must be undergoing assessment; we achieve that by having these outcomes mapped to our courses and programs and having those undergoing assessment.) (See notes for clarification from the ACCJC.)

Next steps:

  • Ensure that all ILOs and GEOs are mapped to courses and programs and continuously updated (requires different software then we are currently using).
  • Continue with our ongoing ILO and GEO "deep reviews" and college-wide conversations regarding these results. (ILOs every Fall | GEOs every Spring) (new software will also help us greatly in ensure the data we gather for this process are easily collated across programs)

There is widespread institutional dialogue about the results of assessment and identification of gaps.

3/15/2013 Report -- ACCJC Score: 4 (Ave 3.38) (Institutional messages value assessment and improvement.)

11/6/2013 Self-assessed current score:  4

Next steps:

  • Fall 2013 Program Review documents need to demonstrate that 100% of departments are using SLO data to identify and address challenges within their department (due December 2013).
  • Participatory Governance and overall college planning needs to increase discussion of analysis of student learning college wide and identify gaps and issues to resolve.

Decision making includes dialogue on the results of assessment and is purposefully directed toward aligning institution-wide practices to support and improve student learning.

3/15/2013 Report -- ACCJC Score:  3 (Ave: 3.29)

11/6/2013 Self-assessed current score:  3.5? (New program review documents link resource requests directly to assessment data. Recommendations on GEO assessment data reported to college participatory governance.)

Next steps:  (See previous next steps. Same apply here.)

 

Appropriate resources continue to be allocated and fine-tuned.

3/15/2013 Report -- ACCJC Score: 4 (Ave: 3.22) (Institutional resource allocation/fine-tuning is oriented toward student learning)

11/6/2013 Self-assessed current score:  4

Next steps:  (See previous next steps. Same apply here.) Also:

Planned installation of new software to support the expansion of SLO reporting options and connect it more directly to program reviews (pending funding, projected Spring installation)

 

Comprehensive assessment reports exist and are completed and updated on a regular basis.

3/15/2013 Report -- ACCJC Score: 2 (Ave: 3.15)

11/6/2013 Self-assessed current score: 3. To get a 4, we need a defined cycle and format of assessment reports. Participation in completing and updating these reports needs to be wide spread. Reports need to be comprehensive in nature. (See notes for clarification from the ACCJC.)

Next steps:  

  • Spring 2013 reports had 90+% completion across the college and built upon the reports from the previous semester. Current semester reports build on those.
  • Upgrade our centralized reporting system to allow for longitudinal reporting (better see progress over time), and better dynamic, constantly updated mapping. (Upgrade planned for Spring, if funding can be found.)
  • Find ways to increase the participation of faculty leadership, deans (especially school and service deans), and division vice chancellors in reviewing and analyzing these report data, looking for college-wide trends, discussing those with the entire college, and integrating student learning into strategic plans and missions. (New software can facilitate the review of data across programs, but processes need to accompany the software to ensure overall review.)
  • Continue providing SLO Impacts Reports based on Program Review data, submitted for Fall 2013. Get participatory governance groups to discuss these results.

 

Course student learning outcomes are aligned with degree student learning outcomes.

3/15/2013 Report -- ACCJC Score: 3 (ave: 3.54) (to reach a 4, must have course SLOs mapped to program SLOs)

11/6/2013 Self-assessed current score: 3             

Next steps:  

  • Report on ILO mappings for Fall 2013 ILO assessment.
  • Finalize Curriculum Committee templates and instructions to ensure continued mapping of GEOs and PSLOs to courses.
  • Procure software that will better enable us to visualize and demonstrate mapping and alignment. (We currently have mapping for everything, but it's not editable and thus is a snapshot in time.)

 

Students demonstrate awareness of goals and purposes of courses and programs in which they are enrolled.

3/15/2013 Report -- ACCJC Score: 4 (Ave: 2.63)

11/6/2013 Self-assessed current score: 4

Next steps:  

  • Continue to ensure SLOs are listed in class syllabi and SLOs are shared with students in meaningful ways.
  • Continue to ensure SLOs are publicly available for all courses and programs (through catalog and website), and improve the interface for students to access that information.

 

SELF-ASSESSMENT NARRATIVE THAT ACCOMPANIED REPORT: 4 (Ave: 3.25)
(Planned improvement efforts include improving the value of SLO assessment rather than just processes.)

OVERALL AVERAGE SCORE: 3.42 (Ave: 3.44)

    

Sustainable Continuous Quality Improvement -- Required to fully meet standards

*Data from August 31, 2013 assessment reporting

REQUIREMENTS
PROGRESS
Student learning outcomes and assessment are ongoing, systematic, and used for continuous quality improvement.

19% of instructional programs, 51% of courses, 74% of counseling programs, 55% of student service programs, and ~48% of administrative services are at closed-loop CQI. (Numbers have been steadily rising.)

Annual Assessment Plan: Current benchmark for all units: all outcomes assessed at least every 3 years.

Dialogue about student learning is ongoing, pervasive, and robust.
Dialogue about student learning is happening with departments and within weekly professional development activities that happened in Spring 2013 and Fall 2013 and will continue Spring 2014. Proof of the robustness of these conversations should appear in Program Review documents (due Dec. 2013) and will be part of the Program Review SLO Impacts report produced in Spring 2014.
Evaluation of student learning outcomes processes.
Evaluation reports provided and follow-up improvements implemented for the Fall 2012 reports and again for the Spring 2013 reports. Similar reporting and evaluation will be completed after each semester's reporting deadline and made available through the website. These evaluations are discussed by the SLO Committee and Planning Committee.
Evaluation and fine-tuning of organizational structures to support student learning is ongoing.
The college is currently undergoing major reorganization. The new structures are intended to better support student learning across the college. Evaluation of its effectiveness and impact on student learning is a future task.
Student learning improvement is a visible priority in all practices and structures across the college.
Student learning improvement has been and continues to be a visible priority across the college. However, it definitely can improve, especially by reaching further and bringing more voices to the discussions. At the end of Spring 2013, it was a regular informational item on the Board of Trustees agenda. It was a major part of all college-wide communication. It is part of the 2013-2014 Board Planning Priorities, and is embedded in our ongoing program review and planning processes. Highlights are part of the Chancellor's regular updates. But overall, we need more analysis of learning across the college and more integration with planning and priorities (in practice).
Learning outcomes are specifically linked to program reviews.

SLO reporting is embedded into Program Reviews and has been for the last few years. SLO impacts are also part of the resource allocation rubric.

A Program Review SLO Impacts Report was completed in Spring 2013 evaluating the quality and major themes presented across the college. This report was reviewed in various participatory governance meetings.

High-quality examples of the SLO portions of Program Review are used in the guidelines to help with departments that can benefit from improved reporting.