Mark Renner and Dave Bazard

1. Overview of2014 Accreditation InstitutePresented by:Academic Senate of CCC, in partnership withACCJC and Community College League of CA (CCLC) Mark Renner and Dave Bazard

3. General Session: “Remembering the Importance of Quality, Accountability, and Student Success: Why Accreditation Matters” • Major “take-aways” (Mark/Dave): • The cycle of “planning” / “doing” / “checking” (assessing) / “acting” should be a continuous process, NOT one which we only think of in prep for our self study or mid-term • It is best if we institutionalize (in a committee?) this continual effort - • There needs to be widespread awareness and evidence of our integrated planning processes and how this ties to assessment, dialogue, budgeting, and student success . • Is this the case for all aspects of CR functions? • Evidence of sustainable and effective processes. Evidence of review and evaluation of budgetary and other decisions. Are all our budget decisions assessed?

4. Breakout Session: “Substantive Change Reports” • Major “take-aways” (Mark): • Dr. Susan Clifford: “U.S. Dep’t. of Ed. requirements re: Substantive Change are very definitive; ACCJC’s latest focus is on D.E.” • Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions – ACCJC sub. change process is similar to other accreditors’ processes; • July 2013 Substantive Change Manual (ACCJC) must be followed VERY rigorously; • Sections 4 & 5 can be used as templates for this work; section 4.2.1 is especially important; • A D.E. sub.change might lead us to modify our mission statement (to include D.E.); if so, this must also be included in the sub.change proposal; • Section 5.3 shows how student achievement data and SLO data must be included in the sub.change proposal; • In summary, a D.E. sub.change proposal is very rigorous; should be viewed much like a 6-year self-evaluation study in rigor; shall demonstrate all 21 E.R.’s and all Standards; evidence-driven • LACC’s proposal (which we now have) is an excellent guide.

5. General Session: “Overview of the Revised Accreditation Standards” • New Areas (Dave): • Evidence of scheduling that allows students to complete degrees and certificate in a stated timeframe.  • Meet new standard about co-curricular and athletics programs. • Evidence that we define and advise students on clear pathways to degrees  and certificates. • Evidence that faculty (and others?) evaluated in terms of the employee to effectively produce learning - controversial and under discussion • Major “take-aways” (Mark): • New standards move away from California standards and move toward Federal standards; • Goals of the new standards: • Reordering to yield a more logical sequence; • Requirements for institutions with baccalaureate degrees; • Elimination of overly prescriptive sections; • Reduction of redundancy; • Clarification of intent • Feedback through Apr. 30

6. Breakout Session: “Strategies to Institutionalizethe Accreditation Standards” • Major “take-aways” (Mark): • We should build a small leadership group (a working group) to work continually on all Standards; group membership likely to include: • ALO; • Faculty co-chair; • Acad. Senate leadership; • Researcher; • Other “data people” • Locate evidence and store in a central place; evidence to support: • All standards; • The “institution story” • Instruct teams to approach this like a science report: • Lay out the evidence; • Know the conclusion; i.e., the “institution story”; • Write with “one voice”; • Make a reasonable schedule and stick to it; • Stagger due dates so deliverables don’t all come due at same time • Maxim: NEVER make a visiting team search for evidence/data !!

7. General Session: “Emerging topics in Accreditation” • Major “take-aways” (Mark): • Greater emphasis on data in Std. 1; • Will likely see templates which we can use (for standardization); • Mid-term reports to change due to 2-year Dept. of Ed. rule; • Less focus on procedures & more on results; • Greater focus on information; • Emphasis on using data to see if mission is being met; • More emphasis on student & disaggregated data; • D.E. authentication to be a big focus • Major “take-aways” (Dave): • Academic quality is showing up in new standards (data documented)- document student learning and achievement (culture of evidence). ACCJC Comment (and others) – Accreditation is becoming more interested in “results” and what an institution “is doing” . Not just procedure and process anymore.

8. Breakout Session: “Standards for student achievement– the new emphasis for accreditation” • Major “take-aways” (Dave): • Institutions must set standards and measure achievement for: • Course completion rate • Student retention percentage • Number of Degrees • Number of Certificates • Number of students who transfer • There was considerable discussion about how schools set these standards – there should be appropriate input from all constituents (a 10+1 issue). • If levels are set too low, they may be viewed as “unreasonable” by ACCJC. If set too high, they may be unattainable and indicate school is not achieving objectives. • Has CR set these standards? If so, how and by whom? Are they realistic?

9. Breakout Session: “D.E. Accreditation Issues” • Major “take-aways” (Mark): • In 2011, 65% of CA institutions surveyed felt D.E. was crucial to their long-term strategy; • All student support services need to be available in a fully online format; • Student Authentication to become much more rigorous; • Higher Ed Opportunity Act (HEOA): “Authentication must be driven by an institutional policy, not by individual faculty choices”; • Examples: • College CMS (“LMS”); • Proctored assessment; • CMS log-in tying to Student Code of Conduct; • Academic integrity in D.E. training; • Plagiarism detection software