1. Meeting Accreditation Challenges

2. WASC Standards Standard I: Evaluation, integrated planning, implementation, and re- evaluation to verify and improve the effectiveness. Standard II: The institution offers high- quality instructional programs, student support services, and library and learning support services that facilitate and demonstrate the achievement of stated student learning outcomes.

3. WASC Standards Standard III: The institution effectively uses its human, physical, technology, and financial resources to achieve its broad educational purposes, including stated student learning outcomes, and to improve institutional effectiveness. Standard IV: The institution recognizes and utilizes the contributions of leadership throughout the organization for continuous improvement of the institution.

4. Accreditation trends Focus has shifted from resources to outcomes-based measurements of institutional effectiveness. Emphasis on goal attainment. Colleges are encouraged to build a “culture of evidence” to demonstrate goal attainment.

5. Findings Of 25 colleges applying for reaffirmation of accreditation in 2009-10, 14 had their accreditation reaffirmed. Eight colleges were issued warnings. Three colleges were placed on probation.

6. Why were they cited? 1) Integrated planning and evaluation: 8 colleges cited 2) Student learning outcomes: 5 colleges cited 3) Distance education 4 colleges cited 4) Technology planning: 4 colleges cited

7. Why were they cited? 5) Governing board: 3 colleges cited 6) Resource allocation: 3 colleges cited 7) Communication and shared governance: 3 colleges cited 8) Human resources and employee evaluations: 3 colleges cited

8. Prepare for the Following: Rigorous scrutiny of integrated planning processes in accreditation. Demonstrate effectiveness based on an evaluation of student learning outcomes. Document results of program review are clearly and consistently linked to institutional planning and resource (re)allocation processes.

9. Successful Planning Models: Link activities to cost to fund activities that support achievement of strategic goals and student learning outcomes. Participatory planning efforts are more successful than centralized ones. Implement exemplary effectiveness practices consistently across the institution

10. Reaffirmation of Accreditation is supported by: A culture of assessment, characterized by an institutional commitment to the following: ◦Program review ◦Institutional effectiveness ◦Information sharing ◦Systemic assessment planning

11. Reaffirmation of Accreditation is supported by: ◦Common assessment terminology ◦Professional development ◦Planning and resource allocation and ◦Involvement and support from Board, President, faculty, staff and information technology.

12. Accreditation Timeline for Reedley & Willow International Steering Committees FormedJanuary 2010 Substandard Committees FormedFebruary 2010 Data Collection - Survey faculty/staff/students GAP Analysis and Review April-May 2010 1 st draft submitted to campus constituency for reviewAugust 2010 Campus Forums/WorkshopsAugust 2010 2 nd draft submitted to campus constituency for reviewJanuary 2011 Begin validation, finalization and constituency approvalFebruary-March 2011 Self-study completed and sent to ChancellorMay 2011 Submit for Board ReviewJune 2011 Board of Trustees approvalJuly 2011 Pre-team site visitAugust 2011 Report submitted to visiting team and commissionAugust 2011 Team visitOctober 2011 Commission MeetsJanuary 2012 Recommendations PublishedFebruary 2012

13. Reedley College Accreditation Committees Accreditation Steering Committee Co-Chairs -- Marilyn Behringer, Anna Martinez Standard I − Institutional Mission and Effectiveness — Barbara Hioco, Eileen Apperson- Williams, Linda Nies Mission Improving Institutional Effectiveness Standard II − Student Learning Programs and Services -- Marilyn Behringer, Anna Martinez Instructional Programs — Marilyn Behringer, Anna Martinez, Lisa McAndrews Student Support Services — Monica Cuevas (NC), Mario Gonzales, Michael White Library and Learning Support Services — Stephanie Curry, Cynthia MacDonald (NC) Standard III − Resources -- Scott Thomason, Gary Sakaguchi Human Resources — Melanie Highfill, John McPhee (NC), Gary Sakaguchi, Scott Thomason Physical Resources — Scott Thomason, Jim Burgess Technology Resources — Gary Sakaguchi Financial Resources — Scott Thomason, Melanie Highfill Standard IV − Leadership and Governance — Brian Shamp (NC), Bill Turini, Tom West Decision-Making Roles and Processes Board and Administrative Organization