Steering committee

September 7, 2000

Present: Yolanda Ramil, Gerald Sheid, Vicky Oddino, Zoila Rodriguez, Dale Newman, Maury Pearl, Mark Pracher, Leslie Milkie, Roman Juarez, John Cantley, Daniel Castro, Joanne Kalter-Flink, Adriana Barrera, Dough McFerran, Eloise Cantrell, Gwen Walker, David Jordan.

John Cantley talked about the current accreditation status and the status of individual standards. He explained that as standards are being completed Vicky Oddino is reviewing them for grammar and voice. Maury Pearl is also reviewing the standard for accuracy and for supporting evidence.

John assured the committee that the process was going as planned and that he was confident that the report would be finished on time. Mission’s deadline to finish the report is the same as Valley (12/13/00).

John informed the committee that soon he will begin to contact committees to review and approve work done during the summer. He will contact standards in the following schedule:

• 1,2,3,5,6
• 4,7
• 8,9,10

John proposed that the college use two review processes.

1. Send an e-mail with return receipt to the entire college with the report asking to review and to add additional information. This is needed because the commission asks to show proof that the report was inclusive and everyone had the opportunity to participate in the process. This will also help to let more people about the accreditation process that is taking place at the college.
2. Focus groups will be formed to review each of the completed standards. These focused groups will be composed of volunteer individuals who interested in a certain section of the report. The review of the focus groups will not be limited to one standard because many of the themes extend and overlap other standards. To speed the review of the themes the accreditation office is developing a index database of the different topics in the standards.

The committee agreed that the focus groups were a good option because, being that everyone is in more than one committee, not all have to meet at once to review a section. The committee commended that John find interested volunteers by asking for responses to the themes and advertising the usefulness of the index.

John proposed to have two newsletters distributed around the campus at different times before the visit to inform the entire college community of the accreditation process going on in the college. The newsletters would have information such as the changes that are happening at the college because of accreditation and the composition of the visiting team.

John informed that committee that the master planning committee had recently agreed to adopt an assessment and planning process that will affect every aspect of the college. This new adoption would directly affect the written standards.

John explained that the college would have a pre-visit to the March 2001 visit. This visit will be to review the progress of the self-study and to advise the college in areas that may need more attention. This pre-visit will also give the team the opportunity to request specific people they would like to talk to during the visit in March. The committee agreed that this pre-visit was welcome. The precise date for the pre-visit not available yet, but a response from the commission is expected soon.

John explained how the district committed to writing their own self-study to help the colleges write their self-studies. He explained that standards 8, 9 and 10 would be impacted because of the district’s self-study. The college visiting team leaders will be the team that will evaluate the district’s own self-study. One of the immediate impacts will be on writing about shared governance, MPCC and the new president.