Reclaiming our Profession
&
Our Students
THE FACULTY’S ROLE IN
ACCREDITATION
GREG GILBERT
Session Description

Session III Workshops 8:30am – 11:30am

(3I) Empowering Faculty through the Accreditation Process

For all attendees. The regional accreditation process has had a significant impact on
colleges and universities for the past century. This workshop will provide a brief
history of accreditation in the U. S. and will describe the process which precedes and
follows an accreditation site visit. A major focus will be placed upon the role of faculty
in the accreditation process. The workshop will also examine methods to encourage
faculty to participate in this process with particular emphasis on the California
Community College system and will conclude with a discussion of two case studies.
Once upon a time . . .
 NOT SO VERY LONG AGO . . .
The world of higher education was shaped
by the professoriate.
Are those days gone forever?
The declining authority of faculty
within academe
 Today, of 133 regional accreditation commissioners,
nation-wide, only 10 are designated as faculty, 18-20 if
you count California’s regional accreditors. Nationally,
tenure levels have dropped to about 30 percent. The lack
of a faculty presence in regional accrediting when
combined with our declining tenure rates suggest that
the faculty’s ability to represent the decisions being
made within its own profession is in a dramatic
downward spiral.
Texas Messes with Education
During George W. Bush’s Presidency, Texas businessman Charles Miller,
designer of No Child Left Behind, worked with Education Secretary Margaret
Spellings on her Future of Education Commission and produced copious
documents alleging that because of academic freedom and adherence to local
missions, universities had fostered a decline in institutional accountability and
public oversight. Furthermore, the Spellings Commission asserted that tenure
had become a costly, inflexible system dedicated to the protection of job security.
Had the Bush/Miller/Spellings vision of market-driven accountability and a
federalized system of higher education prevailed, colleges and universities
would have been reduced to legions of untenured faculty, and a proliferation of
bright line indicators would be leading directly to Washington DC.
ME!
GREG
GILBERT
•1987-1995: Full-Time English Lecturer California State University, San Bernardino
-
Coordinated Basic Writing
-
-
Holistic Grading; Portfolio Assessment (authentic assessment)
Faculty Advisor Graduate English Journal
Graduate TA Program Coordinator
Lecturer Rep to Academic Senate
University Coordinator Weekend Institute for the Inland Area Writing Project
•1995-Present: English Professor Copper Mountain College, Joshua Tree, CA
-
1996-1999: Stepping Stones Language Arts Portfolio (K-14) & 12 PQRs
1995-Present: Foundation Board; Third Term as Executive Committee Member (Secretary)
2001-06; 4 terms as Academic Senate President
2008-11: Division Chair, Communication & Fine Arts
2008-11: Student Learning Outcomes Coordinator
•2000-2004: Member Morongo Unified School District Board (1 term as Board President)
•2003-2007: Executive Committee, Academic Senate for California Community Colleges
-
Secretary
Chair: Curriculum; Accreditation; Ed Policies; Standards & Practices; Research; Resolutions
Institutes: Curriculum 2005; Accreditation 2007
Papers: 15 Senate papers, including several on outcomes based accountability
•2006-2013: Member AAUP National Committee on Accreditation
The Story
 Synopsis: Against a backdrop of competing
ideologies and powerful interests, a small,
rural community college struggles to define
itself and chart its own course.
 Cast of Players:
 Founders and Other Idealists
 Federalization and Money
 Accreditation
 The Chancellor & the California System
 Faculty and Extras (Administrators, Trustees)
54.08 Miles; 1 Hour, 3 Minutes
1968-1983
Founders and Other Idealists
“Building the Future”
Home Grown
 Recognized by President Reagan in 1984 as
the "Community College Built By The
Community," CMC's initial construction was
built entirely by local, private funds solicited
by the Foundation, then known as the Friends
of CMC.
The Little College that Could
(Pictured at left receiving
the "President's Volunteer
Action Award" are
Howard Van Elgort and
Kay Vilott, 1984)
Copper Roofs
A College Grows Out of the Desert
Copper Roofs
New Multi-Use Building
Accredited Under the Old Standards
(1999/2000)

(1) Mission and Purposes,

(2) Institutional Integrity,

(3) Educational Programs,

(4) Student Support Services,

(5) Information and Learning Resources,

(6) Faculty and Staff,

(7) Financial Resources,

(8) Physical Resources,

(9) Governance and Administration, and

(10) Institutional Effectiveness.
Me Again
 K-12 Program Quality Reviews (12 PQRs)
 Stepping Stones Portfolio System (200 + teachers agree
that assessment is good and accept the plan)
 The state and feds offer resources and encouragement to
help teachers build their own local measures
 No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
 Morongo Unified School Board (a board united in
opposition to NCLB, but then there was the matter of
declining enrollments)
The Academic Senate Visits CMC
 Assembly Bill 1725
 In 1989 AB 1725 was signed by the Governor and moved the
colleges away from their K–12 roots, raised minimum
qualifications for faculty, extended probation for new faculty
members from two to four years, strengthened faculty evaluation
through mandated peer review, and established expectations and
funding streams for faculty professional development and
curricular innovation.
Ten-Plus-One
 Academic and professional matters:











1. Curriculum, including establishing prerequisites.
2. Degree and certificate requirements.
3. Grading policies.
4. Educational program development.
5. Standards or policies regarding student preparation and success.
6. College governance structures, as related to faculty roles.
7. Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation processes.
8. Policies for faculty professional development activities.
9. Processes for program review.
10. Processes for institutional planning and budget development.
11. Other academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon.
Minimum Conditions, as established byTitleV of the California Code of
Regulations and the Education Code:
 75/25:
 In section 35 of AB 1725 the Legislature provided a strong
requirement to increase the ratio of full-time to adjunct faculty in
community colleges to 75 percent of the hours of credit
instruction.
 Fifty Percent Law:
 A statute that affects the fiscal operation of California
community colleges. The Fifty Percent Law (Education Code
84362) requires "there shall be expended each fiscal year for
payment of salaries of classroom instructors by a community
college district, 50 percent of the district's current expense of
education."
The Education Code
and Title 5 specify the following:
1.
The academic senate HAS PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY
for making recommendations in the area of curriculum and
academic standards [Ed. Code '70902(b)(7)]. This right is
protected as a minimum standard set by the Board of Governors
[Ed. Code '70901(b)(1)(E)].
2.
The local governing board has the responsibility to
establish policies for and approve courses of instruction and
educational programs [Ed. Code '70902(b)(2)].
3.
Title 5 §55002(a)(1) requires that the curriculum
committee contain faculty.
Flash Forward to 2002
 The State Academic Senate
 The 2002 Standards change from affirming that a
college has the necessary resources to fulfill its
mission to evaluating its ongoing success at
fulfilling its mission. (Sound Red Alert!)
 I ran for office and joined the opposition
ACCJC from 10 Standards to 4
 Standard I: Institutional Mission and Effectiveness
 Standard II: Student Learning Programs and Services
 Standard III: Resources
 Standard IV: Leadership and Governance
 Between 2003 and 2008 the ACCJC placed
41 (or 37 percent) of California’s
community colleges on ‘sanction.”
Meanwhile, Back at the College,
– or –
The Faculty Begin a Rite of Passage
In terms of minimum standards, we were 39/61 on the
75/25 and at 38 percent on the Fifty Percent Law. We
didn’t have the resources to teach online, and we had
too few faculty to do the job of governance.
And Then There Were Best Practices
Pre-Senate Meetings
 Define Student Success
 Every student passes every
class with a grade of “C” or
better.
 Determine whom we serve
and what their needs are.
 Create a college-wide matrix
that aligns all services,
students, and the four
accreditation standards.
Senate White Papers
(20 of 24 FT facutly participated)
 advising
 distance education & courses
in abbreviated time frames
 participatory governance
 student success
 minimum standards
 critical thinking
 Fifty Percent Law (65% of
new money dedicated
toward achieving parity)
Our Mission
 Our mission is to provide access to educational
opportunities for diverse desert communities
through a comprehensive curriculum and a
passion for the success of every individual
student.
Matrix (Diverse Communities)
•Standard I: Institutional Mission and Effectiveness
•Standard II: Student Learning Programs and Services
•Standard III: Resources
•Standard IV: Leadership and Governance
Matrix (Comprehensive Education)
•Standard I: Institutional Mission and Effectiveness
•Standard II: Student Learning Programs and Services
•Standard III: Resources
•Standard IV: Leadership and Governance
Matrix (Student Success)
•Standard I: Institutional Mission and Effectiveness
•Standard II: Student Learning Programs and Services
•Standard III: Resources
•Standard IV: Leadership and Governance
To Recap
White papers
Mission
 advising
Our mission is to provide access to
educational opportunities for diverse
desert communities through a
comprehensive curriculum and a
passion for the success of every
individual student.
 distance education & courses in
abbreviated time frames
 participatory governance
 student success
 minimum standards
 critical thinking
 Mission/Vision Matrix
 50% Law parity
 Student Success Definition
The NO’s Have IT!
Uh-Uh, Nope, Not Gonna . . .
Instead, How About . . .
 No to the Matrix
 taking a “couple of dings” on
 No to the White Papers
accreditation?
 If we hire a consultant?
 No to 75/25
 No to 50%
 No to DE Training
 No to Reasonable Class Caps
 But then a student
stepped forward . . .
And then We Took a Giant Step
Forward
 Filed to Appeal the College’s 50% Exemption
 Challenged small rural entitlement
 We met with the visiting team
And we had documentation
Say it Ain’t So
It just didn’t add up
● Employ the WASC planning cycle; ●
We Were Granted 5 Years of
Accreditation with a Mid-Term
Report and 7 Recommendations
• Strategic Plan and Educational Master Plan
• A New Enterprise Reporting System
• A College-wide structure for ongoing
systematic review of all programs
Improve our communication both
internally and externally;
● Improve campus culture and climate;
● Evaluate and strengthen resource
development;
● Expand opportunities to increase
leadership and participatory governance
processes.

We were NOT in Compliance. It
was that simple. WHY 5 YEARS?
We Persisted
 Attended the 2008 Accreditation Institute and
spoke directly with the President of the ACCJC
 Learned about the 2 year rule (comply with all
recommendations within two years or lose
accreditation
Barbara Beno Visits CMC
The Bigger Dog
 Fifty Percent Law Ruled in Favor of Faculty:

Faculty earn money doing program review and accreditation
work
 The Automatic Rural College Exemption is Over, Statewide
 Warning Prompts Reprioritization of Goals:

Program reviews combine with data to create new budget and
resource considerations
Accreditation:
The Accrediting Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges (ACCJC) calls for a full-time faculty
complement in its Eligibility Standards “sufficient in
size and experience to support all of the institution’s
educational programs. A clear statement of faculty
responsibilities must include development and
review of curriculum as well as assessment of
learning. Standard 3.A.2 says that “The institution
maintains a sufficient number of qualified faculty
with full-time responsibility to the institution.”
The Faculty Stepped Forward Again
Between August and December 2007

Established a Blackboard template
for minutes and documents

Core Competencies (college-wide)

Program review templates

Timelines

Arranged for data collections

Moved ALL calendars, processes, and
templates through participatory
governance

Adopted an annual PR cycle

Accreditation training from Senate

Conducted in-house training of
administrators
Results as of June 2010
 Warning lifted; accreditation reinstated
 Twice as many full-time, TT Faculty
 A functioning, data-driven, faculty led annual program review cycle
in synch with the college budgeting process
 42 Program Reviews conducted annually
 A new administration team
 Annual compliance with 50%
 An improved climate
 A new enterprise system
Concerns:
 Collegial peer review is caught between an aggressive
federal bureaucracy and a professoriate that is not that
into accountability
 Without energized, active, determined faculty
participation in accreditation, peer review will likely be
done away with all together or become a tool of the
federal government and big business.
Federalization and Money
The National Education Budget in 2007
.97 Trillion Dollars in 2007
The Best Education that Money Can Buy
 In Washington’s halls of power, lobbyists spent
$3.49 billion in 2009, the equivalent of a senior
professor’s annual salary every two-to-three
minutes that Congress was in session, and this
was prior to a recent Supreme Court decision
allowing lobbyist access and spending without
limits.

(www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/),
Conclusions:
 If Bush/Miller/Spellings had prevailed, the edict
for higher education might be:
 “What cannot be measured cannot be assessed and
what cannot be assessed cannot be controlled and
what cannot be controlled cannot be permitted.”
Implications:
 We live in the Age of Information – and this means that
decision making based on data and accountability in
government and industry will be on the rise for the
foreseeable future. The combination of computerized
data collection and analysis is a formula for powerful
entities to regulate industry, government, and higher
education.
 The future of higher education depends on
who designs and establishes the uses of its
data.
The Faculty Challenge of Our Time
 United and independent, the faculty must take the
initiative at reclaiming their rightful role within their
profession. This is NOT merely a local concern, though it
centers on service to local missions; it requires a national
movement of faculty sharing information and
encouraging one another in order to succeed.