1. Judy Beachler, Cosumnes River College Julie Bruno, Sierra College Richard Mahon, Riverside City College The Accreditation Team(s)

2. The Accreditation Team: What is your college’s process for establishing your Accreditation team? What roles do existing college leaders play? Will you be ready when your visiting team arrives? How should you welcome your visiting team and what can you do to facilitate its ability to see your college as it really is in just two and half days?

3. The Accreditation Team Panel’s experience with accreditation and team visits  Judy…  Julie…  Richard…

4. The Accreditation Team What is your local process for building the self- evaluation/accreditation team?  What roles will existing college committees and their leaders and members play?  What does the self-evaluation committee structure look like?  Who appoints the members and how?

5. The Accreditation Timeline What is your timeline for the self-evaluation process, including milestones along the way?  Who reviews drafts? Do they receive drafts as information or for approval ?  How are standards judged unmet addressed?  How is the process managed so as to enhance local processes and improve the college?

6. The Accreditation Team What is your process for local input, for writing, and for editing the self-study?  What tips do you have on disseminating it to the visiting team?  Is there such a thing as “too much” evidence? Is a 500- page self-evaluation document a good thing?

7. The Visiting Team’s Role Team selection & training:  Professional peers, volunteers, offer independent insights, judgment and evaluation  Evaluates the institution using accreditation standards  Confirms and finds evidence for the assertions in the self study report against the standards  Calls attention to weaknesses unrecognized by the college itself

8. The Visiting Team…  Assures the Commission that the college has been responsive to recommendations of previous visiting teams  Assures the Commission that the college has developed sound evaluation and planning procedures to foster improvement of student learning outcomes  Encourages the college’s commitment to its continuing pursuit of excellence

9. Expectations of Team Members  Know ACCJC standards, eligibility requirements, and pertinent policies  Recognize the standards as the necessary minimum conditions for high quality education  Recognize the standards as statements of best practice in higher education  Understand that colleges are accredited using the ACCJC standards rather than the regulations or requirements of other groups

10. Expectations, continued  Appreciate that peer review lies at the heart of the accreditation process  Remember that team members represent the Commission  Maintain objectivity and flexibility  Rely on evidence in making judgments about the college  Maintain confidentiality

11. Before the Team Arrives on Campus Develop a college culture around accreditation:  Kick off event to celebrate completion of self evaluation  Don’t wait for the visit to address deficiencies  Meet with campus groups to discuss possible meetings  Be prepared to showcase college achievements as well as challenges to highlight as appropriate  The Self Evaluation steering committee is usually the first to meet with the team, so be prepared to tell your “story”

12. Logistical Needs of the Team The Team Room  Comfortable and well organized (snacks are good too)  Evidence of preparation, paper, web and other electronic resources  Prepare any “how to” guides for the team  Provide maps of the campus  Be sure the team room is conveniently located  What really happens in the team room?

13. Optimal Team Experiences While on Campus  Provide a variety of opportunities for engagement on campus  Structure discussions around the themes of dialogue, SLOs, institutional commitments, evaluation, planning, improvement, organization and institutional integrity  Arrange meetings with shared governance committees  Allow time to walk around, observe classes, visit staff in their offices

14. “Red Flag” Situations  College members with “an agenda”; fellow team members with “an agenda”: look for evidence and follow the standards  Tampering with the self-study (i.e., authors of the self evaluation report that their work has been changed in the version sent to the team)  Significant campus issues not reflected in the self study  Campus constituency who report being excluded from the self evaluation process

15. Post Visit Suggestions  Don’t wait for the team report to address known weaknesses  Maintain focus on institutional quality, not compliance  Develop a comprehensive and realistic plan for addressing recommendations  Address recommendations in the spirit of the standards; don’t throw out what’s good to meet Commission demands

16. Questions?