Agency on the Move ACCJC Update CIO Conference April 17, 2019 Dr. Stephanie Droker, Senior Vice President Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges

Welcome and Introductions Who is in the room? Be prepared to share your thoughts: What do you hope to gain from this discussion? What questions do you regarding accreditation or the self-evaluation process?

ACCJC 101 What is the ACCJC? Regional Accreditor (1 of 7) 1 Region, 2 Agencies Why do we exist? Gatekeepers to Federal Financial Aid Quality Assurance Based on Peer Review Dual Purpose: Compliance and Improvement

Philosophy of Accreditation and Commitment to Peer Review Acknowledged as the most appropriate and desirable approach to evaluate the complex environment of higher education Serves as a rich and diverse resource for quality improvement for colleges A process that uses academic inquiry to inform practices of institutions for quality improvement, based on evidence The results are used to further articulate the meaning of such practices within the higher education context and allow for the evolution of policies and practices Is frequently at odds with governmental-directed evaluation which often relies on standardization of expectations and quantitative analyses that cannot capture the nuances of complex phenomena, such as student achievement

Regional Accreditors

Recent Good News US Department of Education staff recommendation to NACIQI: Renew ACCJC’s recognition for five years Issues and Problems: None Approve expansion of scope: ACCJC can approve credentials “not to exceed the bachelor’s degree” (i.e. no limit on the number of bachelor’s degrees ACCJC can approve) Written 3rd Party Comments: All supportive of the agency. Will be considered by NACIQI at its July session; then formal letter

Recent Changes Comprehensive Review Midterm Report VP Portfolio Model ISER Training Advanced ISER Training Condensed ISER Midterm Report QFE vs. Improvement Plans Fall 2020 Changes Annual Report and Annual Fiscal Report

ACCJC Frequency of Sanctions

Overview of Sub Change Purpose Inquiry Form Process 34 CFR §602.22 Change in mission, objectives, scope or name of institution Change in the nature of the constituency served Change in the location or geographic area served Change in the control or legal status of the institution Change is courses or programs or their mode of delivery Change is credit awarded Implementation of direct assessment Contractual relationship with a non-regionally accredited organization Any other significant change Inquiry Form Process

Innovation – Formative/Summative Model A “Formative/Summative” model for comprehensive reviews The college’s self-study is submitted to the review team a semester prior to the site visit for the Team ISER Review (TIR) During the TIR, peer review team conducts a formative evaluation: Verifies compliance with many operational aspects, taking them “off the table” as not requiring onsite verification Specifies areas where additional information is needed, or where the institution needs to further develop its processes, in anticipation of the site visit a semester later Identifies focused “Core Inquiries” that will be pursued during the on-site visit A smaller team (and/or a shorter visit schedule) conducts the Focused Site Visit, with the team report leading to summative findings Endorsed in concept by the Commission January 2019; 3 single-institution pilots, then a district; Advisory Committee to guide development of details

Visual Representation of the Process

F/S Pilot Phase Timeline February 2019 1st Phase Pilot Colleges – ISER Training (Spring 2021 Team ISER Review, Fall 2021 Focused Site Visit Commission Action – January 2022 October 2019 2nd Phase Pilot District – ISER Training (Fall 2021 Team ISER Review, Spring 2022 Focused Site Visit Commission Action – June 2022 Full Implementation – 2022

Updates from the National Scene Negotiated rulemaking (NEG REG) Required to bring relevant stakeholders together to discuss potential changes to rules and policies Higher education and accreditation is taking center stage this year What is being negotiated? Transfer of credit among institutions Permitting accrediting organizations to waive certain criteria for institutions to encourage innovation Limiting number of states that regional accreditors could operate Establishing a definition of “regular and substantive interactions” in DE Protecting religious mission at faith-based institutions Transparency of the accreditation process, including making all accreditation reports public

Questions? Comments? sdroker@accjc.org