Orientation to the Accreditation
Internal Evaluation (Self-Study)
Flex Activity
March 1, 2012
Lassen Community College
Topics to be Covered
Accreditation Overview
Lassen Community College History
Format of the Internal Evaluation (Self- Study)
Components of the Internal Evaluation (Self-Study)
Four Standards of Good Practice
Timeline
Resources
Accreditation Overview
What is Regional Accreditation?
Regional Accreditation is a time-tested model of
professional peer review that supports education
excellence.
Accreditation is a voluntary process of quality
review that institutions agree to undergo
periodically.
The accrediting commission with responsibility for
accreditation in various regions are legally
recognized by the federal government.
How is Accreditation Review
Conducted?
There are four phases of the accreditation process:
» internal evaluation
» external evaluation by professional peers
» Commission evaluation
» institutional self-improvement
The accreditation process involves a six year cycle.
Internal Evaluation (Self-Study)
The institution engages in comparing itself to
Accreditation Standards, writes an internal
evaluation report, develops its own plans for
improvement where needed, and submits the
written analysis to the Accrediting Commission.
Peer Review
At the second phase, a trained team of education
professional peers from member institutions
conducts an external institutional evaluation. The
external evaluation team, all volunteers, visits the
institution, examines the institutional internal
evaluation, examines institutional practices, and
writes an evaluative report with recommendations
for improvement.
Regional Accrediting Commission
Action
The third phase occurs when the members of the
regional accrediting commission evaluate all the
information and make the decision on the
accredited status of the institution.
The Commission may also provide
recommendations and direction for institutional
improvement in areas where improvement is
needed.
The ACCJC reviews institutional cases at meetings
in January and June of each year.
Self- Improvement
Whether the institution meets the current
Accreditation Standards or not, the fourth phase is
about self-improvement and each institution uses
the recommendations of the external evaluation
team and the Commission to guide changes that
make their educational quality better.
Lassen Community College
Accreditation History
1996-2006
June 1996 – College placed on Probation (four
recommendations)
June 1997 – College elevated to Warning
June 1999 - College removed from Sanctions
June 2002 – Accreditation Re-affirmed following SelfEvaluation (three recommendations with Progress
Report)
June 2004- Progress Report Accepted
June 2005 – Focused Midterm Report Accepted with
Progress Report documenting progress on two of the
original three recommendations identified in 2002.
June 2006 – Commission identified major issues and
scheduled a Special Visit
July 2006 - Special Visit
2006-2008
August 2006 – College placed on Warning (twenty-one
specific recommendations with a November Progress
Report)
January 2007 – College placed on Probation (seventeen
remaining recommendation with a March Progress
Report and Site Visit)
June 2007 – College continued on Probation (ten
remaining recommendation with a October Progress
Report and Site Visit)
January 2008 - College continued on Probation(seven
remaining recommendation with a October Progress
Report and Site Visit)
March 2008 – Site Visit by Evaluation Team for 2008
Self- Study
2008-2012
June 2008- College continued on Probation (eight
remaining recommendations with a Follow-up Report
and Site Visit)
January 2009-College place on Warning (three
remaining recommendations with a March Follow-up
Report and Site Visit)
June 2009 – College continued on Warning (two
remaining recommendations with a October Follow-up
Report and Site Visit)
January 2010 – College removed from Sanctions
(reminder of Midterm Report due March 2011)
June 2011- Midterm Report Accepted (Self Evaluation
due Fall 2013 with Site Visit March 2014)
October 2011 – Self-Evaluation Training Workshop
March 2012 – Orientation Training for Self -Evaluation
Internal Self Evaluation
Format of the Internal Evaluation
Introduction
Organization of Self Evaluation Process
Organizational Information
Certification of Continued Institutional Compliance
with 20 Eligibility Requirements.
Responses to Recommendations from the Most
Recent Educational Quality and Institutional
Effectiveness Review (Self Evaluation) – eight
recommendations
Structure of the Institutional Analysis (Standards)
Analysis of Each Standard
The following three elements should guide the
structure of the analysis of each of the Standards:
Descriptive Summary
Self Evaluation
Actionable Improvement Plans
Descriptive Summary
What is?
A concise factual description of the current status
of the college relevant to the subcomponent of the
standard.
Self Evaluation
How is it working?
An analysis supported by documentation of the
current status of the college relevant to the
subcomponent of the standard.
An analysis of how the description meets the
standard.
Nearly every statement should have documentation
Not opinion
Actionable Improvement Plans
Specific actions that the institution plans to take to
improve status related to the subcomponent of the
standard.
Not keep doing what we are doing
“None” is appropriate if the analysis supports that
the subcomponent is being met
The institution must track and report on every
actionable improvement plan for the next six years.
Commission Requirements for
Evidence
Student Achievement Data
Evidence of Student Learning Outcomes and
Assessment of Outcomes
Evidence of Quality Program Review
Evidence of Quality Student Support Services
Evidence of Financial Performance and Integrity
Evidence of Compliance with other Areas Related
to Federal Requirements.
» Distance Education and Correspondence Education
» Public Information
» Campus Sites
Accreditation Standards
The ACCJC Accreditation Standards consists of
four fundamental standards, each divided into
subsections, that describe the best practices for
education quality and institutional
effectiveness.
Standard I
Institutional Mission and
Effectiveness
Mission
Improving Institutional Effectiveness
Standard I: Institutional Mission and
Effectiveness
A. Mission
The institution has a statement of mission that defines the
institution’s broad educational purposes, its intended student
population, and its commitment to achieving student
learning.
1. The institution establishes student learning programs
and services aligned with its purposes, its character, and its
student population.
2. The mission statement is approved by the governing
board and published.
3. Using the institution's governance and decisionmaking processes, the institution reviews its mission
statement on a regular basis and revises it as necessary.
4. The institution’s mission is central to institutional
planning and decision making.
Standard II
Student Learning Programs and
Services
Instructional Programs
Student Support Services
Library and Learning Support Services
Standard III
Resources
Human Resource
Physical Resource
Technology Resources
Financial Resources
Standard IV
Leadership and Governance
Decision-making Roles and Processes
Board
Administrative Organization
Themes
In addition to the standards, the institution
must also address six themes separately or
throughout the self evaluation.
Institutional Commitment
The standards ask institution’s to make a
commitment in action to providing high
quality education congruent with
institutional mission.
The standards’ requirement that the
entire institution participate in reviewing
institutional performance and developing
plans for improvement of student
learning outcome is intended to help the
institution sustain it’s commitment to
student learning.
Evaluation, Planning and
Improvement
The standards require ongoing
institutional evaluation and improvement
to 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.
Student Learning Outcomes
The development of student learning outcomes is
one of the keys themes in the standards.
Learning outcomes must be measured and
assessed to determine how well learning is
occurring so that changes to improve learning and
teaching can be made.
The faculty must engage in discussions of way to
deliver instruction to maximize student learning.
Those providing student support must develop
student learning outcomes and evaluate the
quality of their policies, processes, and
procedures for providing students access and
movement through the institution.
Student learning outcomes are required to be at
the center of the institution’s key processes and
allocation of resources.
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.
Dialogue
The standards are designed to facilitate
college engagement in inclusive, informed
and intentional dialogue about
institutional quality and improvement.
All members of the college community
should participate in reflection and
exchange about student achievement,
student learning, and the effectiveness of
the college’s processes, policies, and
organization.
Institutional Integrity
Institution’s demonstrated concern with
honesty, truthfulness, and the manner in
which it represents itself to all
stakeholders, internal and external.
Timeline
Spring 2012
March 1, 2012 – Orientation Meetings for
each Standard
Initial Standard Meetings
Identification of Standard Chairs
Assignment of Areas of Responsibility
Gather Evidence
Identify Tasks for
Completion/Improvement
May 2012 – Selection of Internal
Evaluation Accreditation Chair
Fall 2012
Standard Meetings to Monitor Progress
Write initial drafts for each subsection of
each Standard
Gather Evidence to support statements
(Electronic)
Completion of tasks (program review,
student learning outcome assessments,
planning)
Spring 2013
Refine Draft Sections of Internal
Evaluation
Compile Additional Evidence
May 2013 – Completion of Draft Internal
Evaluation
Fall 2013
August through October – Constituent
Group Review of Internal Evaluation
November – Governing Board Approval of
Internal Evaluation
December - Submit Internal Evaluation
to ACCJC
Spring 2014
February – Final Preparation for Team
Visit
March 2014 - Peer Evaluation Team Visit
June 2014 – Accrediting Commission
Action on Internal Evaluation and
Evaluation Team Report
July 2014 – Receipt of Action Letter
Resources
ACCJC Website – www.accjc.org
Accreditation Reference Handbook
Manual for Institutional Self Evaluation
Guide to Evaluating Institutions
Guide to Evaluating Distance Education
and Correspondence Education
College Website