Accrediting Commission
for
Community and Junior
Colleges
1
Elements of an Effective
Program Review for Integrated
Planning, Learning Outcomes,
and Assessment
Dr. Barbara Beno, President
Mr. Jack Pond, Vice President
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges/WASC
Capacity Building for Educational Excellence through Program Review
and Integrated Institutional Planning
West Valley College, April 29, 2011
2
Presentation Outline
Accreditation Basics
Commission requirements regarding program
review and integrated planning
An overview of the component parts of a viable
program review process
Concluding remarks
3
Accreditation Basics
4
The Purposes of Accreditation are:
To provide assurance to the public that education
provided by institutions meets acceptable levels of
quality
To promote continuous institutional improvement
To maintain the high quality of higher education
institutions in the region/nation
5
Continued
Accreditation is the proven method for assuring that
higher education institutions can continue to improve
and offer a quality education to the men and women
who will lead their communities in the future. By
establishing high standards and then periodically
evaluating themselves, colleges and universities can
provide a degree or certificate that students and the
community trust.
6
What Authority does ACCJC have
to Impose Standards on
Institutions?
The ACCJC and other regional accrediting bodies are
authorized to operate by the U.S. Department of
Education through the Higher Education Opportunity
Act for periods of five years
Accreditation from a U.S. Department of Educationrecognized accreditor, such as the ACCJC, enables
institutions to qualify for federal Title IV funds and
other federal grants and contracts
Accreditation is voluntary self regulation. Institutions
voluntarily agree to meet Accreditation Standards.
They give the Commission the requisite authority
7
Commission Requirements
Regarding Program Review and
Integrated Planning
8
Commission Requirements on
Program Review and Planning
The Commission expects institutions to be at the
Sustainable Quality Improvement level in Program
Review of instructional and non-instructional
programs and services
The Commission expects institutions to be at the
Sustainable Quality Improvement level in Planning
Source: Commission Rubric of June 25, 2009
9
Commission Requirements on
Student Learning Outcomes
The Commission expects institutions to now be at the
Development level or above in Student Learning
Outcomes, since these are the newest requirements
included in the Accreditation Standards
The Commission further expects institutions to be at
Proficiency level in the identification, assessment,
and use of improvements of student learning
outcomes by Fall 2012
Source: Commission Rubric of June 25, 2009
10
Elements of Effective
Program Review
11
Institutional Mission
District Mission
and
Expectations
Programmatic
Mission
Outcomes
Identify
Gaps
Design
Program
Changes
Inputs
Allocate
Needed
Resources
Analysis of
Outcomes
Assessment
Implement
Program
Process
Align
Resources
12
Outcomes
Student Achievement
Student Learning
13
Development of Student Learning
Outcomes
Course Level:
Discipline Faculty
Program Level: programmatic
faculty in the disciplines and external
clients (employers, transfer
institutions, & the public)
Institutional Level:
Faculty, Academic Administrators
Trustees
Through the
Mission, Values, and
Commitment
14
Institutional Mission
Programmatic Mission
Outcomes
Identify
Gaps
Design
Program
Changes
Inputs
Allocate
Needed
Resources
Analysis of
Outcomes
Assessment
Implement
Program
Process
Align
Resources
15
Program Implementation
Scheduling and sequence of courses
Alignment with general education courses
16
Assessment
Gather meaningful student achievement data
Measure attainment of student learning outcomes
Data are qualitative and quantitative
Data are longitudinal where appropriate
Outcomes data are continually collected and analyzed
17
Analysis of Outcomes
Understanding the meaning of the data collected
• Judgments about what is good enough must be made
• Institutional and system governance groups
must be informed
Some colleges collect data through the
district/system; others collect data independently
18
Gap Analysis
Comparison of actual outcomes with intended
or targeted outcomes.
What worked to attain intended outcomes?
What part(s) of the program needs to be changed
to attain intended outcomes?
19
Design Program Changes
To program and course outcomes
To inputs and processes
To human, physical, technological
and financial resources
Programmatic changes must be in line with mission
Planned changes must inform the process
of budget allocation
System consultation is pivotal
20
(Re)Allocate Needed Resources
• Results of program review are clearly and
consistently linked to the institutional planning
and resource (re)allocation processes
• Constituent groups on campus are
involved in the decision-making processes
• Board Governance decisions reflect institutional
priorities identified through assessment
District/system support necessary to ensure that
program review leads to meaningful
improvements at the college
21
Reallocate Needed Resources
•Program review and planning inform/direct
resource reallocation
District/system support necessary
to ensure that program review leads
to meaningful improvements at the college
22
Concluding Remarks
23
The Sustainable Continuous
Quality Improvement Level of
Program Review
Program review processes are ongoing, systematic,
and used to assess and improve student learning and
achievement; the Board is informed of successes and
needed improvements
The institution reviews and refines the program
review process to improve institutional effectiveness
The results of program review are used to continually
refine and improve program practices resulting in
improvements in student achievement and learning
24
Culture and Practices
of Assessment
Institutional Commitment
–
–
–
–
Program review
Institutional effectiveness
Information sharing
Systemic assessment
planning
– Common assessment
terminology
– Professional development
– Planning and resource
allocation
– Involvement and
support from
President
Faculty
Staff
Information technology
– Board support for CQI
25
Thank You
ACCJC/WASC
10 Commercial Blvd, Suite 204
Novato, CA 94949
Tel: 415-506-0234
Fax: 415-506-0238
Website: www.accjc.org
Email: accjc@accjc.org
26