“You can do it!”
Effective Governance that
Addresses Accreditation
Deficiencies
(aka Getting Off Probation)
Facilitators
Curriculum and SLO Committee:
Sue Granger-Dickson, Bakersfield
College
Gary Williams, Crafton Hills College
Lesley Kawaguchi, Santa Monica
College, chair
Presenters
Maggie Taylor, Fresno City College
Allison Merzon, Cuesta College
Yolanda Bellisimo, College of Marin
Breakout Focus
When was your self-study conducted and
when were your visitations?
What were the areas of deficiency that
resulted in probation or warning?
How did you organize or what was done to
address the deficiencies?
What did you and your college learn and
what improvements in your process
resulted?
Fresno City College
Self-Study and Visit #1
October 2005 Application
Site visit October 25-27, 2005
Warning – Jan. 31, 2006
Participatory governance process
Program Review
Planning process, that includes
budgeting, program review,
technology/distance education, and
human resources planning
Deficiencies in Library Collections
Strategic plan
Some were recommendations from
previous visit
Progress Report
Due October 15, 2006
Site visit, October 31, 2006
Warning – January 31, 2007
Continue to work on:
Participatory governance
Program Review
Planning
Strategic plan
Met Deficiencies in Library
Collections
Progress Report
Due March 15, 2007
Site visit April 17, 2007
Removed from Warning –
June 29, 2007
Continue to work on:
Participatory governance
Human resources planning
Strategic plan
Met:
Program Review
Three areas of the planning process
Progress Report
Due October 15, 2007
No site visit
January 31, 2008 – ACCJC accepted
report
Midterm report – October 15, 2008
Addressing the deficiencies:
Administration support
Consultants hired for strategic plan
Revised Program Review process
College-wide committees have all
constituent groups
College Governance Council
College representation on District’s
facilities and strategic planning
committees
What did you learn?
Accreditation is continuous, not every 6
years
Planning should be continuous, with input
from all constituent groups
College processes continue even while
preparing progress reports and site visits.
Importance of Program Review to
planning and budget
Walk the talk
The Politics of Accreditation—
when three forces collide!
The college
ACCJC
The Department of Education
Self-study and visits
Midterm Report 2005 – visit 2006
Midterm Report 2006 – visit 2007
Placed on Warning Status – January 2008
Progress Report 2008/Visit – March 2008
Taken off Warning Status – April 2008
Site visit – Fall 2008
STATUS PENDING
Deficiencies?
Program Plan and Review Processes
were not sufficiently linked with
budgeting processes
Failure to meet Eligibility
Requirement-Administrative Capacity
(too many interims)
Addressing the deficiencies
Program Plan and Review Processes
– Budgets
Organization:
Worked through existing channels
(Planning and Budget, Accreditation
Steering Committee, Academic Senate)
Addressing deficiencies
Addressed deficiencies:
Evaluated current college practices and
ACCJC concerns
Developed college planning and
budgeting calendar
Detailed Cyclical planning and allocation
models (example)
Addressing deficiencies
Developed and began implementing program and
college level planning processes
Annual Program Plans (APPW) – KEY (example)
Comprehensive Plans
Board Goals
Unit/Cluster Plans
Prioritization Processes
Categorical Funds
Reporting/Informing Lines – Complete the Cycle
Addressing deficiencies
Administrative Capacity
Hired new administration
What did you learn?
ACCJC warnings get the district’s
attention and create motivation for change
Bad press; student fear
The development of processes and their
actual implementation are two different
things
Theoretical transparency of budget
allocation tied with planning
ACCJC does not care about shared
governance!
College of Marin
Self-study and visit
Self-study
2004-2005
Visits
2005
2006
2007
2008
Deficiencies
Warning:
Governance, accounting/fiscal,
planning, program review
Probation:
Program Review
What did you learn?
Student “houses” or pathways
explains what we learned and how
we have used this to prepare for our
next self-study
What’s improved?
We are so far ahead of the game this
time!
Conclusions
Common themes
Common issues
You can do it!