Follow-up without Judith Eaton Joseph Bielanski, Berkeley College Marie Boyd, Chaffey College Julie Bruno, Sierra College Rich Hansen, De Anza College Richard Mahon, Riverside College With a special appearance by Jane Patton

Check In What brings you to this breakout? What is happening in regards to accreditation on your campus? What questions can we possibly answer?

Accreditation and the Future What should accreditation be about?  Quality assurance  Quality improvement  Institutional Autonomy  Academic Freedom  Peer and professional review

Accreditation and the Future What it has become?  Gatekeeper for federal financial aid  Gatekeeper for federal regulations  National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI)  Accountability and compliance  2008: 110 new rules  2009: 29 new rules

Accreditation and the Future What has it become?  2010: focus on credit hour, distance education, state authorization, gainful employment, policy on intellectual disabilities  The Higher Education Act renewed in  The political role accreditation plays

Consultation Council Accreditation Task Force Recommendations 1. Provide means for periodic feedback to ACCJC on accreditation processes and college experiences. 2. Strengthen standards-based training via joint conferences and trainings, including best practices. 3. Review the ACCJC visiting-team selection process, widen cross-section of team members, and provide professional development opportunities.

4. Scale accreditation expectations to benchmarks of best practices documented in other accrediting regions. 5. Consider lengthening the cycle of accreditation to years. 6. Focus on improvement rather than compliance and develop non-public communication to campuses regarding improvements needed. 7. Avoid recommendations that encroach on negotiable issues. Consultation Council Accreditation Task Force Recommendations

Some steps being taken by ACCJC: Two recent newsletters:  “Twelve Common Questions and Answers about Regional Accreditation” (2/11)  “The Future of Accreditation” (Spring ’11) Sessions and trainings at conferences: CCLC, CIO, Academic Resource, Strengthening Student Success, Meetings at the State Chancellor’s Office Holding two regional workshops every half year until 2012

Some steps being taken by ACCJC: Encouraging involvement with the Western Cooperative for Educational Technologies (Distance Education) Revising and updating various accreditation manuals In 2012 will begin the review of the current Standards (10 years cycle)

RP Group Accreditation Research Goals of the Study Gather and disseminate information about accreditation practices and processes across the US Create new opportunities for discussion about the utility of accreditation

RP Group Accreditation Research Reviewed 3 Accreditation Agencies  Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS)  North Central Association of Colleges and Schools – Higher Learning Commission (NCA- HLC)  Western Association of Schools and Colleges - Accreditation Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC)

RP Group Accreditation Research Reviewed websites and key documents Interviewed Commission representatives Interviewed representatives from colleges within the three regions

Setting the Stage for Quality Improvement Findings Shifting the focus to quality enhancement requires a reinvention of the accreditation process Three commissions are on a continuum of integration of quality enhancement into accreditation process

Developing a relationship between the Commission and Colleges Findings Transparent, open and honest opportunities for feedback without fear of retribution are critical to the relationship between a commission and member colleges When a commission demonstrates that it takes into account colleges’ feedback, institutions feel heard and a valued part of the process

Supporting Colleges in Achieving Reaffirmation Findings Training constituents involved in reaffirmation A training program that is comprehensive, learner-centered, inclusive and integral to the accreditation process is most useful to institutions Positive learning occurs when serving on a visiting team

Supporting Colleges in Achieving Reaffirmation Findings Sharing effective practices Formal and informal networks created by the colleges themselves are particularly effective in offering peer guidance and specific “nuts and bolts” information Helping institutions interpret and meet standards Institutions need practical, specific and direct guidance on how to understand and achieve standards.

Consistently Applying Standards and Effectively Using Sanctions Findings Ensuring consistent application of standards during review process and status recommendations Commissions promote integrity in the assessment of colleges when they implement a multi-layered, transparent review process Holding all institutions of higher education to the same standards Holding community colleges to the same standards as their baccalaureate-granting counterparts can promote consistency in culture, quality and expectations for students

Consistently Applying Standards and Effectively Using Sanctions Findings Implementing sanctions Sanctions can motivate positive action, but how and when a commission applies a sanction can influence a college’s response

Generating a positive return on investment Findings Commissions engender a positive return on a college’s investment when they demonstrate theoretically and practically that they value quality rather than quantity throughout the review process

RP Group Focusing Accreditation on Quality Improvement: Findings from an Exploration of Community College Accreditation Policies and Practices

Responses from the Field Amending Standards and Processes Emphasize quality and improvement through: The standards, self-study and accreditation visit focus more on teaching, learning and student success and less on internal systems A consortium of colleges that actively works to meet a set of quality standards that go beyond the accreditation standards Recognition of the limited capacities of colleges to continuously address the current accreditation workload as exhibited through: A set of simplified standards that evaluate quality with minimum redundancy A more streamlined system for self-studies, reports to the commission and college visits

Responses from the Field Greater participation of the public A community college trustee assigned to every visiting team to represent the public

Responses from the Field Strengthening Practitioner Training/Support Stronger understanding of accreditation processes/effective practices A commission staff person or member of the commission assigned to every visiting team Learner-centered training programs for college faculty and staff Regional venues for colleges to share promising practices related to the accreditation standards

Responses from the Field Strengthening Practitioner Training/Support Colleges facing sanctions or on sanction could better meet or exceed the accreditation standard minimum with: Pre-visit technical support Post-visit technical support

Responses from the Field Collaborating with Constituency Groups and Accrediting Agencies ACCJC-approved training and collaboration  Academic Senate for California Community Officers  California Community Colleges Chief Instructional Officers Expanding collaboration with WASC Senior Increasing dues to  hire more commission staff  provide additional outreach  support training

What’s Next? Implications? Resolutions? Next Steps?

Q & A with Jane

Resources Accreditation and the Federal Future of Higher Education, Academe Online, Judith Eaton Federalization of Higher Education and the Expanding Data Bubble, Rostrum, Dec 2010 RP Group Discussing Accreditation: Findings, Discussion Questions and Report Back from the Field on Community Colleges Accreditation Policies and Practices RP Group Focusing Accreditation on Quality Improvement: Findings from an Exploration of Community College Accreditation Policies and Practices

Thank You!