Expanding the Dialogue: Consistency, Quality, and Responsibility in Accreditation

1. Expanding the Dialogue:Consistency, Quality, and Responsibility in Accreditation Dr. Robert Gabriner Project Director Accreditation Institute March 19, 2011 1

2. Overview • Impetus and goals of the study • Brief overview of methodology • Key findings and discussion questions • Next steps 2

3. Impetus of the Study • Tensions between ACCJC and some community colleges and some CCC organizations • Add a national perspective into the accreditation discussion within California 3

4. Goals of the Study • Gather and disseminate information about accreditation practices and processes across the US • Create new opportunities for discussion about the utility ofaccreditation 4

5. Methodology • Phase I • Review of seven commission websites • Telephone interviews with commission staff • Phase II • In-depth focus on three commissions • Telephone interviews with colleges in regions of three selected commissions • Interviewed college CEO, accreditation liaison officer, faculty • Conducted 29 interviews with staff at 11 colleges 5

6. Seven Commissions • Western Association of Schools and Colleges Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (WASC-ACCJC) • Western Association of Schools and CollegesAccrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities (WASC-ACSCU) • Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACS-COC) 6

7. Seven Commissions(continued) • North Central Association of Colleges and Schools - The Higher Learning Commission (NCA-HLC) • Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools - Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) 7

8. Seven Commissions(continued) • New England Association of Schools and Colleges Commission on Institutions of Higher Education (NEASC-CIHE) • Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) 8

9. Commissions’ Profiles 9

10. Research Questions How do colleges perceive compliance and improvement to be defined within the accreditation process? How do colleges view their commission’s efforts to ensure the consistent application of the standards? How do colleges assess their return on investment? 10

11. Findings Organized by how commissions: • Set the stage for quality improvement • Support institutions in achieving reaffirmation • Consistently apply standards and effectively use sanctions • Generate a positive return on investment for colleges 11

12. Setting the Stage for Quality Improvement Findings • Shifting the focus to quality enhancement requires a reinvention of the accreditation process • Three commissions are on a continuum of integration of quality enhancement into accreditation process 12

13. NCA AQIP Academic Quality Improvement Process • Series of activities that carries institutions through a cycle of continuous improvement • Institutional self-assessment • Ongoing dialogue, planning, action and reflection • Compliance through improvement 13

14. SACS QEP Quality Enhancement Plan • Focuses on improving a particular aspect of student learning • Requires institution-wide perspective • Submitted in addition to comprehensive compliance review (self-study) 14

15. Supporting Colleges in Achieving ReaffirmationFindings Training constituents involved in reaffirmation • A training program that is comprehensive, learner-centered, inclusive and integral to the accreditation process is most useful to institutions • Positive learning occurs when serving on a visiting team 15

16. Supporting Colleges in Achieving ReaffirmationFindings Sharing effective practices Formal and informal networks created by the colleges themselves are particularly effective in offering peer guidance and specific “nuts and bolts” information 16

17. Supporting Colleges in Achieving ReaffirmationFindings Helping institutions interpret and meet standards Institutions need practical, specific and direct guidance on how to understand and achieve standards. 17

18. Consistently Applying Standards and Effectively Using Sanctions Findings Ensuring consistent application of standards during review process and status recommendations • Commissions promote integrity in the assessment of colleges when they implement a multi-layered, transparent review process 18

19. Consistently Applying Standards and Effectively Using Sanctions Findings Holding all institutions of higher education to the same standards Holding community colleges to the same standards as their baccalaureate-granting counterparts can promote consistency in culture, quality and expectations for students 19

20. Consistently Applying Standards and Effectively Using Sanctions Findings Implementing sanctions Sanctions can motivate positive action, but how and when a commission applies a sanction can influence a college’s response 20

21. Responses from the FieldAmending Standards and Processes Emphasize quality and improvement through: • An accreditation process where the standards, self-study and accreditation visit focus more on teaching, learning and student success and less on internal systems (ACCJC-led effort) •  A consortium of colleges that actively works to meet a set of quality standards that go beyond the accreditation standards (field-led effort) Recognition of the limited capacities of colleges to continuously address the current accreditation workload as exhibited through: • A set of simplified standards that evaluate quality with minimum redundancy (ACCJC-led effort) •  A more streamlined system for self-studies, reports to the commission and college visits (ACCJC-led effort)

22. Responses from the FieldGreater participation of the public •  A community college trustee assigned to every visiting team to represent the public (joint field and ACCJC effort)

23. Responses from the FieldStrengthening Practitioner Training/Support Stronger understanding of accreditation processes/effective practices • A commission staff person or member of the commission assigned to every visiting team to guide the interpretation of standards (ACCJC-led effort) •  Learner-centered training programs for college faculty and staff (joint field and ACCJC effort) •  Regional venues for colleges to share promising practices related to the accreditation standards (field-led effort)

24. Responses from the FieldStrengthening Practitioner Training/Support Colleges facing sanctions or on sanction could better meet or exceed the accreditation standard minimum with: • A period prior to an accreditation team visit where colleges can opt for help from a technical assistance group comprised of experienced peers that is approved by the commission (joint field and ACCJC effort) • A period after a college has been placed on sanction where a college can opt for help from a technical assistance group comprised of experienced peers that is approved by the commission (joint field and ACCJC effort)

25. Responses from the FieldCollaborating with Constituency Groups and Accrediting Agencies ACCJC would gain additional capacity by: •  Constituency groups such as the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges or the California Community Colleges Chief Instructional Officers offering training using content that is approved by the commission (joint field and ACCJC effort) •  Expanding collaboration with WASC Senior to implement specific components of accreditation (ACCJC-led effort) •  Increasing dues to hire more commission staff, provide additional outreach and support training (joint field and ACCJC effort)

26. Next Steps • How do we take this conversation further so it can result in optimizing the accreditation process for true quality enhancement? 26

27. Contact Information Research and Planning Group www.rpgroup.org Darla Cooper – dcooper@rpgroup.org Robert Gabriner – gabriner@sfsu.edu Diane Rodriguez-Kiino – dcrodrig@callutheran.edu 27