The Accreditation
Team(s)
Judy Beachler, Cosumnes River College
Julie Bruno, Sierra College
Richard Mahon, Riverside City College
The Accreditation Team:
What is your college’s process for
establishing your Accreditation team? What
roles do existing college leaders play? Will
you be ready when your visiting team
arrives? How should you welcome your
visiting team and what can you do to
facilitate its ability to see your college as it
really is in just two and half days?
The Accreditation Team
Panel’s experience with accreditation and team visits
 Judy…
 Julie…
 Richard…
The Accreditation Team
What is your local process for building the selfevaluation/accreditation team?
 What roles will existing college committees and their
leaders and members play?
 What does the self-evaluation committee structure look
like?
 Who appoints the members and how?
The Accreditation Timeline
What is your timeline for the self-evaluation process,
including milestones along the way?
 Who reviews drafts? Do they receive drafts as
information or for approval?
 How are standards judged unmet addressed?
 How is the process managed so as to enhance local
processes and improve the college?
The Accreditation Team
What is your process for local input, for writing, and for
editing the self-study?
 What tips do you have on disseminating it to the
visiting team?
 Is there such a thing as “too much” evidence? Is a 500-
page self-evaluation document a good thing?
The Visiting Team’s Role
Team selection & training:
Professional peers, volunteers, offer independent
insights, judgment and evaluation
 Evaluates the institution using accreditation standards
 Confirms and finds evidence for the assertions in the
self study report against the standards
 Calls attention to weaknesses unrecognized by the
college itself

The Visiting Team…
Assures the Commission that the college has been
responsive to recommendations of previous visiting
teams
 Assures the Commission that the college has developed
sound evaluation and planning procedures to foster
improvement of student learning outcomes
 Encourages the college’s commitment to its continuing
pursuit of excellence

Expectations of Team Members
 Know ACCJC standards, eligibility requirements, and
pertinent policies
 Recognize the standards as the necessary minimum
conditions for high quality education
 Recognize the standards as statements of best practice
in higher education
 Understand that colleges are accredited using the
ACCJC standards rather than the regulations or
requirements of other groups
Expectations, continued
 Appreciate that peer review lies at the heart of the
accreditation process
 Remember that team members represent the
Commission
 Maintain objectivity and flexibility
 Rely on evidence in making judgments about the
college
 Maintain confidentiality
Before the Team Arrives on Campus
Develop a college culture around accreditation:





Kick off event to celebrate completion of self evaluation
Don’t wait for the visit to address deficiencies
Meet with campus groups to discuss possible meetings
Be prepared to showcase college achievements as well as
challenges to highlight as appropriate
The Self Evaluation steering committee is usually the
first to meet with the team, so be prepared to tell your
“story”
Logistical Needs of the Team
The Team Room






Comfortable and well organized (snacks are good too)
Evidence of preparation, paper, web and other
electronic resources
Prepare any “how to” guides for the team
Provide maps of the campus
Be sure the team room is conveniently located
What really happens in the team room?
Optimal Team Experiences
While on Campus
 Provide a variety of opportunities for engagement on
campus
 Structure discussions around the themes of dialogue,
SLOs, institutional commitments, evaluation,
planning, improvement, organization and institutional
integrity
 Arrange meetings with shared governance committees
 Allow time to walk around, observe classes, visit staff in
their offices
“Red Flag” Situations
 College members with “an agenda”; fellow team
members with “an agenda”: look for evidence and
follow the standards
 Tampering with the self-study (i.e., authors of the self evaluation report that
their work has been changed in the version sent to the team)
 Significant campus issues not reflected in the self study
 Campus constituency who report being excluded from
the self evaluation process
Post Visit Suggestions
 Don’t wait for the team report to address known
weaknesses
 Maintain focus on institutional quality, not compliance
 Develop a comprehensive and realistic plan for
addressing recommendations
 Address recommendations in the spirit of the
standards; don’t throw out what’s good to meet
Commission demands
Questions?