OVERVIEW OF
2014 ACCREDITATION INSTITUTE
PRESENTED BY:
ACADEMIC SENATE OF CCC, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
ACCJC AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE LEAGUE OF CA (CCLC)
Mark Renner and Dave Bazard
General Session: “Remembering the Importance of Quality,
Accountability, and Student Success: Why Accreditation Matters”
Major “take-aways” (Mark/Dave):
• The cycle of “planning” / “doing” / “checking” (assessing) / “acting” should be a
continuous process, NOT one which we only think of in prep for our self study or midterm
• It is best if we institutionalize (in a committee?) this continual effort • There needs to be widespread awareness and evidence of our integrated planning
processes and how this ties to assessment, dialogue, budgeting, and student success .
Is this the case for all aspects of CR functions?
• Evidence of sustainable and effective processes. Evidence of review and evaluation of
budgetary and other decisions. Are all our budget decisions assessed?
Breakout Session: “Substantive Change Reports”
Major “take-aways” (Mark):
• Dr. Susan Clifford: “U.S. Dep’t. of
Ed. requirements re: Substantive
Change are very definitive; ACCJC’s
latest focus is on D.E.”
• Council of Regional Accrediting
Commissions – ACCJC sub. change
process is similar to other
accreditors’ processes;
• July 2013 Substantive Change
Manual (ACCJC) must be followed
VERY rigorously;
• Sections 4 & 5 can be used as
templates for this work; section
4.2.1 is especially important;
• A D.E. sub.change might lead us to
modify our mission statement (to
include D.E.); if so, this must also be
included in the sub.change proposal;
• Section 5.3 shows how student
achievement data and SLO data must
be included in the sub.change
proposal;
• In summary, a D.E. sub.change
proposal is very rigorous; should be
viewed much like a 6-year selfevaluation study in rigor; shall
demonstrate all 21 E.R.’s and all
Standards; evidence-driven
• LACC’s proposal (which we now
have) is an excellent guide.
General Session: “Overview of the
Revised Accreditation Standards”
Major “take-aways” (Mark):
• New standards move away from
California standards and move
toward Federal standards;
• Goals of the new standards:
• Reordering to yield a more
logical sequence;
• Requirements for
institutions with
baccalaureate degrees;
• Elimination of overly
prescriptive sections;
• Reduction of redundancy;
• Clarification of intent
• Feedback through Apr. 30
New Areas (Dave):
• Evidence of scheduling that allows students
to complete degrees and certificate in a
stated timeframe.
•
Meet new standard about co-curricular and
athletics programs.
•
Evidence that we define and advise students
on clear pathways to degrees and
certificates.
• Evidence that faculty (and others?) evaluated
in terms of the employee to effectively
produce learning - controversial and under
discussion
Breakout Session: “Strategies to Institutionalize
the Accreditation Standards”
Major “take-aways” (Mark):
• We should build a small leadership
group (a working group) to work
continually on all Standards; group
membership likely to include:
• ALO;
• Faculty co-chair;
• Acad. Senate leadership;
• Researcher;
• Other “data people”
• Locate evidence and store in a
central place; evidence to support:
• All standards;
• The “institution story”
• Instruct teams to approach this like a
science report:
• Lay out the evidence;
• Know the conclusion; i.e., the
“institution story”;
• Write with “one voice”;
• Make a reasonable schedule
and stick to it;
• Stagger due dates so
deliverables don’t all come due
at same time
• Maxim: NEVER make a visiting team
search for evidence/data !!
General Session: “Emerging topics in Accreditation”
Major “take-aways” (Mark):
• Greater emphasis on data in
Std. 1;
• Will likely see templates which
we can use (for standardization);
• Mid-term reports to change due
to 2-year Dept. of Ed. rule;
• Less focus on procedures &
more on results;
• Greater focus on information;
• Emphasis on using data to see if
mission is being met;
• More emphasis on student &
disaggregated data;
• D.E. authentication to be a big
focus
Major “take-aways” (Dave):
• Academic quality is showing up in new
standards (data documented)- document
student learning and achievement
(culture of evidence).
ACCJC Comment (and others) – Accreditation
is becoming more interested in “results” and
what an institution “is doing” . Not just
procedure and process anymore.
Breakout Session: “Standards for student achievement
– the new emphasis for accreditation”
Major “take-aways” (Dave):
Institutions must set standards and measure achievement for:
• Course completion rate
• Student retention percentage
• Number of Degrees
• Number of Certificates
• Number of students who transfer
There was considerable discussion about how schools set these standards – there
should be appropriate input from all constituents (a 10+1 issue).
If levels are set too low, they may be viewed as “unreasonable” by ACCJC. If set
too high, they may be unattainable and indicate school is not achieving objectives.
Has CR set these standards? If so, how and by whom? Are they realistic?
Breakout Session: “D.E. Accreditation Issues”
Major “take-aways” (Mark):
• In 2011, 65% of CA institutions surveyed felt D.E. was crucial to their
long-term strategy;
• All student support services need to be available in a fully online format;
• Student Authentication to become much more rigorous;
• Higher Ed Opportunity Act (HEOA): “Authentication must be driven by an
institutional policy, not by individual faculty choices”;
• Examples:
• College CMS (“LMS”);
• Proctored assessment;
• CMS log-in tying to Student Code of Conduct;
• Academic integrity in D.E. training;
• Plagiarism detection software