Accreditation in the California Community Colleges Influential Cultural Practices 1 Nathan Tharp, Ed.D. Digital Technology Instructor/Program Coordinator Feather River College

Accreditation trends 1887: NEASC1926: WASC1965: Financial aid linked1788: Constitution1950s: Goal/path model adopted1980s: Institutional effectiveness2000s: Student learning outcomes None > Baseline > Aspirational > Accountable 1980s: High loan default rate

Too many California community colleges struggle with accreditation Colleges since 2003

Existing Research Policy Purpose: from legitimacy to accountability Standards: similar, reflect changes in purpose, sanction level consistent, significant support, autonomy State policies: mixed, regs valuable but cause conflicts Environmental Factors Timing in cycle Location: mixed results Size: mixed, mid size Perceptions: Universal: valuable, low implementation Group mediated: role, involvement, effect. vs. quality Individual conflict: accountability vs. quality Practices: Engagement: improves adoption level Leadership: strong leaders are influential Institutional research: key component Organizational models: AQIP/Baldridge impact preparedness Accreditation Related Research LITERATURE REVIEW Gaps in Research practices not linked to accreditation results recommendations not based on evidence contextually bound studies few studies on California community colleges

Nature of the study Cultural practices at the institutional level influence accreditation processes and results. Research Questions: What are some of the cultural practices present in colleges that consistently have their accreditation reaffirmed? What are some of the cultural practices present in colleges that have consistently been placed on sanction? How do these practices compare and contrast? Filling the gaps Examines and identifies practices may influence accreditation results Provides recommendations based on evidence Accounts for context Focuses on California community colleges

Nature of the Study RESEARCH PROPOSAL Purpose Reduce the number of sanctions on California Community Colleges by: informing campus leaders influence accreditation policy makers increasing institutional effectiveness provide grounded findings for further research

Using activity as the unit of analysis for understanding cultural practices Tools/Artifacts SubjectObject Outcome Subject Object Outcome Rules /norms SubjectObject Outcome Division of Labor SubjectObject Outcome Object SubjectObject Outcome Community Activity Theory cultural-historical approach tools mediate behavior in cultural contexts object oriented activity as the unit of analysis tensions and disturbances propel the system inter-system relations Transformation THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Activity System

Serial Activity Interacting systems SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome Nested Activity Tools/Artifacts Object Observed Activity Parallel Activity Serial Activity

Qualitative Case Study of Four Institutions SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome Two with five or more sanctions since 2003 (X colleges) Two that have two contiguous reaffirmations since 2003 (Y colleges) Unstructured interviews with 14 participants who varied according to role, tenure, and degree of involvement Colleges with common accreditation results were compared. Commonalities between colleges that have been placed on multiple sanctions were compared against those that have not. Colle ge B Colle ge D Colle ge C Differences ? Similarities? Re-accreditedOn Warning or Probation Colle ge A Colleg e X1 Colleg e X2 Colleg e Y2 Colleg e Y1 Differences? Similarities? No Sanctions5+ Sanctions METHODOLOGY

Participant selection SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome METHODOLOGY Colle ge B Colle ge D Colle ge C Differences ? Similarities? Re-accreditedOn Warning or Probation Colle ge A RoleTenureInvolvement #CollegeAdminFaculty LowMedHigh 1X1XXX 2 XXX 3 XXX 4X2XXX 5 XXX 6 XXX 7 XXX 8Y1XXX 9 XXX 10Y1XXX 11Y2XXX 12Y2XXX 13Y2XXX 14Y2XXX Tota ls

SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome DATA ANALYSIS focuses only on differences between two California community colleges that have been succeeding and two that have been struggling not examining accreditation policies nor ACCJC practices not establishing “universal” findings not testing compliance Some Limitations

Themes Division of Labor How the work of a particular activity is divided up amongst a community; the establishment of roles and responsibilities Motivation The reason for taking and action; willingness or desire to do something Integration Combining multiple parts into a whole; coming into participation in an a group or institution DATA ANALYSIS

Theme 1: Division of Labor FINDINGS X CollegesY Colleges Accreditation Work Participants reported few difficulties in dividing work up among existing structures. Institutional Roles Participants reported more often that roles were not universally agreed upon. Participants reported more often that roles were agreed upon and abided by and used similar language in describing the roles. Role-related Conflict Participants frequently reported conflicts and described them as acrimonious and long lasting. Participants rarely described conflicts, and when pressed, reported them as minor and short-term. Conflict Resolution Participants reported more on progress in spite of ongoing conflicts. Participants reported more on how conflicts were overcome (ad-hoc, repetitive reinforcement, mediation, co-leading). Text

Conflict: “there was a bit of a ‘none of the recommendations are related to instruction. The problems are with the administration of the institution.’” Role definition: “The senate [is] on one side…saying faculty must do SLOs…you have the union, who on their website…says, ‘faculty do not Have to do SLOs.’” Theme 2: Division of labor quotes FINDINGS Conflict: “They said, ‘It doesn’t matter if we lose accreditation. We'll be taken over by somebody else. That just means the administration will be gone, but we'll still be here.’” Role definition: “[We’ve] had a board that has worked well for a long time…I bet it's been 40 years of strong involvement, but boards that knew their role. Haven't micromanaged.” Conflict resolution: “If we start to lean away from [a shared governance topic], we each have a yellow card, and we can hold the yellow card up and say, ‘Caution, this is veering away from a [shared governance] issue.’”

Theme 2: Motivation X CollegesY Colleges Perceptions of importance Participants reported that accreditation was not universally interpreted as important. Participants reported that accreditation was universally interpreted as important. Source of motivation Participants reported that motivation for accreditation was more externally driven. Participants reported that motivation for accreditation was more internally driven. Enforcement Participants reported that enforcement of accreditation- related processes has not been historically consistent. Participants reported that enforcement of accreditation processes were a permanent part of the institution’s practices. Critical Mass Participants reported on the concept of critical mass as being important to motivation. FINDINGS

Theme 2: Motivation quotes FINDINGS Locus of motivation: “[The ACCJC] representative said,] ‘I knew you needed a stick,’ because it was just how hard she had to push us.” Importance: “We saw ourselves more as kind of an exclusive, stand-alone institution…we don't have to abide by the regulations..” Importance: “You live and die by staying accredited. [We] all know it's important.” Locus of motivation: The college “[did] it for accreditation,” rather than, “because it's the right thing to do.” Enforcement: “If somebody wants to go and develop curriculum…and they go somewhere [other than curriculum committee]…we say, ‘No.’” Locus of motivation: “I think people are really proud of what we have here. So they take personal ownership. If we were put on warning, we would fall back and get out of it. You learn from your mistakes.”

X CollegesY Colleges Contact with accreditation Participants reported that the level of contact with accreditation has varied. Participants reported that contact with accreditation was constant. Integrity of processes Participants reported on the development of nascent accreditation processes. Participants reported on the integrity of existing formal processes (transparency, faithfulness, simplicity, productivity). Interconnec- tedness Participants did not report on interconnectedness as often, and instead reported on procedures and heroes. Participants reported more on informal and formal approaches that served to connect constituents and activities across the institution. Resources available Participants reported more often on a lack of resources. Participants reported that resources were readily available. Theme 3: Integration FINDINGS

Theme 2: Integration quotes FINDINGS Integrity: “[It’s] a one-and-a-half year long process…to get funding for an idea…you could submit a strategic proposal…but there was only $100,000.” Contact: “I walked in new...I took [being the accreditation chair] on. To be honest, I kind of stumbled through it.” Contact: “The faculty senate…is sending in three names. The president will interview [them] and select one faculty as the co-chair. We are looking 2-3 years ahead.” Interconnectedness: “[the college] would say, ‘oh yeah…transparency, production, dialogue’ but then not take action. “ Integrity: “Program review is the way to ensure money.” Interconnectedness: [the campus community] accepted recent cuts because of “the culture of inclusiveness…they [were] at the table when all of these decisions are made.”’

Division of Labor INTERPRETATION SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome Tool Subject Rules/Norms Division of Labor Accreditation Community Campus activity system Accreditation activity system

Motivation SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome Accreditation Senate Accreditation activity system Union Admin quality improvement working conditions institution sustainability INTERPRETATION

Integration SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome Accreditation Tools Subject Campus Rules/Norms Division of Labor Accreditation Community Accreditation activity system INTERPRETATION

Summary SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome Subject Division of Labor Accreditation Community Accreditation activity system Tools Rules Campu s Group A Group B Group C Motivation Integration Division of Labor = tension points that appear more resolved in Y schools than X schools. INTERPRETATION

Division of Labor 1. Define underlying campus-wide roles and responsibilities and abide by them. 2. Consistently resolve conflict related to role definition. Motivation 3. Establish accreditation as important. 4. Account for group-mediated perceptions of accreditation importance. 5. Reframe accreditation as an internally motivated activity. 6. Enforce accreditation activities. 7. Maintain a critical mass of motivated individuals and groups. Integration 8. Maintain ongoing contact with accreditation processes. 9. Develop accreditation tools that align with campus rules/norms/customs. 10. Maintain the integrity of accreditation processes. 11. Interconnect parties across the institution with formal and informal accreditation processes. 12. Prioritize resources for accreditation. Recommendations for campus leaders

Supplemental Slides 24

Validation SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome RESEARCH METHODS Colle ge B Colle ge D Colle ge C Differences ? Similarities? Re-accreditedOn Warning or Probation Colle ge A Multi-site design Site selection: variance and confirming Participant selection: variance and confirming Member checking Framework triangulation: activity and grounded theory Finding triangulation three or more sites three or more participants, one from contrasting site

Data coding SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome Colle ge B Colle ge D Colle ge C Differences ? Similarities? Re-accreditedOn Warning or Probation Colle ge A 600+ excerpts from dialog Activity theory Grounded theory codes 200+ unique codes Text Q: How does that [conflict] get resolved? “Usually by a change in leadership in one of the other organizations. And it's tended to be at the margins. There are somethings that are clearly senate business, and other things that are clearly union business. But there are these things in the gray areas where maybe both have some claim to them. And the problems I've seen have been where one or the other party encroaches to the point where the other organization feels like somebody's on their turf.” conflict leadership resolution division of labor Sample excerpt Sample codes DATA ANALYSIS

Theme development SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome SubjectObject Outcome Colle ge B Colle ge D Colle ge C Differences ? Similarities? Re-accreditedOn Warning or Probation Colle ge A 33 unique codes occurred 10 or more times, accounted for 55% of all codes, and were selected as the base group codes consolidated by collapsing related codes into more frequently occurring codes The top 33 unique codes collapsed into 6 primary themes Division of labor Motivation Change Leadership Integration Tools Returned to data and sought differences between A and B colleges for each theme Text DATA ANALYSIS

Subtheme Development Division of Labor MotivationIntegration Accreditation work Perceptions of importance Contact with accreditation Institutional Roles Source of motivation Integrity of processes Role-related Conflict Enforcement Interconnec- tedness Conflict Resolution Critical Mass Resources available DATA ANALYSIS Imported 400 direct quotes into text editor, ~130 per theme Clustered similar quotes by drag and drop To be consider meaningful, quotes had to be confirmed by: 3 or more quotes 3 more participants 3 or more colleges 4 subthemes per theme Findings substantiated by direct 200+ quotes

Largest higher education system in the United States 2.5 million students,112 colleges, 72 districts Mission: two-year degrees, preparation for transfer to 4-yr, career and technical education, and life- long learning High degree of local autonomy LITERATURE REVIEW California community college system LITERATURE REVIEW