Mark Renner and Dave Bazard O VERVIEW OF 2014 A CCREDITATION I NSTITUTE P RESENTED BY : A CADEMIC S ENATE OF CCC, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH ACCJC AND C OMMUNITY C OLLEGE L EAGUE OF CA (CCLC)

General Session: “Remembering the Importance of Quality, Accountability, and Student Success: Why Accreditation Matters” Major “take-aways” (Mark/Dave): The cycle of “planning” / “doing” / “checking” (assessing) / “acting” should be a continuous process, NOT one which we only think of in prep for our self study or mid- term It is best if we institutionalize (in a committee?) this continual effort - There needs to be widespread awareness and evidence of our integrated planning processes and how this ties to assessment, dialogue, budgeting, and student success. Is this the case for all aspects of CR functions? Evidence of sustainable and effective processes. Evidence of review and evaluation of budgetary and other decisions. Are all our budget decisions assessed?

Breakout Session: “Substantive Change Reports” Major “take-aways” (Mark): Dr. Susan Clifford: “U.S. Dep’t. of Ed. requirements re: Substantive Change are very definitive; ACCJC’s latest focus is on D.E.” Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions – ACCJC sub. change process is similar to other accreditors’ processes; July 2013 Substantive Change Manual (ACCJC) must be followed VERY rigorously; Sections 4 & 5 can be used as templates for this work; section is especially important; A D.E. sub.change might lead us to modify our mission statement (to include D.E.); if so, this must also be included in the sub.change proposal; Section 5.3 shows how student achievement data and SLO data must be included in the sub.change proposal; In summary, a D.E. sub.change proposal is very rigorous; should be viewed much like a 6-year self- evaluation study in rigor; shall demonstrate all 21 E.R.’s and all Standards; evidence-driven LACC’s proposal (which we now have) is an excellent guide.

General Session: “Overview of the Revised Accreditation Standards” Major “take-aways” (Mark): New standards move away from California standards and move toward Federal standards; Goals of the new standards: Reordering to yield a more logical sequence; Requirements for institutions with baccalaureate degrees; Elimination of overly prescriptive sections; Reduction of redundancy; Clarification of intent Feedback through Apr. 30 New Areas (Dave): Evidence of scheduling that allows students to complete degrees and certificate in a stated timeframe. Meet new standard about co-curricular and athletics programs. Evidence that we define and advise students on clear pathways to degrees and certificates. Evidence that faculty (and others?) evaluated in terms of the employee to effectively produce learning - controversial and under discussion

Breakout Session: “Strategies to Institutionalize the Accreditation Standards” Major “take-aways” (Mark): We should build a small leadership group (a working group) to work continually on all Standards; group membership likely to include: ALO; Faculty co-chair; Acad. Senate leadership; Researcher; Other “data people” Locate evidence and store in a central place; evidence to support: All standards; The “institution story” Instruct teams to approach this like a science report: Lay out the evidence; Know the conclusion; i.e., the “institution story”; Write with “one voice”; Make a reasonable schedule and stick to it; Stagger due dates so deliverables don’t all come due at same time Maxim: NEVER make a visiting team search for evidence/data !!

General Session: “Emerging topics in Accreditation” Major “take-aways” (Mark): Greater emphasis on data in Std. 1; Will likely see templates which we can use (for standardization); Mid-term reports to change due to 2-year Dept. of Ed. rule; Less focus on procedures & more on results; Greater focus on information; Emphasis on using data to see if mission is being met; More emphasis on student & disaggregated data; D.E. authentication to be a big focus Major “take-aways” (Dave): Academic quality is showing up in new standards (data documented)- document student learning and achievement (culture of evidence). ACCJC Comment (and others) – Accreditation is becoming more interested in “results” and what an institution “is doing”. Not just procedure and process anymore.

Breakout Session: “Standards for student achievement – the new emphasis for accreditation” Major “take-aways” (Dave): Institutions must set standards and measure achievement for: Course completion rate Student retention percentage Number of Degrees Number of Certificates Number of students who transfer There was considerable discussion about how schools set these standards – there should be appropriate input from all constituents (a 10+1 issue). If levels are set too low, they may be viewed as “unreasonable” by ACCJC. If set too high, they may be unattainable and indicate school is not achieving objectives. Has CR set these standards? If so, how and by whom? Are they realistic?

Breakout Session: “D.E. Accreditation Issues” Major “take-aways” (Mark): In 2011, 65% of CA institutions surveyed felt D.E. was crucial to their long-term strategy; All student support services need to be available in a fully online format; Student Authentication to become much more rigorous; Higher Ed Opportunity Act (HEOA): “Authentication must be driven by an institutional policy, not by individual faculty choices”; Examples: College CMS (“LMS”); Proctored assessment; CMS log-in tying to Student Code of Conduct; Academic integrity in D.E. training; Plagiarism detection software