July 17, 2017 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Dr. Herbert Swender, President Garden City Community College 801 Campus Dr. Garden City, KS 67846 Dear President Swender: This letter is formal notification of action taken by the Higher Learning Commission (“HLC” or “the Commission”) Board of Trustees (“the Board”) concerning Garden City Community College (“the College” or “the institution”). During its meeting on June 29, 2017, the Board placed Garden City Community College on Probation because the College is out of compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation and the Core Components identified in the Board’s findings as outlined below. This action is effective as of the date the action was taken. In taking this action, the Board considered materials from the most recent comprehensive evaluation, including but not limited to: the Assurance Filing the College submitted, the report from the comprehensive evaluation team, the report of the Institutional Actions Council (“IAC”) Hearing Committee, and the institutional responses to these reports. The College is required to submit an Assurance Filing no later than October 1, 2018, or at least eight weeks prior to the comprehensive evaluation, providing evidence that the College has ameliorated the findings of non-compliance identified in this action that resulted in the imposition of Probation and the findings of Met with Concerns, and providing evidence that the College meets the Criteria for Accreditation, the Core Components, Federal Compliance Requirements, and the Assumed Practices. Included in this report should be the following:

• Core Component 3.A: Evidence that program-level outcomes are in place for all degree and certificate programs, including evidence that these outcomes are presented to students in the course catalog and program materials.

• Core Component 4.A: 1. Representative samples of program review reports from both general education

departments/programs and technical programs from the first year of implementation of the program review process;

2. Representative samples of initial actions generated by data analysis of the completed program review;

3. Evidence of how the data from program reviews have led to improvements in student learning and program change;

4. A description of the process that will be used to move data from program reviews into other appropriate processes, such as the budget, planning, quality improvement, scheduling, meeting student needs, and hiring processes as determined by the College;

President Swender, July 17, 2017 2

5. Evidence of adjustments in the College’s credit hour policy and procedures to meet federal credit hour guidelines;

6. Policy and practices related to the offering of accelerated summer coursework, including evidence that the learning experiences, outcomes and rigor are equivalent to fall and winter offerings;

7. Schedules for all courses offered in accelerated formats demonstrating that the length of the term complies with federal seat and out-of-class learning expectations, and ensuring that the learning experiences, outcomes, and rigor are equivalent to fall and winter (traditional term) offerings; and

8. A representative sample of accelerated term syllabi with copies of syllabi from sections delivered in traditional format demonstrating that accelerated course learning outcomes and assignments are the same as or equivalent to those for the class offered in a traditional term.

• Core Component 4.B: 1. Several representative examples of program assessment plans. These should include

detailed documentation of the program assessment outcomes, including samples of the assessment of program learning outcomes, and evidence that learning outcomes have been mapped throughout the program, demonstrating that outcomes are appropriate to the course placement in the program pathway;

2. Evidence of participation in on-campus faculty training for the assessment of written communication, oral communication, and critical thinking;

3. Detailed documentation of the assessments that have been administered up to the time of the Assurance Filing for written communication skills, oral communication skills, and critical thinking skills, including a list of programs, courses, and co-curricular activities involved in the assessments, and a schedule of the assessments including those planned after the date of the Assurance Filing;

4. Several representative examples and data from the administration and scoring of writing samples that demonstrate students’ acquisition of written communication skills;

5. Data and results of the analysis of the writing sample scoring, including an explanation of what action will be taken as a result of the analysis;

6. The rubric for oral communication skills; 7. Data from the administration and scoring of oral communication that demonstrate

students’ acquisition of oral communication skills; 8. The rubric for critical thinking skills; 9. Several representative examples of program, course, and co-curricular assessment plans

including sample assessment instruments and rubrics used; and 10. A detailed summary providing specific examples of how analysis of assessment data has

been used at the program, course, and co-curricular levels for targeted improvement of pedagogy and student learning.

• Core Component 4.C: 1. A list of the specific types of retention, persistence, and completion data that will be

collected for each of the College’s degrees and certificates, including definitions for each type of data;

2. Information about how the data will be disaggregated (for example, by year, by ethnicity, etc.);

3. Guidelines for setting ambitious but attainable goals for student retention, persistence, and completion; and

President Swender, July 17, 2017 3

4. Representative samples of data for both transfer and technical degrees, along with goals set by programs.

• Core Component 5.C: 1. A completed comprehensive master facilities plan, typically for at least five years,

including a description of the process used to develop the plan, evidence of input from all stakeholder groups documented by meeting minutes, timelines and targets for the goals outlined in the plan, and measures of success;

2. A comprehensive strategic plan, including a description of the process used to develop the plan; and

3. A comprehensive plan for how evidence of performance/metrics will become systemic in plans and processes, including identification and management of appropriate evidence/data, development of targets, tracking of trends and comparisons, development of timelines, and a discussion of how evidence/data will be analyzed for action and how action results will be checked for effectiveness.

• Core Component 5.D: 1. A plan and process for documenting evidence in the College’s operations, and evidence

that it learns from its operational experience and applies that learning to improve the College; and

2. A representative sample of processes/plans from key areas of the campus with appropriate metrics and a description of what the College learned from the evidence/data that was gathered, trended, compared, and analyzed. The sample will also include the decisions that were made as a result, including the metrics and timelines that were designed to help the College assess the effectiveness of the actions that flowed from the decisions.

The College will host a comprehensive evaluation no later than December 2018 to determine whether the College has ameliorated the findings of non-compliance that led to the imposition of Probation and the findings of Met with Concerns, and whether the College meets the Criteria for Accreditation, and to make a recommendation about whether to remove Probation or take other action. The Board will review the documents associated with the evaluation at its June 2019 meeting to determine whether the College has ameliorated the findings of non-compliance and has demonstrated that it is now in compliance with all Criteria for Accreditation and thus whether Probation shall be removed, or if the College has not ameliorated the findings of non-compliance and demonstrated compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation, whether accreditation should be withdrawn. The Board based its action to impose Probation upon the following findings made with regard to the College:

The College is out of compliance with Criterion Three, Core Component 3.A, “the institution’s degree programs are appropriate to higher education,” for the following reasons:

• The College has not completed a comprehensive program review since 2011-12 and there was no evidence indicating that program outcomes are aligned with what is currently being taught in courses;

• Over two summer terms, the College offered an 11-day accelerated term to assist student athletes and others in rapidly earning college credit, and it appears that the standard outcomes and syllabi for these courses were not modified to work into the accelerated term;

President Swender, July 17, 2017 4

• Accelerated courses were not in compliance with federal credit hour requirements; • Data for program and course review assessments were not provided and the team

could not find evidence that high quality programs were delivered regardless of the modality; and

• The College has not developed program-level outcomes that are utilized across course sections.

The College is out of compliance with Criterion Four, Core Component 4.A, “the institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs,” for the following reasons:

• The College could not provide evidence of quality educational programs: o Program outcomes are not aligned, evaluated or available for data-driven

decision-making; o A lapse of comprehensive program reviews lasted for more than five years; o A schedule for implementation of program review is not slated to begin until

2017-18 and be completed by 2020-21; and o Technical programs complete an annual report for the state agency with regard to

completion and credentials, but it is not focused on program outcomes. • With the lapse of comprehensive program reviews and data resulting from that

process, data-informed decisions about program quality, budget, hiring, resources, student needs and program sequencing have been limited;

• The College has policies for the awarding of credit, but failed to follow established policies and processes when allowing students to register for 11-day courses in two summer terms; and

• Advisory Boards were not engaged in evaluation and analysis of program outcomes.

The College is out of compliance with Criterion Four, Core Component 4.B, “the institution demonstrates a commitment to educational achievement and improvement through ongoing assessment of student learning,” for the following reasons:

• Without program-level outcomes, the College lacks an assessment program that measures, analyzes, and uses program-level assessment results for continuous program improvement;

• The College gathers course feedback from students, but course feedback does not provide sufficient information to assess student learning;

• Efforts to collect data are limited because of changing expectations, analysis is minimal and evaluation of changes made is at an early stage of the assessment cycle;

• Much of the data shared internally is focused on indirect assessments and does not yield information that would support claims that students are achieving learning outcomes; and

• Assessment information is not currently used to inform budgeting and planning efforts.

The College is out of compliance with Criterion Four, Core Component 4.C, “the institution demonstrates a commitment to educational improvement through ongoing attention to retention, persistence, and completion rates in its degree and certificate programs,” for the following reasons:

• The College lacks a formalized plan to address student success;

President Swender, July 17, 2017 5

• Efforts to improve persistence and completion are primarily assigned to student services personnel, with little faculty intervention; and

• Given the lack of program review, evaluation of student success across programs is not available for data-driven decision-making.

The College meets Criterion Five, Core Component 5.C, “the institution engages in systematic and integrated planning,” but with concerns for the following reasons:

• The College lacks a comprehensive strategic plan and a long-range facility plan; • At the time of the team evaluation, planning occurred within departments and was not

an institution-wide coordinated effort; • Ongoing leadership changes have negatively affected the College's ability to engage

in long-term planning; • The lack of program review and limited assessment activity limits the type of detailed

information that could be considered for planning purposes; and • Processes to develop a comprehensive College plan are not in place.

The College meets Criterion Five, Core Component 5.D, “the institution works systematically to improve its performance,” but with concerns for the following reasons:

• The College lacks processes to routinely evaluate its operations and develop strategies for improvement;

• Broad stakeholder involvement is absent from any evaluative activities; and • There was no evidence presented indicating that the College regularly reflected on

actions taken to determine if the appropriate decisions had been made.

The College has demonstrated that it is not in compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation and Federal Compliance requirements and should therefore be placed on Probation.

The Board action resulted in changes to the affiliation of the College. These changes are reflected on the Institutional Status and Requirements Report. Some of the information on that document, such as the dates of the last and next comprehensive evaluation visits, will be posted to the HLC website. At this time, the Commission will reassign the College from its liaison Dr. Karen Solomon to Dr. Eric Martin. Please be assured that Dr. Solomon will work with Dr. Martin to ensure a smooth transition. Information about the sanction is provided to members of the public and to other constituents in several ways. Commission Policy INST.G.10.010, Management of Commission Information, anticipates that the Commission will release action letters related to the imposition of a sanction to members of the public. The Commission will do so by posting this action letter on the Commission website along with the Statement of Affiliation Status and Organizational Profile. Also, the enclosed Public Disclosure Notice will be posted to the Commission’s website not more than 24 hours after you receive this letter. Commission policy INST.E.10.020, Probation, subsection Disclosure of Probation Actions, requires that an institution inform its constituencies, including Board members, administrators, faculty, staff, students, prospective students, and any other constituencies about the sanction and how to contact the Commission for further information. The policy also requires that an institution on Probation disclose this status whenever it refers to its Commission accreditation. The Commission will monitor these

President Swender, July 17, 2017 6

disclosures to ensure they are accurate and in keeping with Commission policy. I ask that you copy Dr. Martin on emails or other communications with campus constituents regarding the sanction as required and provide him with a link to information on your website and samples of related disclosures. In addition, Commission policy COMM.A.10.010, Commission Public Notices and Statements, requires that the Commission prepare a summary of actions to be sent to appropriate state and federal agencies and accrediting associations, and published on its website. The summary will include the Commission Board action regarding the College. The Commission will also simultaneously inform the U.S. Department of Education of the sanction by copy of this letter. On behalf of the Board of Trustees, I thank you and your associates for your cooperation. If you have questions about any of the information in this letter, please contact Dr. Martin. Sincerely,

Barbara Gellman-Danley President Enclosure: Public Disclosure Notice cc: Chair of the Board of Trustees, Garden City Community College Ryan Ruda, Vice President for Instruction and Student Services, Garden City Community

College Evaluation team chair Institutional Actions Council Hearing Committee chair Karla Wiscombe, Director of Academic Affairs, Kansas Board of Regents Eric Martin, Vice President and Chief of Staff, Higher Learning Commission Karen Solomon, Vice President for Accreditation Relations and Director of the Standard

Pathway, Higher Learning Commission Karen Peterson Solinski, Executive Vice President for Legal and Governmental Affairs,

Higher Learning Commission Herman Bounds, Accreditation and State Liaison, Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S.

Department of Education