Copyright 2010 School Services of California, Inc. Volume 23 For Publication Date: January 29, 2010 No. 2 Enhancing the Accreditation Process

Transcription

1 Copyright 2010 School Services of California, Inc. Volume 23 For Publication Date: January 29, 2010 No. 2 Enhancing the Accreditation Process Following expressions of concern shared by representatives from institutional groups (such as trustees, executive officers, students, administrators, business officers, student services officers, and instructional officers), and representative organizations (such as faculty and staff unions and associations) to the system's 18-member Consultation Council, the Consultation Council established an Accreditation Task Force in 2009 to review and provide advice on the accreditation process. The Accreditation Task Force was configured to represent the broad-based constituencies on the Consultation Council, and comprises eight individuals representing: The Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges (CCCs) The Faculty Association of CCCs The Chief Executive Officers The Chief Instructional Officers The Academic Senate The Classified School Employees Association The Community College Association/California Teachers Association The Chancellor's Office of the CCC The Task Force's work, which is intended to enhance the accreditation process, to date has resulted in the formulation of seven recommendations. These recommendations have been shared with the organization that accredits the CCCs, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC). The Chair and president of the ACCJC have responded on behalf of the ACCJC. With the ACCJC having met earlier this month to make accreditation decisions regarding member institutions, and the Accreditation Task Force having moved on to a discussion of next steps, an update on activities and actions to date is appropriate. Background There is no one definition of "accreditation." Barbara Beno, President of the ACCJC, has described accreditation as American higher education's system of rigorous selfregulation, and as a means of providing quality assurance to the public and to students. Basically, accreditation is the nongovernmental, self- and peer-review process used by the U.S. higher education community to assess and assure the educational quality of institutions. It is both a necessary and important process, in part because it is used by the

2 U.S. Department of Education to determine eligibility for federal funding and student financial aid. The ACCJC accredits associate degree granting institutions in California, among other places, and is a part of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), which has two other accrediting commissions one that accredits senior colleges and universities and another that accredits K-12 schools. Visiting teams do the assessments of the colleges and make recommendations, but the ACCJC makes the final decisions on actions to be taken. If an accredited institution cannot demonstrate that it meets established standards, eligibility requirements, and policies, the ACCJC may impose one of three sanctions: Warning, Probation, or Show Cause. Issues and Concerns Regarding the Accreditation Process One of the concerns that led to the Consultation Council's formation of the Accreditation Task Force was the sheer number of sanctions being issued by the ACCJC as compared to other regional accrediting commissions. One Consultation Council member organization shared an analysis it had done reflecting that the ACCJC sanctioned 41 of the 110 California community colleges between 2003 and 2008, meaning that a total of 37% of California's community colleges were sanctioned. Some colleges were on the list multiple times for varying sanctions. The study compared the number of sanctions imposed by other regional accrediting associations on their accredited community colleges over the same time period, which ranged from as low as 0% to as high as 6%. As of January 2009, there were 22 ACCJC member institutions on sanction, most of them California community colleges. Many concerns had been expressed about the process, including: The cost of doing self-studies Visiting team recommendations that were changed by the ACCJC Lack of opportunity to appeal a sanction The six-year length of the accrediting cycle, as compared to the ten years used by other regional accrediting commissions A perception that too many institutions were being sanctioned rather than helped Perceived inconsistency in the treatment of different colleges After its formation, the Accreditation Task Force formally surveyed the 110 community colleges to solicit any issues and concerns the colleges had regarding the current accreditation process. The results of that survey have not been made public, but form the basis of the Accreditation Task Force's recommendations. Task Force Recommendations and ACCJC Response

3 The Task Force presented a document[1] containing seven recommendations to the ACCJC. Those recommendations are reflected in the left hand column of the table below. Five members of the Accreditation Task Force presented the above recommendations to five members of the ACCJC, including President Barbara Beno, at an October 26, 2009, meeting, and had a three- to four-hour discussion with the ACCJC members, who indicated that only the full ACCJC could act. The Accreditation Task Force's request to present its concerns and recommendations to the full ACCJC, during the latter's open session in early January, was denied initially. On January 6, 2010, a letter was sent out electronically to a broader group of community college officials, including chancellors, superintendents, presidents, and accreditation liaison officers, attempting to explain the ACCJC's rationale for denying the Task Force's request to present. Ultimately, the ACCJC members had an apparent change of mind, and Chancellor Jack Scott was allowed to present the recommendations to the ACCJC in closed session on January 8. The Chancellor was allotted only five minutes for that presentation. The ACCJC responded to Chancellor Scott's recommendations in a ten-page letter dated January 20, 2010, and signed by its Chair and President. The Chief Executive Officers of the California Community Colleges were copied on the letter. Task Force Recommendation AACJC Response Develop a means for colleges to provide periodic feedback to ACCJC on the accreditation processes and their experiences, including both commendations for what went well and identification of what needs improvement. Strengthen standards-based training of both visiting-team members and Accreditation Liaison Officers (ALOs). Consider instituting an annual multiday statewide California Community College conference to provide training and information to all interested constituencies. This could be copresented with the Academic Senate and the CC [Community College] League at the November annual CCC conference. Colleges could also present their best practices. The AACJC cited what it characterized as "numerous mechanisms for feedback from member institutions," and expressed its belief that "it is getting ample feedback from its member institutions and from individuals engaged in accreditation activities." The AACJC mentioned the manuals and guides it publishes, regular workshops it provides, its annual accreditation meeting, and the WASC Academic Resource Conference held annually. It indicated it is already partnering with certain organizations on training workshops and regularly presents on accreditation. The ACCJC offered a suggestion of its own: "that the Chancellor's Office endorse the philosophy and set the expectation that all California Community Colleges meet or exceed accreditation standards, and that college CEOs support and engage themselves in the efforts needed to develop their own staffs' capacities to understand and apply the standards in order to help their

4 own institutions achieve educational excellence." Review the ACCJC visiting-team selection process and consider means to involve a wider cross-section of the individuals in our system who desire to participate. Team participation should be treated as a professional development opportunity. Scale accreditation expectations of Western Region colleges to benchmarks formulated relative to evidence of best practices documented in all of the accrediting regions in the country. The AACJC responded with justifications for limiting the number of first-time team members. The ACCJC suggested that participation in the institutional self-study and improvement process were themselves excellent professional development activities. The AACJC stated that its standards are considered the "best practices" by member institutions, and that the standards align closely with national best practices. Consider lengthening the cycle of accreditation to 8-10 years. The AACJC stated that regional commissions with longer cycles are "starting" to change to a shorter cycle, that institutions are expected to be in compliance with the standards at all times, and that the ACCJC was unlikely to lengthen the accreditation cycle until institutions become more reliably compliant with accreditation standards. It did state that it may explore this idea in the future. Employ cooperative ways to have accreditation result in improvement rather than just compliance. Also, develop more nonpublic ways to communicate to campuses their need for improvement. The ACCJC wrote, "Institutional improvement leads to compliance with the Standards. Or, since the Standards require good practices, including practices of assessment and continuous quality improvement, compliance leads to institutional improvement." The ACCJC also cited the pressure for more compliance. The second part of this recommendation was rejected with the statement that "The genie is out of the bottle on this issue," and the explanation that they'd moved to all

5 public sanctions many years ago. They stated that it is not the best interest of the system to try to regain privacy on accreditor actions. Avoid recommendations that encroach on negotiable issues. This was quickly dismissed as not being in the best interests of institutional quality or students. Next Steps Although both the Accreditation Task Force and the ACCJC refer to the spirit of collaboration, and collaboration would appear to be necessary for a peer-based process to succeed, it is unclear how much collaboration will actually occur. As always, we'll keep you posted on developments. Deborah Harmon and Sheila Vickers [1] Consultation Task Group Recommendations to ACCJC (Fall 2009)