NEW ACCREDITATION STANDARDS AND PRACTICES: FOCUS ON QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

Transcription

1 NEW ACCREDITATION STANDARDS AND PRACTICES: FOCUS ON QUALITY IMPROVEMENT Community College League of California Annual Convention November 19, 2015 Steve Kinsella, ACCJC Chair Barbara Beno, ACCJC President

2 WE WILL HIGHLIGHT THREE THEMES New standards and practices reflect three broad themes that were identified through field input to the Commission: Focus on Improvement of Quality I Focus on Student Outcomes SO Improve Consistency and Clarity of Standards and Practices C 2

3 CHANGES TO STANDARDS AND PRACTICES Standards incorporate some of what was extra formerly policy or federal regulatory requirement, most important of which is: Institution Set Standards for Student Achievement Accreditation practices incorporate several ideas from the field input, including: Longer accreditation cycle Clean Slate vis a vis compliance with 2002 Standards and more... 3

4 CHANGES TO STANDARDS AND PRACTICES See Spring/Summer ACCJC News This web address holds the 2002 and 2014 Eligibility Requirements, the 2014 Standards with a crosswalk to the 2002 standards, and the 2014 standards that are annotated to policy and regulations 4

5 PURPOSES OF ACCREDITATION Provide quality assurance to the public and students, as well as to federal and state governments (gateway to Title IV) Provide impetus for institutional selfimprovement and support for educational excellence Help higher education become more effective 5

6 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF ACCREDITATION Accrediting agencies: Membership entities with requirements of members (Standards) Regional Accreditors: evaluate the whole institution in geographic regions Western Association, Southern Association, etc. Accreditation is non-governmental, peer review Accreditation is voluntary institutions voluntarily submit to requirements, evaluators are volunteers 6

7 PRINCIPLES OF SELF-REGULATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION Institutions commit to engage thoughtfully in selfassessment and to maintain and improve quality Evaluation teams provide external peer evaluation and recommendations for improvement The Commission of peers provides another layer of external peer evaluation, supports improvement, and provides the quality assurance by making a decision on accreditation Standards are applied to each institution in the context of its mission and the community it serves 7

8 WHAT IS NEW IN THE STANDARDS Changed the format of the Standards from a complex outline to a simpler format and numbering system, clarifying the relative importance of standards C Eliminated redundancies in many of the planning and evaluation statements; consolidated in Standard IB, Institutional Effectiveness, especially Standard I.B.7. C 8

9 ...NEW IN THE STANDARDS Clarified language of the standards e.g., 2002 stated, Faculty and others directly responsible for student progress toward achieving stated student learning outcomes have, as a component of their evaluation, effectiveness in producing those learning outcomes states, The evaluation of faculty, academic administrators and personnel directly responsible for student learning includes, as a component of that (their) evaluation, consideration of how these employees use results of assessment of learning to improve teaching and learning. C, SO, I 9

10 ...NEW IN THE STANDARDS Consolidated all of the items dealing with institutional integrity and honesty, including federal regulatory requirements related to integrity, into new Standard I.C., Institutional Integrity C 10

11 ...NEW IN THE STANDARDS Added to the standards policy language and federal regulatory requirements that used to be extra e.g., Standard I.B.3. states, The institution establishes institution-set standards for student achievement appropriate to its mission, assesses how well it is achieving them in pursuit of continuous improvement, and publishes this information. SO, I 11

12 ...NEW IN THE STANDARDS Added information about the importance of data on student outcomes and the institution s role in addressing achievement gaps e.g., Standard I.A.2 and I.B.6. and many others SO, I Added specific language about the baccalaureate degree including reference to the student learning outcomes and associated curriculum for baccalaureate degree programs, developed by modeling other regional accreditors SO 12

13 ...NEW IN THE STANDARDS Embedded the Eligibility Requirements into the Standards, since the ERS were always similar to the more expanded standards language e.g., Standard I.B.2, which now says, The institution defines and assesses student learning outcomes for all instructional programs and student learning support services. (ER 11) C 13

14 ...NEW IN THE STANDARDS Added specific language about student learning and student achievement into many existing standards and in new standards, e.g., Standard IV.C.8 for governing boards SO Created a new introduction explaining the standards focus on learning and the importance of continuous improvement I 14

15 ...NEW IN THE STANDARDS As an experiment, added glossary to provide some definitions of terms we commonly use, but might understand in different ways e.g., Student Learning: Competencies in skill and knowledge gained by students who are at the institution. The knowledge and competencies are expressed for segments of study or activity through measurable learning outcomes at the institutional, program, degree and course levels. C 15

16 EXERCISE ON INSTITUTION SET STANDARDS Part H: Section and : Accreditor must address the quality of the institution with respect to student achievement in relation to institution-set standards; the institutions standards must at least conform to commonly accepted standards Purpose of legislation was to ask institutions to monitor student achievement and to work to improve it Attempt to prevent USDE from setting standards for student achievement 16

17 IS THIS GOOD ENOUGH? HOW WOULD YOU DECIDE? Jones College has examined its graduation rate over the last five years. After much discussion across the institution, it has set its standard for graduation (assume IPEDS, national data set) at 150% of time at 11.8%. 17

18 WILL THE STANDARD STIMULATE IMPROVEMENT? IS IT WISE? Smith College has calculated its graduation rate for the last five years (same assumptions, IPEDS at 150% of the time). The annual performance ranges from 13.6% to 24.3%. The institution has set its Standard at 13.6%, so it will be satisfied if its future performance is at 13.6% or above. 18

19 USDE AND INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE November 6, 2015 USDE announcement and expansion of College Scorecard Data, organized by accreditor USDE executive orders stating that accreditors will be reviewed in a manner that includes their colleges performance on grad rate, loan default Proposed changes to legislation to allow USDE to set standards for student achievement 19

20 USDE AND INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE The increased federal focus on outcomes will cause accreditors and institutions to be more contextual and collaborative in accreditation Increased pressure on institutions to produce more completers Significant pressure on accreditors to justify an institution s completion data in its accreditation decisions Making outcomes the major focus of accreditation may have advantages and disadvantages 20

21 CHANGES TO PRACTICE IN FIVE AREAS Changes to requirements of the Institutional Self Evaluation Report (ISER) Changes to the Midterm Reporting, and to annual reporting (MTR) Changes to team preparation and practice Change to Commission Policy on Actions on Institutions Additional training and education services 21

22 CHANGES TO PRACTICES- ISER Clean Slate : ISER no longer needs to address institution s response to the recommendations of the prior comprehensive evaluation team under 2002 Standards but begin the 2014 Standards with a clean slate. 22

23 CHANGES TO PRACTICES- ISER ISER should provide longitudinal data, and evaluation, on student outcomes drawn from its own data and from the Annual Report data submitted to ACCJC SO, I ISER no longer has to provide information on how it meets Eligibility Requirements 6-21 separately; that information is embedded in its response to standards - Only ER 1-5 needed C 23

24 CHANGES TO PRACTICES- ISER The ISER should develop actionable improvement plans but incorporate them in existing institutional plans, and track them therein The ISER should conclude with a Quality Focus Essay wherein the college will discuss and commit to two or three areas for further study, improvement, and enhancement of academic quality that are hoped to enhance student outcomes and student success SO, I 24

25 THE QUALITY FOCUS ESSAY AND PROJECTS Should address needs and ideas for improvement in student outcomes that college identified in ISER Should focus on institutional strategies to improve student outcomes, can be multi-year The projects are low risk: innovative approaches can be attempted, both success or learning what does not work are acceptable QFE and Projects are an institution s commitment to make improvements to improve student outcomes SO, I 25

26 CHANGES TO PRACTICE: MIDTERM REPORTING College will provide analyses and self reflection of longitudinal data on student achievement and outcomes, including that provided to ACCJC in annual reports; ACCJC will provide templates for this work - This is practice and early alert for the Comprehensive review SO, I College will report on QFE and any team recommendations for improvement SO, I 26

27 CHANGES TO PRACTICE: TEAM PREPARATION New additional training session for New Evaluators on evaluation basics being offered this spring (Feb. 26, 2016, LA Airport Marriott) and every year thereafter at annual conference Completers first to be new evaluators on teams Will increase quality of teams, consistency of team training, and hopefully of team reports C 27

28 CHANGES TO TEAM PREPARATION Team training will be changed to focus on the tasks of the team and the skills to accomplish those tasks; basic accreditation information will be achieved through the online course, and through the New Evaluator Training C Chair training changed to prepare teams to make constructive comments on the QFE, to have the team examine student achievement outcomes more carefully C, I 28

29 CHANGES TO PRACTICE: TEAM ACTION Team decision on whether a standard is met is now met or not met C Team report must include statements on institution-set standards, whether they are appropriate, and on college performance vis a vis those standards SO 29

30 CHANGES TO POLICY ON ACTIONS ON INSTITUTIONS Changed definitions of warning, probation and show cause to align with other regional commissions Created a new action, reaffirm accreditation and require a follow up report for a term of up to 18 months, and require institution to demonstrate compliance in that term 30

31 NEW TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES New Evaluator Training offered as a one day workshop for newbies (Feb., 2016) Will allow revised team evaluator training to focus more on tasks and skills of evaluation Workshop on program learning outcomes and assessment strategies issue identified by field Continued workshops, new presenter on Assessment of Learning Annual conference now being scheduled and planned with ACCCA assistance will occur in April of each year 31

32 EXERCISE ON CONSISTENCY IN EVALUATION 32

33 PROGRAM REVIEW AND DATA How urgent or important is this team finding? The team finds that the institution has been conducting program review using faculty surveys, student satisfaction surveys and analyzing grade distributions for the courses in the program. The program reviews are conducted every six years and the results are used to guide institutional planning. A. An improvement Recommendation is all that is needed B. A recommendation to meet the standards is needed C. A sanction may be warranted 33

34 EXERCISE ON CONSISTENCY IN CONTEXT Add this contextual information and consider your decision again: 1. The team finding refers to only one program at the institution 2. The institution serves primarily low income, first generation students in the nearby communities 34

35 ADD MORE CONTEXT, HOW DOES JUDGMENT CHANGE IN CONTEXT? 3. The program in question is a small program in machine technology OR 4. The program in question is the college transfer program and is the largest program at the college 5. The institution s completion rate is 63% or 11% 35

36 OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHANGE The Commission is still listening - It held sessions on October 9, in Sacramento, October 30 at Bakersfield College and November 13 at Rancho Santiago CCD More are planned for spring, as is a survey of members Meeting with the Task Force at January Commission meeting Seeking input at all times, all meetings 36

37 CONCLUDING COMMENTS ACCJC has made many change responsive to input from the field and implemented them with the 2014 standards, foremost an increased focus on quality improvement ACCJC s standards and accreditation practices have helped prepare its members for what is coming in accountability 37