Accreditation News Misty Burruel, Chaffey College, Accreditation Committee Ginni May, ASCCC Area A Representative, Accreditation Committee Chair Fall 2017 Plenary Session, Irvine Marriott Ginni

Overview Brief Tutorial Update on the changes Dialog about the future of accreditation

But first…an FYI ACCJC – Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges WASC – Western Association of Schools and Colleges ISER – Institutional Self Evaluation Report QFE – Quality Focus Essay ER – Eligibility Requirement SLO – Student Learning Outcome USDE – United States Department of Education NACIQI – National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity CEO – Chief Executive Officer (College President or District Chancellor) CIO – Chief Instructional Officer (Vice President of Instruction or Academic Affairs) CBO – Chief Business Officer (Vice President of Administration) CEOCCC – Chief Executive Officers of the California Community Colleges

History of ACCJC WASC was established in 1962… Regional Accreditors – California, Hawaii, and the Pacific Region 501(c)(3) – non-profit organization … And encompassed three commissions: WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC) ACCJC Accrediting Commission for Schools, WASC (ACS, WASC) The three separated in 2012-13 Higher Education Regional Accreditors (6 regions): ACCJC and WSCUC—only region that separates two-year and four-year institutions 5 other regions in the United States

The ACCJC Voluntary, Non-Governmental— Colleges must be regionally accredited to qualify for federal financial aid Authorized to operate by the USDE NACIQI provides recommendations on accrediting agencies to the USDE 19 elected Commissioners – each can serve two 3-year terms: 1 from CCCCO 1 from Hawaii System 5 (at least) faculty 3 (at least) public 3 (at least) CEO 1 (at least) expert in higher education finance (CBO) 1 (at least) CIO 1 (at least) from independent institution 1 (at least) from ACS, WASC 1 (at least) from WSCUC 1 (at least) from American Affiliated Pacific Islands

Purposes of Regional Accreditation The ACCJC Purposes of Regional Accreditation Encourage institutions to improve academic quality, institutional effectiveness, and ultimately, student success. Assure the educational community, the general public, and other organizations and agencies that an institution has: clearly defined objectives appropriate to higher education; has established conditions under which their achievement can reasonably be expected; appears in fact to be accomplishing them; and is so organized, staffed, and supported that it can be expected to continue to do so.

Changes taking place… Misty

We have been heard! Workgroups I and II: Established by the CEO Board (CEOCCC) in March 2016 in response growing concerns among the CCCs in regard to ACCJC accreditation processes. Workgroup I: Improving ACCJC Structure, Function, and Relations Includes ASCCC Representation and representatives in HI, the Pacific Islands, and independent institutions Workgroup II: Western Region Higher Education Accrediting Model Long- Range Includes representatives from HI, Pacific Islands, WSCUC, and independent institutions

Workgroup I Responsibilities: Develop a plan, with timeline and measurable outcomes, to be submitted to the ACCJC Commission for action at its June 2016 meeting; Lead and monitor ongoing implementation of changes; and Provide regular updates of the group’s activities and progress to ACCJC members and the CEOCCC Board, as well as formal quarterly progress reports.

Workgroup I As of September 15, 2017 Five Areas of Focus – update on recommendations: Team Chair Training; Team Member selection, composition, and training; 24 Recommendations with sub-recommendations, all but one either addressed or in progress Communication 10 Recommendations with majority in progress Evaluation 1 major Recommendation with 2 parts, time is needed for full implementation Process and Structure of Visit 26 Recommendations with many addressed or in progress, others are being monitored Commission Operations 9 Recommendations some addressed, some in progress, two declined

Workgroup II Focus: Facilitate communication leading to the long-range goal of California’s community colleges participating in a structure for regional accreditation that aligns all segments of higher education. As of September 2017 Recommendation: Consensus that the long-term needs of all higher education students, institutions, and communities in the Western region would best be served by affiliation with a single accreditor. Western region adopt the same model as all other accrediting regions in the U.S. Note: It is unclear if or when the CEOCCC will pursue the steps outlined in the report.

The Changes The changes outlined in the following slides are based in large part on the Recommendations of Workgroups I and II.

ACCJC Staff * Started 2016 or later

ACCJC Website New website: https://accjc.org Easy to navigate and find information Information is up to date Indicative of changes taking place within the ACCJC

Redesigned Training Models and Team Processes Teams (two days) Chairs Colleges preparing ISERs Commissioners Case studies Team Training Manual: https://accjc.org/wp-content/uploads/Team- Training-Manual-August-2017.pdf Teams no longer recommend the accredited status of a college under review Ginni

Commitment to Lighten Burden on Member Institutions Suspended the special financial assessment that had been required to cover legal costs No increase in annual membership dues for the coming year Digital Institutional Self-Evaluation Reports (ISERs)—PDF on a flash drive Substantive change application size reduced – ~ 40 pages to ~5 pages (specific changes will be announced soon!) A simplified list of changes that require prior ACCJC approval

Relationships with Other Organizations Settlement of the long-standing and resource-intensive legal action between ACCJC and American Federation of Teachers/California Federation of Teachers (AFT/CFT) Renewal of recognition by the U.S. Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) Sponsoring ASCCC Accreditation Institute

Troubling ACCJC Standards Explanation and/or Revision 2nd Reading at January 2018 meeting on new policy: allow Commission to review and propose changes to individual ACCJC Standards outside of the ten-year review cycle. 1st Reading at January 2018 III.A.6 – proposed removal and replace with a new II.A.2 II.A.2 – new version (in future slides)

Standard III.A.6 - proposed Standard III.A.6. The evaluation of faculty, academic administrators, and other personnel directly responsible for student learning includes, as a component of that evaluation, consideration of how these employees use the results of the assessment of learning outcomes to improve teaching and learning. III.A.6

Standard II.A.2 – proposed Standard II.A.2. Faculty, including full time, part time, and adjunct faculty, regularly engage in ensuring that the content and methods of instruction meet generally accepted academic and professional standards and expectations. In exercising collective ownership over the design and improvement of the learning experience, faculty conduct systematic and inclusive program review, using student achievement data, in order to continuously improve instructional courses and programs, thereby ensuring program currency, improving teaching and learning strategies, and promoting student success.

II.A.2 – edited view Standard II.A.2. Faculty, including full time, part time, and adjunct faculty, regularly engage in ensuringe that the content and methods of instruction meet generally accepted academic and professional standards and expectations. In exercising collective ownership over the design and improvement of the learning experience, fFaculty and others responsible act to conduct systematic and inclusive program review, using student achievement data, in order to continuously improve instructional courses and, programs and directly related services through systematic evaluation to assure thereby ensuring program currency, improvinge teaching and learning strategies, and promotinge student success.

On the Horizon… New Evaluator Training and New ALO Training at the ASCCC Accreditation Institute pre-session on February 22, 2018 A “portfolio model” for the Vice Presidents: Each VP will manage a portfolio of colleges with which they: Develop close, collaborative relationships, Support each step of the review process, and Ensure a consistent, thoroughly understood outcome. Taxonomy of Standards revision: Consideration of a new “unit of measure” of the Standards for making compliance decisions rather than the current model of 128 Standards, all of which can be considered of equal importance.

Thoughts, Comments, and Questions…

References Workgroups I and II: https://www.ccleague.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=3882 ACCJC: https://accjc.org