Continuous Improvement for Student Success


continuous improvement for student success includes plan, execute, analyze and reflect phases of continuous improvement with connect, prepare, engage, learn, achieve, and thrive phases pf student success pathway..

All plans, governance and decision-making policies, procedures, and processes at Kapi‘olani Community College undergo continuous improvement. The cycle of planning, execution, analysis and reflection are iterative and aligned with our institutional goals and plans for student success. This page provides an overview of the Kapi‘olani Community College’s Integrated Planning model and highlights our key processes for continuous improvement.


Kapi‘olani CC Integrated Planning for Student Success Model

Integrated Planning Model.

click to enlarge

The Integrated Planning for Student Success (IPSS) Model visually captures the College’s process for data-informed decision making for continuous improvement. The process is grounded in inclusivity, transparency and accountability.

The College’s purpose is described through our Values, Vision, Mission and Institutional Pillars and actionable through the Chancellor’s priorities, Strategic Directions (from the UH and UHCC System) and the College’s Strategic Plan, which lists outcomes and measures for each item. 

There are three main evaluative processes for continuous improvement at the College. To address the items in the Strategic Plan, the College uses the Student Success Pathway Plans to track goals and action plans from over 100+ areas across the College (See CI + SSPs). Concurrently, the College tracks student learning outcomes assessment on the course, program, and institutional level for academic student success (See CI + CLRs and CI + ARPD). These processes track progress through the Continuous Improvement Cycle: Plan, Execute, Analyze, and Reflect. The data and analysis of the data are used to inform institutional planning and resource allocation.

Guiding Documents: AGOs, Councils, and Plans

AGOS and Councils are guided by charters, by-laws, and consitutions. The leaders of these entities, along with Plan administrators, completed Continuous Improvement reports during the initial iteration of the Continuous Improvement process. These reports reflect findings based on data collected via surveys and were used to help inform the Plan phases of the next CI cycle. CI reports are now obsolete, as their functionality has been integrated into the “Analyze” and “Reflect” phases of the CI + SSP.

View guiding documents and CI reports for AGOs, Councils, and Plans


Continuous Improvement Student Success Pathway Plans 3.0

In 2016, the College launched the Student Success Pathway Plans. Each department, program, unit, Authorized Governance Organization (Faculty Senate, Student Congress, ‘Aha Kalāualani, and Staff Council), College Council (such as Chancellor’s Advisory Council), Campus Plan, and Continuing and Community Education, creates goals and action plans to improve student success and to address the performance measures and outcomes in the College’s 2015-2021 Strategic Plan. In addition, the Chancellor has the option to request that departments focus on specific measures to increase performance in targeted areas.  

View the CI + SSP Dashboard The dashboard displays live updates and the most current data for continuous improvement toward student success across Authorized Governance Organizations (AGOs), Councils, Plans, and Departments. Click on the tab at the bottom of the spreadsheet to view data by category.


Continuous Improvement for Course Learning Reports (CLRs)

The Course Learning Reports (CLRs) are used by course coordinators (or the individual responsible for collecting assessment data for a course) to assess student learning outcomes for each course. In the CLR, there is a list of the student learning outcomes for the course, a description of the assessment strategy, resources needed and the benchmark or specific level of performance expected as a point of reference by which performance is measured. The CLR includes a section of curricular alignment, showing how the course student learning outcomes align with general education, program and institutional learning outcomes. Assessment results across all levels are analyzed and the data used to inform next steps to improve student learning.

All student learning outcomes for each course are to be assessed in a five-year cycle (2019-2024) with 20% of courses to be assessed each year. Completed CLRs are found in the CLRs Department Folders in the Course Learning Assessment Team Drive.

Get a copy of the CI + CLR form
CI + CLR Instructions (includes text, images and link to video walkthrough)


Continuous Improvement for the Annual Report of Program Data (ARPD)

Academic, Academic Support and Student Services Programs are assessed annually using data from the UH Community College system on program quantitative indicators in 5-6 areas: Demand, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Distance, Perkins (if, applicable), and Performance. These data are used to indicate overall program health. Programs analyze the data and program learning outcomes results to complete the Annual Report of Program Data (ARPDs), which is posted on the ARPD webpage. Administrative Services, CELTT, and Continuing and Community Education are responsible for tracking their own data.

The CI + ARPD form was created to ensure that programs use student learning outcome results at the course level to assess program learning outcomes for the purpose of making program improvements. Administrative services and several areas in student affairs monitor the assessment of service area outcomes (SAOs) results for the purpose of program improvement. The CI + ARPD form also tracks requests for resources for program improvements and the impact of the resource allocation in subsequent program outcomes assessment.

Access the CI + ARPD Form
View the CI + ARPD Timeline and Process


The Planning and Assessment Integration with Resource Allocation (PAIR) process is a multilayered review of the budget and requests for resources based on data from SSPs and ARPDs. Campus stakeholders identify needed resources in several ways: in the CI + CLR, which includes course learning outcomes assessment data; in the CI + ARPD, which includes program learning outcomes assessment data; and in the CI + SSP, which includes action plans aligned with the student success pathway. Requests are submitted in an Allocation Request Form, which goes through various levels of review and prioritization. 

Based on review of the prior process, the College made key changes to the resource request and allocation process to ensure that the allocation of resources is explicitly tied to data analysis leading to program improvement and to emphasize internal dialogue and prioritization prior to broader communication through campus-wide presentations.

1.         Change in ranking procedure. Once departments, units, or programs submit requests for additional resources, each Authorized Governance Organization (AGO) ranks the requests using the Resource Prioritization Rubric, adapted from San Diego City College, with additional measures specific to each AGO. Subsequently, the Budget Committee, which includes two representatives from each AGO and two representatives from Chancellor’s Advisory Committee (CAC), ranks the requests using the Resource Prioritization Rubric. The AGO process ensures that each constituent group on campus has a voice. Conversely, the Budget Committee evaluates the requests from an institutional perspective. After discussing and ranking the requests, the Budget Committee makes recommendations to the CAC, where they are discussed, voted on, and a recommendation is submitted to the Chancellor for her review and approval. The Chancellor informs the campus of her final decision in a memo to the members of the CAC and in an announcement in the campus daily bulletin before the end of the spring semester.

2.         Change in presentation format. Instead of a Town Hall meeting where individual requesters make a case for a resource need in front of the Authorized Governance Organizations (AGOs), the chancellor, vice chancellors, and deans presented the prioritized list of resource requests at a campus-wide meeting on February 20, 2020, to show how these requests address program improvements informing institutional plans and initiatives.

3.         Change in reporting procedure. After resources are allocated, the department, unit, or program that receives the funding is required to report on the effectiveness of the funding to improve the program or service.

This process ensures full campus participation. The departments, units, and programs vet and discuss resource requests with deans and vice chancellors. The students, faculty, staff, and Native Hawaiians are represented through their respective AGOs. These discussions culminate with a vote through the CAC, giving each group represented earlier in the process one more review. If the Chancellor approves an allocation of resources, funding for the request is provided the subsequent fall. At the end of that fiscal year, the recipient of the funding is required to report on the results of the funding based on data. If the Chancellor disapproves an allocation of resources, she provides a justification for her decision in a memo to the CAC.

Schedule of Policy Revisions for Continuous Improvement

Please refer to the Policies and Plans page for current versions.


Policy #

Policy Name

Date Created

Date Review

K 1.112

Participation in College Decision-Making Processes

February 13, 2020

February 13, 2025

KOP 1.111

Planning and Assessment Integration with Resource Allocation

January 31, 2017

January 31, 2022

K 1.100

Policy on the Policy Development Process

September 26, 2017

September 26, 2022

K 1.201

Shared Governance Policy

April 3, 2018

April 3, 2023

K 4.200

Institutional Mission

January 16, 2004, March 23, 2017

March 23, 2022

K 5.201

Curriculum Review Guidelines and Timeline

June 23, 2015

June 23, 2020

K 5.202

Review of Established Programs

June 23, 2015

June 23, 2020

K 9.104

 Lecturer Evaluation Process

February 13, 2020

February 13, 2025

K 9.203

Faculty Five-Year Review Procedures

August 8, 2018

August 8, 2023

K 9.495

Vacancy Procedure

May 3, 2018

May 3, 2023

Skip to toolbar