|
REVIEW OF ACCREDITATION UNDER SANCTION
Donald F. Averill, Ed.D.
When your college has
been placed on sanction by the Accrediting Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges (ACCJC), the Commission can impose three (3) sanctions:
issue warning; impose probation; and order show cause. Unless the sanction
is to deny accreditation, the college retains its accreditation status and
has a maximum period of two (2) years time to correct the deficiencies and
file a report to the Commission. Depending on the time that the sanction is
set, the reports will be due in October 15 for the January Commission
meeting and March 15, for the June Commission meeting. It is important for
the college to be open and honest with the community and your students about
your sanctions. Often your feeder schools do not understand and tell their
students you have lost your accreditation. It is up to you to maintain open
communications and assure that community that your institution is still
accredited.
All community colleges
that are members of ACCJC have agreed to abide by the Eligibility
Requirements (21) requirements and the Commission standards defined in four
areas: (see Accreditation Reference Handbook, August 2008, p.5)
·
Standard I: Institutional Mission and Effectiveness
·
Standard II: Student Learning Programs and Services
·
Standard III: Resources
·
Standard IV: Leadership and Governance.
It is expected that
each member college will continue to review these standards on a continuous
basis. Colleges that receive a full term of accreditation (six years) will
still prepare a written midterm report that will be sent to the commission.
Colleges establish an
Accreditation Steering Committee and appoint an Accreditation Liaison
Officer (ALO) when the self study report is prepared. It is important to
keep an accreditation review structure in place after the reaffirmation is
complete so that continuous review of the standards are woven into the
fabric of the planning, review, and evaluation of institutional
effectiveness.
California
community colleges have developed elaborate structures for dealing with
“collegial consultation “as defined under AB 1725. This is complicated by
the standards of accreditation that also expect colleges to have open
communication and dialogue about the direction of the institution. Many
colleges will have in excess of 40 campus committees to address these
expectations. It is important for the campus community to really think
through its infrastructure to address oversight and ensure that the process
is manageable and incorporates accreditation and state statute, and focuses
on campus needs.
Some member colleges
of the Commission are part of multi-college districts with a district
office. The Commission does not accredit districts; it accredits colleges.
With the exception of the Los Angeles Community College District, the
Commission usually visits all colleges in a district at the same time.
Specific standards under Standard IV B (Board and Administrative
Organization) address the responsibilities of the district and the board of
trustees. When a standard is not being met by the district, the
recommendation for correction is part of the college report. In responding
to the Commission through the Follow-up Report, the college needs to include
the district response to any recommendations directed to the district.
Since multi-college
districts are reviewed by separate teams, the district is asked to prepare a
“District Functional Map” that defines the responsibilities for the district
and the colleges particularly in areas of finance, human resources, planning
and other functions that are performed at both the district and the college
levels. Hopefully, this document has been reviewed at the college and there
is agreement on its implementation.
The Commission
represents member institutions from other states and territories, non-profit
and proprietary education communities. The standards are designed to serve
all members and are not expected to ensure compliance with individual state
standards or legislative mandates. The principles of some of the
organizational management concepts such as participatory governance are
embraced in the standards. Visiting teams will not be making recommendations
that address state standards or legislative mandates.
Federal Role in
Accreditation
Federal influence on
accreditation is something else. The United States Department of Education
(DOE) has continued to exert its influence on the accreditation process.
The major leverage for the DOE has been through its oversight of financial
aid. Because of abuses in this field, the accreditation reviews focus on
financial viability and procedures to validate those federal guidelines are
being met.
Following the Civil
Rights Act of the 1960s the federal government has taken an increasing role
in school accountability. This was first realized in funding for the
Vocational Education Act, now called Career Technical Education (CTE). In
recent years, the call for some measure of success for student learning in
higher education has been the focus of the DOE. The Bush administration
actually took steps to control the accreditation process and to ensure that
more specific accountability was obtained. This effort failed in the final
passage of the current Higher Education Act (HEA). Some educators thought
the new administration would soften the accountability movement. The exact
opposite has resulted since the new stimulus packages are being designed
with accountability guidelines to qualify for the funding. It is apparent
that accountability is here to stay.
It is also important
to note that the practices of looking at student learning outcomes, student
achievement, fiscal viability, planning and continuous improvement has been
embraced by all of the regional accrediting agencies. Most of those
regional groups are ahead of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges
(WASC) in this implementation.
How do Colleges Get in
Trouble?
Colleges are expected
to meet all the sub-standards that have been developed under the four (4)
major standard headings. A college can receive some level of sanction if
they are not meeting any of these sub-standards. However, there are some
general areas where colleges seem to be having more trouble. Generally,
these problems are grouped around planning, program review, and student
learning outcomes. Each of these elements was introduced in the accrediting
process at different times since the 1980s and colleges are still having
difficulty complying with these standards.
·
Planning –
The first attempts at establishing planning as a best practice was in the
1980s. This resulted in the development of educational master planning,
strategic planning, and facilities master planning. The latter document was
required by the state of California to seek facilities financing and in many
cases this has become the planning document for many colleges. There is no
defined process for developing educational master plans or strategic plans
in the Commission guides. What is expected is that the campus community
will have a dialogue about expectations and develop improvement plans based
on this dialogue.
·
Program Review
– Program review became an integral part of the accreditation review process
in the 1990s. There has always been an expectation that program review was
taking place, but the emphasis on accountability called for the regular
review of student achievement and the effectiveness of programs in meeting
student needs. This review was also expected to address the viability of
programs and allow for transition and services to the students in the event
that a program was to be discontinued. Later, the Commission focused these
standards on resource distribution and how the college was addressing
continuous improvement.
·
Student Learning Outcomes
– In 2002, the concept of student learning outcomes was introduced and
member colleges were expected to develop these outcomes at the course,
program and degree, level ( as identified in the Commission guides many
colleges refer to this as the institutional level) and to incorporate this
information into the process of institutional continuous improvement. No
specific guidelines are offered in developing this process except there is
expected to be a flow from course to program to degree level. Some programs
such as those aligned with career technical education may find that student
learning outcomes are defined easily as competencies required in the field.
While the standards do not specify level of learning, it would be expected
that an academic institution will take into account higher order learning
skills in the development of student learning outcomes. Some controversy
has been derived from the interpretation of Standard III.A.c.
“Faculty
and others directly responsible for student progress toward achieving stated
student learning outcomes have, as a component of their
evaluation, effectiveness in producing those learning outcomes.”
This standard has been
challenged by the collective bargaining units of the community colleges as
a bargaining prerogative subject to negotiation. The Commission does not
argue with this principle, but it has not shifted away from the standard
either. Member colleges of the Commission agree to abide by the standard
and at this time the standard is unchanged.
The 2002 version of
the Commission Standards realigned the former ten (10) standards and placed
new emphasis on the issue of institutional effectiveness. A review of
Standard I: Institutional Mission and Effectiveness identifies a need for
the constituents of the college to address a cyclical process for the
continuous improvement of the institution. This calls for the INTEGRATION
of the processes of:
PLANNING – PROGRAM
REVIEW – RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION – EVALUATION
AND RE-EVALUATION OF
THE PROCESS
·
Once
improvement plans have been fully implemented, evaluation of how well the
goals have been met ensues. Thus, the planning cycle is comprised of
evaluation, goal setting, resource distribution, implementation and
reevaluation.
·
When
colleges get cited for not meeting these standards there are specific
shortcomings that are important to note:
o
Usually, the college has not met the standard over the course of two or more
visits.
o
No
evidence exists that the processes have been integrated and that dialogue is
taking place within the college
o
There
is no evidence that constituent groups have been involved in or support the
process. Often this is aligned with issues that are outside the purview of
the accreditation process.
·
Compliance with the standards on planning, program review and student
learning outcomes is covered in a rubric identifying levels of
accomplishment from awareness to sustainable continuous quality
improvement. It is easy to see that these rubrics are stated in relation
to institutional effectiveness. The set of rubrics for these three trouble
areas has been included as an appendix to this paper. (See Rubric for
Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness Parts I – III Appendix A)
Dialogue and Themes
The ACCJC Guide to
Evaluating Institutions addresses dialogue and the themes established
for institutional review. What the Commission is seeking from member
institutions is a commitment to these themes. The Commission wants the
colleges to have reflective dialogue on
·
Institutional Commitment
·
Evaluation, Planning, and Improvement
·
Student Learning Outcomes
·
Organization
·
Dialogue
·
Institutional Integrity
To sustain this
commitment, a campus-wide dialogue is expected by all constituencies that
defines a model where they jointly agree on the direction of the
institution, develop a cyclical evaluation model that measures progress on
the institutional accomplishments, and leads to continuous improvement of
the college.
The governance
processes should be defined and integration efforts implemented for
planning, evaluation, and resource allocation based upon the use of data.
Once this occurs, the college needs to go another step and incorporate a
continuous review model.
An important element
of the dialogue and themes is the concept of review and change. All
processes including the governance model, program review, and the evaluation
processes need to be reviewed annually to determine if the college is
accomplishing its stated goals. Oversight must be a campus-wide effort and
include input from all constituent groups.
·
Establish an oversight team that provides for the broad representation of
all constituent groups.
·
Annually evaluate the collegial governance and consultation model for the
college and recommends changes.
·
Examine the program review evaluation data, student learning outcome data,
and other student achievement data to determine areas that the college needs
to improve.
·
Make
recommendations to the College Council and as appropriate to the Budget
Committee on priorities for available fiscal resources.
·
Work
with the college community to disseminate information on their findings to
the college constituencies and the broader public community.
(A copy of the
dialogue language from the Guide to Evaluating Institutions, August 2008
is attached as Appendix B)
Other Trouble Areas
There are
other areas where colleges are being sanctioned by the Commission or where
teams are specifically being trained to closely review these standards.
·
Distance Education
– The Commission has a separate guideline and policy for distance
education. Whenever a college has 50 percent or more of a degree or
certificate program being taught in this modality, there are two significant
requirements. (1) A substantive change needs to be filed with the
Commission; and (2) the college needs to ensure that the same rigor,
standards and services are available to the students in this modality that
are available to the traditional campus student.
·
International Programs
– Colleges are finding that they are working with the international
community and other providers of education. The college needs to ensure
that it is not providing its accreditation to these institutions without
proper review and approval by the Commission.
·
Financial Viability
– Increased review has been applied to the accreditation process to ensure
that the college is maintaining fiscal viability. This includes the
relationships at the district level in multi-college districts.
·
Board of Trustee Ethics and Governance
– More attention is being given in Standard IV on the involvement of the
Board of Trustees in contributing to the effectiveness of the college. Poor
application of ethics, micro-management, and absence of leadership to define
and maintain the effectiveness of the colleges can lead to sanction.
Format of the Focused
Report
Responses to the
recommendations are generally prepared by separate teams selected to work on
the visiting team evaluation report and sanction letter from ACCJC. There
needs to be a person who is charged with editing the report and ensuring
that it has continuity and clarity for the next visiting team. . The
overall report needs to meet the following requirements:
·
The
cover page needs to follow the recommended format of the Commission; All
Commission publications can be accessed at
www.accjc.org .
·
A
signature page needs to be developed that includes signatures of the
appropriate constituent leaders on campus as well as the district chancellor
and the board of trustee’s president.
·
The
report should start out describing the process that was used to prepare the
report including a description of all the constituencies involved in the
process.
·
A
response to each of the recommendations as described to the college in the
letter received from the Commission is required.
o
Describe the findings of the evaluation report that brought about the
recommendation.
o
Describe the action taken to respond to the recommendation.
o
Describe a plan of action for recommendations that will not be completed at
the time of the report submission
o
Link
your response to the accreditation standards that apply.
o
Talk
about results within the narrative of the report.
o
Prepare evidence and code that evidence in the report.
o
Have
the paper evidence available for the committee coded or arranged so it is
easy to find.
·
Indicate where and how the reader can access the evidence for each section
of the report. A coding system must be developed for the filing of
evidence.
(The Commission format for the Focused Visit report is attached as Appendix
C)
Individual Sections of
the Report
The college needs to
take the sanction seriously and work across campus constituencies to resolve
the issues. It is not always possible to have all the mitigations for
each of the recommendations completed by the October 15th or
March 15th date when the progress report has to be submitted.
However, you do need to complete the following:
·
Identify what you have to do to meet the standards that are referenced in
the recommendations.
·
Define the progress that has been made to meet the standards.
·
Define what has to be done to complete meeting the requirements.
·
Define the timeline when the campus will have completed this work.
When PPL is a
consultant working with the college’s committees and constituent groups on
the accreditation response, it will be reviewed by the consultant who will
work with the team leaders, the Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO), and the
assigned editor to ensure that the final document appropriately addresses
the sanction.
APPENDIX A
Accrediting Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges
Western Association of Schools and Colleges
Rubric for Evaluating Institutional
Effectiveness – Part I: Program Review
|
Levels of
Implementation |
Characteristics of
Institutional Effectiveness in Program Review
(Sample institutional
behaviors) |
|
Awareness |
• There is preliminary investigative dialogue at the institution
or within some departments
about what
data or process should be used for program
review.
• There is recognition of existing practices and models in
program review that make use of
institutional
research.
• There is exploration of program review models by various
departments or individuals.
• The college is implementing pilot program review models in a
few programs/operational units. |
|
Development |
•
Program review is embedded in practice across the institution
using qualitative and quantitative data to improve program
effectiveness.
• Dialogue about the results of program review is evident within
the program as part of discussion of program effectiveness.
• Leadership groups throughout the institution accept
responsibility for program review framework development
(Senate, Admin. Etc.)
• Appropriate resources are allocated to conducting program
review of meaningful quality.
• Development of a framework for linking results of program
review to planning for improvement.
• Development of a framework to align results of program review
to resource allocation.
|
|
Proficiency |
•
Program review processes are in place and implemented regularly.
• Results of all program reviews are integrated into
institution-wide planning for
improvement and informed decision-making.
• The program review framework is established and
implemented.
• Dialogue about the results of all program reviews is evident
throughout the institution as part of discussion of
institutional effectiveness.
• Results of program review are clearly and consistently linked
to institutional planning processes and resource allocation
processes; college can demonstrate or provide specific
examples.
• The institution evaluates the effectiveness of its program
review processes in supporting and improving student
achievement and student learning outcomes.
|
|
Sustainable
Continuous
Quality
Improvement |
•
Program review processes are ongoing, systematic and used to
assess and improve student learning and achievement.
• The institution reviews and refines its program review
processes to improve institutional effectiveness.
• The results of program review are used to continually refine
and improve program practices resulting in appropriate
improvements in student achievement and learning. |
Rubric for Evaluating Institutional
Effectiveness – Part II: Planning
|
Levels of
Implementation |
Characteristics of
Institutional Effectiveness in Planning
(Sample
institutional behaviors) |
|
Awareness |
• The college
has preliminary investigative dialogue about planning processes.
• There is recognition of case need for quantitative and
qualitative data and analysis in planning.
• The college has initiated pilot projects and efforts in
developing systematic cycle of evaluation, integrated planning
and implementation (e.g. in human or physical resources).
• Planning found in only some areas of college operations.
• There is exploration of models and definitions and issues
related to planning.
• There is minimal linkage between plans and a resource
allocation process, perhaps planning for use of "new money"
• The college may have a consultant-supported plan for
facilities, or a strategic plan. |
|
Development |
•
The Institution has defined a planning process and assigned
responsibility for
implementing it.
• The Institution has identified quantitative and qualitative
data and is using it.
• Planning efforts are specifically linked to institutional
mission and goals.
• The Institution uses applicable quantitative data to improve
institutional effectiveness in some areas of operation.
• Governance and decision-making processes incorporate review of
institutional effectiveness in mission and plans for
improvement.
• Planning processes reflect the participation of a broad
constituent base. |
|
Proficiency |
•
The college has a well documented, ongoing process for
evaluating itself in all areas of
operation, analyzing and publishing the results and planning
and implementing
improvements.
• The institution's component plans are integrated into a
comprehensive plan to achieve
broad educational purposes and improve institutional
effectiveness.
• The institution effectively uses its human, physical,
technology, and financial resources to
achieve its broad educational purposes, including stated
student learning outcomes.
• The college has documented assessment results and communicated
matters
of quality assurance to appropriate constituencies (documents
data and analysis of
achievement of its educational mission).
• The institution assesses progress toward achieving its
education goals over time
(uses longitudinal data and analyses).
• The institution plans and effectively incorporates results of
program review in all areas of
educational services: instruction, support services, library
and learning resources.
|
|
Sustainable
Continuous
Quality
Improvement |
•
The institution uses ongoing and systematic evaluation and
planning to refine its key processes and improve student
learning.
• There is dialogue about institutional effectiveness that is
ongoing, robust and pervasive;
data and analyses are widely distributed and used throughout
the institution.
• There is ongoing review and adaptation of evaluation and
planning processes.
• There is consistent and continuous commitment to improving
student learning;
and educational effectiveness is a demonstrable priority in
all planning structures and processes. |
Rubric for Evaluating Institutional
Effectiveness – Part III: Student Learning Outcomes
|
Levels of
Implementation |
Characteristics of
Institutional Effectiveness in
Student Learning Outcomes
(Sample institutional
behaviors) |
|
Awareness |
• There is preliminary, investigative dialogue about student
learning outcomes.
• There is recognition of existing practices such as course
objectives and how they relate to student learning outcomes.
• There is exploration of models, definitions, and issues taking
place by a few people.
• Pilot projects and efforts may be in progress.
• The college has discussed whether to define student learning
outcomes at the level of some courses or programs or degrees;
where to begin. |
|
Development |
•
College has established an institutional framework for
definition of student learning outcomes (where to start), how
to extend, and timeline.
• College has established authentic assessment strategies for
assessing student learning outcomes as appropriate to intended
course, program, and degree learning outcomes.
• Existing organizational structures (e.g. Senate, Curriculum
Committee) are supporting strategies for student learning
outcomes definition and assessment.
• Leadership groups (e.g. Academic Senate and administration),
have accepted responsibility for student learning outcomes
implementation.
• Appropriate resources are being allocated to support student
learning outcomes and assessment.
• Faculty and staff are fully engaged in student learning
outcomes development. |
|
Proficiency |
•
Student learning outcomes and authentic assessment are in place
for courses, programs and degrees.
• Results of assessment are being used for improvement and
further alignment of institution-wide practices.
• There is widespread institutional dialogue about the results.
• Decision-making includes dialogue on the results of assessment
and is purposefully directed toward improving student
learning.
• Appropriate resources continue to be allocated and fine-tuned.
• Comprehensive assessment reports exist and are completed on a
regular basis.
• Course student learning outcomes are aligned with degree
student learning outcomes.
• Students demonstrate awareness of goals and purposes of
courses and programs in which they are enrolled. |
|
Sustainable
Continuous
Quality
Improvement |
•
Student learning outcomes and assessment are ongoing, systematic
and used for continuous quality improvement.
• Dialogue about student learning is ongoing, pervasive and
robust.
• Evaluation and fine-tuning of organizational structures to
support student learning is ongoing.
• Student learning improvement is a visible priority in all
practices and structures across the college.
• Learning outcomes are specifically linked to program reviews. |
JP;DB: cg 8/2007
APPENDIX B
Dialogue
As the Commission
developed the current standards, it became evident that if an institution is
to ensure that its resources and processes support student learning and its
continuous assessment, as well as the pursuit of institutional excellence
and improvement, an “ongoing, self-reflective dialogue” must become central
to institutional processes. This dialogue, it was thought, should serve to
provide a college community with the means to integrate all of the elements
of the standards, resulting in a comprehensive institutional perspective
that would serve to verify integrity and “promote quality and improvement.”
Accordingly, the subtitle of the Introduction to the Accreditation Standards
is “Shaping the Dialogue.”
A dialogue is a group
discussion among “colleagues,” often facilitated, that is designed to
explore complex issues, create greater group intelligence and facilitate
group learning. The idea of “colleagues” is important; dialogue occurs where
individuals see themselves as colleagues. In order for the group to engage
in dialogue, individuals must suspend their own views to listen fully to one
another in order to understand each other’s viewpoints. Groups engaged in
dialogue develop greater insights, shared meanings and ultimately develop a
collective understanding of complex issues and how best to address them.
Dialogue improves
collective thinking. A practice of dialogue can have benefits for the
individual as well as the institution. Dialogue can help build
self-awareness, improve communication skills, strengthen teams, and
stimulate innovation that fosters effective change. Dialogues are powerful,
transformational experiences that lead to both personal and collaborative
action. Dialogue also allows controversial topics that may have in the past
become sources of disagreement and division to be explored in a more useful
context that can lead to greater group insight
The Standards
emphasize dialogue as a means for an institution to come to collective
understanding of what it means to be learning-focused in the context of a
particular institution’s history and mission, of what the meaningful student
learning outcomes at the program and institutional level should be, and on
how college resources and processes might be structured to support the
improvement of student learning.
Unlike debate,
in which most academicians are trained to seek to score points and to
persuade, the goal of dialogue is mutual understanding and respect. Dialogue
involves active listening, seeking to understand, giving everyone the
opportunity to talk, and trying not to interrupt. A conscious commitment to
engage in dialogue ensures that a group welcomes a range of
viewpoints during its search for effective ways of addressing important
issues. Retaining the use of a facilitator can help ensure that the ground
rules are maintained and can help clarify themes and ideas.
While dialogue may not
lead to a resolution of conflict, it can lead to a makeover of the way in
which the conflict is pursued from one which is destructive and divisive to
one which is constructive and leads to personal and institutional growth.
Too often on campus, we avoid certain controversial topics or we take a
perspective that leaves us in about the same place we started, with little
to no additional understanding of the issue. By assisting in the discovery
of common ground and by developing increased willingness to work collegially
to illuminate and solve problems, dialogue has the potential to improve an
college’s ability to deal with the inevitable disagreements that arise in
the life of an institution.
The focus in the 2002
Standards on learning outcomes calls for higher education institutions to
deal with a very complex issue, improving student learning. It also calls on
institutions to change–and to learn. Dialogue can be a powerful strategy for
generating the creative discussions and collective wisdom that can enable
institutional change.
Themes
Several themes thread
throughout these standards. These themes can provide guidance and structure
to self-reflective dialogue and evaluation of institutional effectiveness.
The themes are as follows:
Institutional
Commitments
The standards ask
institutions to make a commitment in action to providing high quality
education congruent with institutional mission. The first expression of this
is in Standard I, which calls for an institutional mission statement that
reflects the intended Student population and the institution’s commitment to
student learning. Throughout the standards, the Commission asks that
institutions insure the consistency between mission and institutional goals
and plans and insure that the mission is more that a statement of intention
— that it guides institutional action. The standards also ask that an
institution commit to supporting student learning as its primary mission.
The number of
references to student learning outcomes throughout the standards are
designed to guide this institutional commitment to student learning. The
standards’ requirement that the entire institution participate in reviewing
institutional performance and developing plans for improvement of student
learning outcomes is intended to help the institution sustain its commitment
to student learning. Finally, the requirement that an institution regularly
review its mission statement asks that the institution periodically reflect
on its mission statement, adapt it as needed, and renew commitment to
achieving the mission.
Evaluation, Planning,
and Improvement
The standards require
ongoing institutional evaluation and improvementto help serve students
better. Evaluation focuses on student achievement, student learning, and the
effectiveness of processes, policies, and organization. Improvement is
achieved through an ongoing and systematic cycle of evaluation, integrated
planning, implementation, and re-evaluation. The planning cycle begins with
evaluation of student needs and college programs and services. This
evaluation in turn informs college decisions about where it needs to
improve, and the college identifies improvement goals campus-wide. Resources
are distributed in order to implement these goals. When resources are
insufficient to support improvement goals, the college adjusts its resource
decisions to reflect its priorities or seeks other means of supplying
resources to meet its goals. Once improvement plans have been fully
implemented, evaluation of how well the goals have been met ensues. Thus,
the planning cycle is comprised of evaluation, goal setting, resource
distribution, implementation, and reevaluation.
Student Learning
Outcomes
The development of
Student Learning Outcomes is one of the key themes in these standards. The
theme has to do with the institution consciously and robustly demonstrating
the effectiveness of its efforts to produce and support student learning by
developing student learning outcomes at the course, program, and degree
level. This demonstration of effectiveness requires that learning outcomes
be measured and assessed to determine how well learning is occurring so that
changes to improve learning and teaching can be made. It requires that
faculty engage in discussions of ways to deliver instruction to maximize
student learning. It requires that those providing student support services
develop student learning outcomes and evaluate the quality of their
policies, processes, and procedures for providing students access and
movement through the institution. And it requires that student learning
outcomes be at the center of the institution’s key processes and allocation
of resources. Ultimately, this theme requires that an institution engage in
self-analysis leading to improvement of all that it does regarding learning
and teaching.
Organization
The standards require
colleges to have inclusive, informed and intentional efforts to define
student learning, provide programs to support that learning, and to evaluate
how well learning is occurring. This requirement means that the institution
must have in place the organizational means to identify and make public the
learning outcomes, to evaluate the effectiveness of programs in producing
those outcomes, and to make improvements. This requirement for adequate
staff, resources and organizational structure (communication and decision
making structures) is not new to accreditation standards, but the new
expectation is that these be oriented to produce and support student
learning. Consequently, they will be evaluated in part by how well they
support learning.
Dialogue
The standards are
designed to facilitate college engagement in inclusive, informed, and
intentional dialogue about institutional quality and improvement. The
dialogue should purposefully guide institutional change. All members of the
college community should participate in this reflection and exchange about
student achievement, student learning, and the effectiveness of its
processes, policies, and organization. For the dialogue to have its intended
effect, it should be based on reliable information about the college’s
programs and services and evidence on how well the institution is meeting
student needs. Information should be quantitative and qualitative,
responsive to a clear inquiry, meaningfully interpreted, and broadly
communicated. The institutional dialogue should result in ongoing
self-reflection and conscious improvement.
Institutional
Integrity
This theme deals with
the institution’s demonstrated concern with honesty, truthfulness, and the
manner it which it represents itself to all stakeholders, internal and
external. This theme speaks to the intentions of an institution as well as
to how it carries them out. It prompts institutional assessment of the
integrity of its policies, practices, and procedures and to how it treats
students, employees, and its publics. It asks that the institution concern
itself with the clarity, understandability, accessibility, and
appropriateness of its publications; that its faculty provides for open
inquiry in their classes as well as student grades that reflect an honest
appraisal of student performance against faculty standards. It has an
expectation of academic honesty on the part of students. It requires that
the institution demonstrate regard for issues of equity and diversity. It
encourages the institution to look at its hiring and employment practices as
well as to its relationship with the Commission and other external agencies.
Finally, it expects that an institution be self-reflective and honest with
itself in all its operations.
APPENDIX C
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior
Colleges
Western Association of Schools and Colleges
PREPARATION OF A FOLLOW-UP REPORT WITH
A VISIT
A Follow-up Report is a report requested by the
Commission for special purposes. It
can
occur at any time in the 6-year accreditation cycle. A
Follow-up Report requires that the institution provide information,
evidence, and analysis regarding the resolution of the recommendations to
which it was directed by the Commission's Action Letter. The institution's
report will be reviewed by the Commission at its next regularly scheduled
meeting and the institution will be notified as to what action, if any, it
must take next.
Visits accompanying Follow-Up Reports are normally one-day visits by a team
of two members, typically the chair of the comprehensive evaluation team
familiar with the issues confronting the institution and a member of the
Commission or Commission staff. The team is appointed by the Commission and
reviewed by the: institution in order to avoid potential conflicts of
interest. The purposes for the team conducting this visit arc to:
·
verify the accuracy and relevance of the report submitted by the college in
response to the
specific action of tile Commission;
determine the extent to which the institution now meets the Commission
standards cited in the recommendations;
report findings and recommendations to the Commission.
Follow-Un Report Format
The following format for the report should be used;
1.
Cover
Sheet - Include the date of submission, the name and
address of the institution, and a notation that this is a Follow-Up Report.
2.
Table
of Contents
3.
Statement of Report Preparation - The statement, signed by the Chief Executive
Officer of the institution, describes the process of report preparation and
identifies those who were involved in its preparation, review, and approval.
4.
.Response
to Team Recommendations and the Commission Action Letter - Each
recommendation identified by the Commission in its action letter should be
identified and discussed. The report should describe the resolution of each
recommendation, analyze the results achieved to date, provide evidence of
the results, and indicate what additional plans the institution has
developed.
5.
Governing Board Review - The Follow-Up Report must be reviewed by the
Governing Board prior to its submission.
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
Western Association of Schools and
Colleges
page 2
The institution is required to send three copies of its report to the
Commission plus an electronic version. The hard copies of the report should
be sent to the Commission's mailing address at:
10 Commercial Boulevard. Suite 204, Novato, CA 94949.
The electronic version of the report should be transmitted to
accjc@accjc.org .
A
copy should also be sent to each team member listed on the team roster who
will visit the institution. The date of tile visit is listed on the team
roster.
* Policy on the Rights and Responsibilities of ACCJC
and Member Institutions in the Accrediting Process. (Adopted January 2005)
Accrediting Reference Handbook.
|