----------------------------- Step 2.2 -- Creating a NEW Account  ------------------------------------------

How to get started to Read and Reply to the News:  4 Steps below: 1. Click to Create a New Account to join News Forum. Must have valid email address where your Account Login info will be sent.   You'll be asked for a Username (suggest:  your "firstlastname, e.g., juancruz) and Password (suggest: last 4 of SSN or Student ID), enter your valid email address twice,  complete First Name,  Last Name (surname), City, Country (Scroll down for United States), hit "Create my New Account".   Open email to confirm signing up.  This completes "Creating new account".

----------------------------- Step 2.3 -- Logging on -----------------------------------------------------------

How to get started to Read and Reply to the News:  Step 02: 2. Click to Login. (must have an account). On the left-hand side, you will type in your Username and Password, then the "Login" button. Return to this screen or hit "Blogquot; link which takes there.

----------------------------- Step 2.4 -- Enrolling -----------------------------------------------------------

How to get started to Read and Reply to the News:  Step 03: 3.  Click to Enroll in Course if necessary (Not a real course, just a container for the Forum) At the left panel, on the 1st run, you will see a link: "Enrol (Enroll) me in this course"  .... Click it.  "You are about to enrol (enroll) yourself as a member of this course. Are you sure you wish to do this?"   Click yes Then you see the link "Blog for Online"

----------------------------- Step 2.5 -- Creating a NEW Account  ------------------------------------------

How to get started to Read and Reply to the News:  Step 04: 4. Click to participate in the Forum (read and write News).  (Must be logged in and enrolled.) At this point, you should see " Blog Web 2.0 -- Your Source for Information"  ...  Read and scroll it.  Hit "Reply" below right,  type your comments.  Hit "Post to forum" button.   Go Collaborative!   Go Learn!  Out!

 

----------------------------- Section 3 -- Accreditation Policy ----------------------------------------

REVIEW OF ACCREDITATION UNDER SANCTION Donald F. Averill, Ed.D.     When your college has been placed on sanction by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC), the Commission can impose three (3) sanctions: issue warning; impose probation; and order show cause.  Unless the sanction is to deny accreditation, the college retains its accreditation status and has a maximum period of two (2) years time to correct the deficiencies and file a report to the Commission.  Depending on the time that the sanction is set, the reports will be due in October 15 for the January Commission meeting and March 15, for the June Commission meeting.  It is important for the college to be open and honest with the community and your students about your sanctions.  Often your feeder schools do not understand and tell their students you have lost your accreditation.  It is up to you to maintain open communications and assure that community that your institution is still accredited. All community colleges that are members of ACCJC have agreed to abide by the Eligibility Requirements (21) requirements and the Commission standards defined in four areas: (see Accreditation Reference Handbook, August 2008, p.5) ·       Standard I:  Institutional Mission and Effectiveness ·       Standard II:  Student Learning Programs and Services ·       Standard III:  Resources ·       Standard IV:  Leadership and Governance. It is expected that each member college will continue to review these standards on a continuous basis.  Colleges that receive a full term of accreditation (six years) will still prepare a written midterm report that will be sent to the commission. Colleges establish an Accreditation Steering Committee and appoint an Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO) when the self study report is prepared.  It is important to keep an accreditation review  structure in place after the reaffirmation is complete so that continuous review of the standards are woven into the fabric of the planning, review, and evaluation of institutional effectiveness. California community colleges have developed elaborate structures for dealing with “collegial consultation “as defined under AB 1725.  This is complicated by the standards of accreditation that also expect colleges to have open communication and dialogue about the direction of the institution.  Many colleges will have in excess of 40 campus committees to address these expectations.  It is important for the campus community to really think through its infrastructure to address oversight and ensure that the process is manageable and incorporates accreditation and state statute, and focuses on campus needs. Some member colleges of the Commission are part of multi-college districts with a district office.  The Commission does not accredit districts; it accredits colleges.  With the exception of the Los Angeles Community College District, the Commission usually visits all colleges in a district at the same time.  Specific standards under Standard IV B (Board and Administrative Organization) address the responsibilities of the district and the board of trustees.  When a standard is not being met by the district, the recommendation for correction is part of the college report.  In responding to the Commission through the Follow-up Report, the college needs to include the district response to any recommendations directed to the district. Since multi-college districts are reviewed by separate teams, the district is asked to prepare a “District Functional Map” that defines the responsibilities for the district and the colleges particularly in areas of finance, human resources, planning and other functions that are performed at both the district and the college levels.  Hopefully, this document has been reviewed at the college and there is agreement on its implementation. The Commission represents member institutions from other states and territories, non-profit and proprietary education communities.  The standards are designed to serve all members and are not expected to ensure compliance with individual state standards or legislative mandates.  The principles of some of the organizational management concepts such as participatory governance are embraced in the standards. Visiting teams will not be making recommendations that address state standards or legislative mandates. Federal Role in Accreditation Federal influence on accreditation is something else.  The United States Department of Education (DOE) has continued to exert its influence on the accreditation process.  The major leverage for the DOE has been through its oversight of financial aid.  Because of abuses in this field, the accreditation reviews focus on financial viability and procedures to validate those federal guidelines are being met.  Following the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s the federal government has taken an increasing role in school accountability.  This was first realized in funding for the Vocational Education Act, now called Career Technical Education (CTE).  In recent years, the call for some measure of success for student learning in higher education has been the focus of the DOE.  The Bush administration actually took steps to control the accreditation process and to ensure that more specific accountability was obtained.  This effort failed in the final passage of the current Higher Education Act (HEA).  Some educators thought the new administration would soften the accountability movement.  The exact opposite has resulted since the new stimulus packages are being designed with accountability guidelines to qualify for the funding.  It is apparent that accountability is here to stay. It is also important to note that the practices of looking at student learning outcomes, student achievement, fiscal viability, planning and continuous improvement has been embraced by all of the regional accrediting agencies.  Most of those regional groups are ahead of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) in this implementation. How do Colleges Get in Trouble? Colleges are expected to meet all the sub-standards that have been developed under the four (4) major standard headings.  A college can receive some level of sanction if they are not meeting any of these sub-standards. However, there are some general areas where colleges seem to be having more trouble.  Generally, these problems are grouped around planning, program review, and student learning outcomes.  Each of these elements was introduced in the accrediting process at different times since the 1980s and colleges are still having difficulty complying with these standards. ·         Planning – The first attempts at establishing planning as a best practice was in the 1980s.  This resulted in the development of educational master planning, strategic planning, and facilities master planning.  The latter document was required by the state of California to seek facilities financing and in many cases this has become the planning document for many colleges.  There is no defined process for developing educational master plans or strategic plans in the Commission guides.  What is expected is that the campus community will have a dialogue about expectations and develop improvement plans based on this dialogue.  ·         Program Review – Program review became an integral part of the accreditation review process in the 1990s.  There has always been an expectation that program review was taking place, but the emphasis on accountability called for the regular review of student achievement and the effectiveness of programs in meeting student needs.  This review was also expected to address the viability of programs and allow for transition and services to the students in the event that a program was to be discontinued.  Later, the Commission focused these standards on resource distribution and how the college was addressing continuous improvement. ·         Student Learning Outcomes – In 2002, the concept of student learning outcomes was introduced and member colleges were expected to develop these outcomes at the course, program and degree, level ( as identified in the Commission guides  many colleges refer to this as the institutional level)  and to incorporate this information into the process of institutional continuous improvement.  No specific guidelines are offered in developing this process except there is expected to be a flow from course to program to degree level.  Some programs such as those aligned with career technical education may find that student learning outcomes are defined easily as competencies required in the field.  While the standards do not specify level of learning, it would be expected that an academic institution will take into account higher order learning skills in the development of student learning outcomes.  Some controversy has been derived from the interpretation of Standard III.A.c.             “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.” This standard has been challenged by the collective bargaining units of the community colleges as  a bargaining prerogative subject to negotiation.  The Commission does not argue with this principle, but it has not shifted away from the standard either.  Member colleges of the Commission agree to abide by the standard and at this time the standard is unchanged.  The 2002 version of the Commission Standards realigned the former ten (10) standards and placed new emphasis on the issue of institutional effectiveness.  A review of Standard I: Institutional Mission and Effectiveness identifies a need for the constituents of the college to address a cyclical process for the continuous improvement of the institution.  This calls for the INTEGRATION of the processes of: PLANNING – PROGRAM REVIEW – RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION – EVALUATION AND RE-EVALUATION OF THE PROCESS ·         Once improvement plans have been fully implemented, evaluation of how well the goals have been met ensues.  Thus, the planning cycle is comprised of evaluation, goal setting, resource distribution, implementation and reevaluation. ·         When colleges get cited for not meeting these standards there are specific shortcomings that are important to note: o        Usually, the college has not met the standard over the course of two or more visits. o        No evidence exists that the processes have been integrated and that dialogue is taking place within the college o        There is no evidence that constituent groups have been involved in or support the process.  Often this is aligned with issues that are outside the purview of the accreditation process. ·         Compliance with the standards on planning, program review and student learning outcomes is covered in a rubric identifying levels of accomplishment from awareness to sustainable continuous quality improvement.   It is easy to see that these rubrics are stated in relation to institutional effectiveness.  The set of rubrics for these three trouble areas has been included as an appendix to this paper. (See Rubric for Evaluating Institutional  Effectiveness Parts I – III Appendix A) Dialogue and Themes The ACCJC Guide to Evaluating Institutions addresses dialogue and the themes established for institutional review.  What the Commission is seeking from member institutions is a commitment to these themes.  The Commission wants the colleges to have reflective dialogue on ·        Institutional Commitment ·        Evaluation, Planning, and Improvement ·        Student Learning Outcomes ·        Organization ·        Dialogue ·        Institutional Integrity   To sustain this commitment, a campus-wide dialogue is expected by all constituencies that defines a model where they jointly agree on the direction of the institution, develop a cyclical evaluation model that measures progress on the institutional accomplishments, and leads to continuous improvement of the college. The governance processes should be defined and integration efforts implemented for planning, evaluation, and resource allocation based upon the use of data.  Once this occurs, the college needs to go another step and incorporate a continuous review model. An important element of the dialogue and themes is the concept of review and change.  All processes including the governance model, program review, and the evaluation processes need to be reviewed annually to determine if the college is accomplishing its stated goals.  Oversight must be a campus-wide effort and include input from all constituent groups. ·         Establish an oversight team that provides for the broad representation of all constituent groups.   ·         Annually evaluate the collegial governance and consultation model for the college and recommends changes.   ·         Examine the program review evaluation data, student learning outcome data, and other student achievement data to determine areas that the college needs to improve.   ·         Make recommendations to the College Council and as appropriate to the Budget Committee on priorities for available fiscal resources.   ·         Work with the college community to disseminate information on their findings to the college constituencies and the broader public community.   (A copy of the dialogue language from the Guide to Evaluating Institutions, August 2008 is attached as Appendix B)       Other Trouble Areas   There are other areas where colleges are being sanctioned by the Commission or where teams are specifically being trained to closely review these standards.   ·         Distance Education – The Commission has a separate guideline and policy for distance education.  Whenever a college has 50 percent or more of a degree or certificate program being taught in this modality, there are two significant requirements.  (1) A substantive change needs to be filed with the Commission; and (2) the college needs to ensure that the same rigor, standards and services are available to the students in this modality that are available to the traditional campus student.   ·         International Programs – Colleges are finding that they are working with the international community and other providers of education.  The college needs to ensure that it is not providing its accreditation to these institutions without proper review and approval by the Commission.   ·         Financial Viability – Increased review has been applied to the accreditation process to ensure that the college is maintaining fiscal viability.  This includes the relationships at the district level in multi-college districts.   ·         Board of Trustee Ethics and Governance – More attention is being given in Standard IV on the involvement of the Board of Trustees in contributing to the effectiveness of the college.  Poor application of ethics, micro-management, and absence of leadership to define and maintain the effectiveness of the colleges can lead to sanction.     Format of the Focused Report Responses to the recommendations are generally prepared by separate teams selected to work on the visiting team evaluation report and sanction letter from ACCJC.  There needs to be a person who is charged with editing the report and ensuring that it has continuity and clarity for the next visiting team.  .  The overall report needs to meet the following requirements: ·         The cover page needs to follow the recommended format of the Commission; All Commission publications can be accessed at www.accjc.org .   ·         A signature page needs to be developed that includes signatures of the appropriate constituent leaders on campus as well as the district chancellor and the board of trustee’s president.   ·         The report should start out describing the process that was used to prepare the report including a description of all the constituencies involved in the process.   ·         A response to each of the recommendations as described to the college in the letter received from the Commission is required. o        Describe the findings of the evaluation report that brought about the recommendation. o        Describe the action taken to respond to the recommendation. o        Describe a plan of action for recommendations that will not be completed at the time of the report submission o        Link your response to the accreditation standards that apply. o        Talk about results within the narrative of the report. o        Prepare evidence and code that evidence in the report. o        Have the paper evidence available for the committee coded or arranged so it is easy to find.   ·         Indicate where and how the reader can access the evidence for each section of the report.  A coding system must be developed for the filing of evidence.               (The Commission format for the Focused Visit report is attached as Appendix C)   Individual Sections of the Report The college needs to take the sanction seriously and work across campus constituencies to resolve the issues.    It is not always possible to have all the mitigations for each of the recommendations completed by the October 15th or March 15th date when the progress report has to be submitted.  However, you do need to complete the following: ·         Identify what you have to do to meet the standards that are referenced in the recommendations. ·         Define the progress that has been made to meet the standards. ·         Define what has to be done to complete meeting the requirements. ·         Define the timeline when the campus will have completed this work.   When PPL is a consultant working with the college’s committees and constituent groups on the accreditation response, it will be reviewed by the consultant who will work with the team leaders, the Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO), and the assigned editor to ensure that the final document appropriately addresses the sanction.     APPENDIX  A Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges Western Association of Schools and Colleges Rubric for Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness – Part I: Program Review Levels of   Implementation    Characteristics of Institutional Effectiveness in Program Review (Sample institutional behaviors)   Awareness • There is preliminary investigative dialogue at the institution or within some departments       about what data or process should be used for program review.                                              • There is recognition of existing practices and models in program review that make use of         institutional research. • There is exploration of program review models by various departments or individuals. • The college is implementing pilot program review models in a few programs/operational       units. Development   • Program review is embedded in practice across the institution using qualitative and   quantitative data to improve program effectiveness.                                           • Dialogue about the results of program review is evident within the program as part of   discussion of program effectiveness. • Leadership groups throughout the institution accept responsibility for program review   framework development (Senate, Admin. Etc.) • Appropriate resources are allocated to conducting program review of meaningful quality. • Development of a framework for linking results of program review to planning for   improvement. • Development of a framework to align results of program review to resource allocation.