What CIOs Need to Know.  Meridith Randall – ACCJC ALO for 17 years for 3 different colleges; never had a college receive a sanction; has written multiple.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Standard 13 Related Educational Activities. What does it cover? The institutions programs or activities that are characterized by particular content,
Advertisements

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.
1 Preparing for Institutional Self Study Dr. Barbara Beno, President Dr. Steve Maradian, Vice President 20 June 2008.
A specialized accrediting agency for English language programs and institutions Accreditation Presentation ABLA conference 2012.
Writing Effective Assessment Plans. Why Assessment Plans? Facilitates periodic, not episodic assessment of student learning and program outcomes Serves.
1 Southern Connecticut State University Graduate Council Academic Standards Committee Procedures for Southern Connecticut State University.
Writing Effective Assessment Plans Office of Assessment and Accreditation Indiana State University.
Orientation to the Accreditation Internal Evaluation (Self-Study) Flex Activity March 1, 2012 Lassen Community College.
ONE-STOP SHOP: INTEGRATED ONLINE PROGRAM REVIEW AND BUDGET PLANNING Daylene Meuschke, Ed.D. Director, Institutional Research Barry Gribbons, Ph.D. Assistant.
 The Middle States Commission on Higher Education is a voluntary, non-governmental, membership association that is dedicated to quality assurance and.
The Accreditation: The Policies on Distance Learning.
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges.
Commission on Accreditation for Respiratory Care The Site Visitors Are Coming! Transitioning from Successful Self- Study to Successful Site Visit Bradley.
1 Cosumnes River College’s Institutional Self Study Norv Wellsfry Fall 2007.
1. Continue to distinguish and clarify between Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Service Area Outcomes (SAOs) 2. Develop broad SLOs/SAOs in order to.
August 3,  Review “Guiding Principles for SLO Assessment” (ASCCC, 2010)  Review Assessment Pulse Roundtable results  Discuss and formulate our.
Accreditation, SLOs and You – What are the patient outcomes? or Will the patient survive? Facilitators: Janet Fulks and Phillip Maynard.
NCATE Standard 6 Governance and Resources: Debunking the Myths AACTE/NCATE Workshop Arlington, VA April 2008 Linda Bradley James Madison University
ANDREW LAMANQUE, PHD SPRING 2014 Status Report: Foothill Reaffirmation of Accreditation.
Hiring and Evaluation Processes: Building Future Successes Paul Starer and Lesley Kawaguchi Leadership Institute Hayes Mansion, San Jose, CA June 16, 2007.
Basic Workshop For Reviewers NQAAC Recognize the developmental engagements Ensure that they operate smoothly and effectively” Ensure that all team members.
 This prepares educators to work in P-12 schools (1)  It provides direction (1)  It is knowledge-based, articulated, shared, coherent, consistent with.
SENATE COMMITTEES & COUNCILS B EING AT THE TABLE = LIBRARY VALUE.
Middle States Steering Committee Overview of Standards March 20, 2008.
SACS-CASI Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement FAMU DRS – QAR Quality Assurance Review April 27-28,
Student Support Services Standard II B & C. II.B. The institution recruits and admits diverse students who are able to benefit from its programs, consistent.
What CIOs Need to Know.  Meridith Randall – ACCJC ALO for 17 years for 3 different colleges; never had a college receive a sanction; has written multiple.
PRESIDENT’S Campus forum November 9, Dr. Shirley Wagner and Dr. Paul Weizer NEASC Self Study Co-Chairs Key Elements of the Self Study Process Demystifying.
Accreditation Visit: OMG! What if they ask me a question?? Accreditation Tri-Chairs: Kelly Irwin Ginni May Don Palm Fall 2015.
MDC Strategic Plan Strategic Plan Coordinating Committee October/November 2010.
16 OCTOBER 2015 JOACHIN ARIAS, SLO COORDINATOR EDWARD PAI, DEAN OF INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS Program Review 2.0 Training: SLO Assessment Participation.
Continuous Improvement. Focus of the Review: Continuous Improvement The unit will engage in continuous improvement between on-site visits. Submit annual.
Response due: March 15,  Directions state that the report must “focus on the institution’s resolution of the recommendations and Commission concerns.”
Distance Learning and Accreditation Heather G. Hartman, Ph.D. Brenau University Online Studies and SACS Liaison.
External Review Team: Roles and Responsibilities A Very Brief Training! conducted by JoLynn Noe Office of Assessment.
Accreditation Update and Institutional Student Learning Outcomes Deborah Moeckel, SUNY Assistant Provost SCoA Drive in Workshops Fall 2015
Program Review 2.0 Pilot 2 October Self Evaluation HAPS is the result of a process that began in 2012, the last Accreditation self- evaluation.
Workshop For Reviewers Operating the Developmental Engagements Prof. Dr. Hala SalahProf. Dr. Hoda ELTalawy.
Accreditation Overview Winter 2016 Mallory Newell, Accreditation Liaison Office.
What is Regional Accreditation? Regional Accreditation is a time-tested model of professional peer review that supports education excellence. Accreditation.
Accreditation Self-Study Progress Update Presentation to the SCCCD Board of Trustees Madera Center October 5, 2010 Tony Cantu, Fresno City College Marilyn.
October 20 – November 6, 2014 Alovidin Bakhovidinov Alina Batkayeva
Evaluator Training Workshop March 1, 2012 Jeff Jordan Vice President for Student Life Seattle Pacific University.
Effective Practices in Accreditation: Standard I Mission, Academic Quality and Institutional Effectiveness, and Integrity Stephanie Curry—Reedley College.
Accreditation 2007 Undergraduate Council September 26, 2005.
HLC Criterion Three Primer: Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources, and Support Thursday, September 24, :40 – 11:40 a.m. Event Center.
Accreditation 101 STEVEN SHEELEY, PHD VICE PRESIDENT – SACSCOC GACRAO NOVEMBER 2, 2015.
Model of an Effective Program Review October 2008 Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges.
 Julie Bruno, Sierra College  Roberta Eisel, Citrus College  Fred Hochstaedter, Monterey Peninsula College.
1 Institutional Quality and Accreditation: A Workshop on the Basics.
The Application Process Understanding the IERs (Institutional Eligibility Requirements ) 2106 TRACS Annual Conference.
Accreditation 2016 Session 1.
Surviving an Accreditation Visit and other accreditation hot topics
Curriculum & Accreditation: You Can Get There from Here
Curriculum and Accreditation
Curriculum and Accreditation
NICC Self-Study The Road to Excellence
Foothill College Accreditation Self-Study Update
Accreditation and curriculum
ACCJC Standards Adopted june 2014.
Orientation to the Accreditation Internal Evaluation (Self-Study)
Vernon Martin, ASCCC Accreditation Committee, Sierra College
Best practices for accreditation at the local level
SLOs, Curriculum, and Other Things that Shape Your Classroom
Craig Rutan, Accreditation and Assessment Committee Chair
Best practices for accreditation at the local level
Best practices for accreditation at the local level
Standard II Randy Beach, ASCCC South Representative Stephanie Droker, Vice-President, ACCJC Deborah Wulff, Vice-President of Academic Affairs, Cuesta College,
CURRICULUM AND ACCREDITATION
Institutional Self Evaluation Report Team Training
Presentation transcript:

What CIOs Need to Know

 Meridith Randall – ACCJC ALO for 17 years for 3 different colleges; never had a college receive a sanction; has written multiple self- evaluations, midterm reports, and FU reports; has served on 4 teams, most recently Oct  Mary Kay Rudolph – Renowned VP at SRJC; service on multiple accreditation teams

 How do you mobilize your campus?  Whom do you involve?  What documents do you need?  How will the work get done?

 Preparing for the External Team ◦ Ideally, teams are trained a few weeks ahead of the visit -- in reality, some team members may be added late to replace others ◦ Most teams have a couple of CEOs, a CIO, student services personnel, and should have faculty (but may not)

 Materials used to train Team Members ◦ Handouts ◦ Team members must draft a great deal of the report based on the self-evaluation ◦ Recently, the first meeting is on Monday, then interviews begin immediately ◦ Depending on the team, interviews may or may not be coordinated ◦ Team members may or may not follow guidelines of professionalism

 A comfortable room with hard evidence  Evidence at the hotel  The ability to change interviews frequently  Tech support on call  Decent food  Endless caffeine What is an unreasonable expectation from a team?

 Anything you identified in your self- evaluation as a problem  Anything currently on ACCJC’s radar  Any particular interests of the team member  The Rubrics (which may be phased out)

 A significant rearrangement of standards  Elimination of sub-standards  Some significant additions  And don’t call it a Self-Study!

 Mission (IA) ◦ Some elements to consider:  Are intended students identified?  Are learning outcomes mentioned or implied?  Was development of mission statement inclusive?  How is effectiveness assessed using data?  What is cycle to review mission statement? Is it followed? Is the review process inclusive?  Can you demonstrate that the mission statement is central to college planning?  How is it communicated?

 Don’t claim you review it regularly if you don’t  The new standards put more emphasis on using data to prove the college accomplishes its mission  Usually reviewed by CEOs on team

 Key elements: ◦ Dialogue about student learning and processes  What hard evidence do you have?  What results have come from dialogue?  What will your colleagues tell the team?  SLOs and SAOs moved to this section  Institution-set standards determined and published

 Measurable goals ◦ What was the process to set college goals? ◦ Was it inclusive? Will staff say it was? ◦ Where and how are they used in planning, resource allocation, etc.? ◦ What data is used to show progress toward goals? ◦ Is the data disaggregated? Planning process Is there broad involvement? Are resources allocated consistent with goals? Have the results of resource allocation been measured? Are policies and practices regularly evaluated?

 Is all information given in any form to any group accurate?  Does catalog include elements listed separately?  Are students informed about costs?  Does college have policies on academic freedom and honesty, and publish them?  Some language that applies mainly to for- profits…

 IIA. Instructional Programs ◦ While this is the heart of what we do at the college, most colleges do not get into trouble for Standard II, with a couple of exceptions:  SLO assessment and comparable support for online students  Allocation of resources to support instruction, library, etc.

 Must have some kind of program review/vitality assessment process  Must assess student learning needs to inform programs  Must determine if students meet learning outcomes at all levels, and use results for improvement

 Must use “delivery systems” that meet student needs and assess their effectiveness  Must have a process to determine what is offered as credit, community ed, pre- collegiate, etc.  Must have active advisory committees for CTE programs and graduates must meet employment standards

 General education should include all components listed in the standard and GELOs should exist and be assessed  Must have program elimination process  Must publicize student learning assessment results

 Syllabi must include course SLOs  Clock to credit hour standards  Emphasis on scheduling in a manner that facilitates student completion

 Need to have sufficient library, computer lab, tutoring and other services as evidenced by regular assessment  Must have “comparable services” online and at off-site locations, plus adequate access  Must address how services advance achievement of SLOs and assess the students

 Difficult to be sanctioned based on this section – must have “clear pathways” for students and support to reach goals  Essentially, there is a process to determine support needs and to assess their effectiveness (often through SAOs), including placement, advising, and online services  Standards for co-curricular and athletic programs, including relation to mission

 Technically, not under the CIO area and CIOs would rarely be assigned to this standard  Human Resources: should make sure faculty hiring follows a process and all faculty meet MQs or are approved through equivalency process approved by local Senate  As CIO, responsible for regular evaluation of all faculty

 Current standard: “Faculty…have, as a component of their evaluation, effectiveness in producing…learning outcomes.”  New standards: “The evaluation of faculty, academic administrators, and others….includes, as a component…consideration of how these employees use the results of the assessment of learning outcomes to improve teaching and learning.”  Also – “Faculty job descriptions include development of and review of curriculum as well as assessment of learning.”

 Must have a “sufficient number of qualified faculty” – will your faculty agree?  Must have a process to identify and deliver appropriate professional development for faculty, and evaluate what is provided  Must show impact of professional development  Must integrate part-time faculty into the college

 Physical and Technology Resources: How are needs identified, funded and evaluated? How are allocations connected to college goals and student learning needs?  Is technology sufficient for identified student needs? Are academic employees trained?  Financial resources support student learning

 DE Policy  Transfer of Credit  Contractual Relationships  ERs: Are often cited in sanctions

 Whatever your process is for planning, assessing SLOs, resource allocation, etc., make sure you can produce DOCUMENTS and show that the process is evaluated regularly and results in changes.  Make sure (almost) everyone can tell the team what the processes are AND that they had opportunity for input. Keep evidence that employees were given chances to comment.

 If you come through a visit with sanctions, it will likely be your fault as the ALO…..  But if you are successful, there will be “too many people to thank”  Just accept it….