Greg Gilbert, Chair, Copper Mountain College
Lisa Brewster, San Diego Miramar College
Dee Near, Merced College
Jerry Rudmann, Irvine Valley College
Cyndie Sine, Fresno City College
Table of Contents
Abstract
Introduction
Accreditation & the Outcomes Movement
Student Learning Outcomes
Local Senate Authority and Accreditation
Philosophies of Assessment: Politics, Conundrums
and the Local Senate
The Academic Senate’s Response to the New
Standards
Approaches to Writing the Self Study: From the
Academic Senate, ACCJC, and the Field
General Comments on ACCJC's Responses to the
Pilot Self Studies
Measuring Institutional Effectiveness: Wherein
Local Senates Exercise Primacy
Course-Level Assessment
Protecting Student Confidentiality
Program-Level Assessment
Student and Support Services Assessment
Library Assessment
Conclusion
Recommendations to Local Senates
References and Appendices
Abstract
Because the Accrediting Commission for Community
and Junior Colleges (ACCJC), a division of
the Western Association of Schools and Colleges
(WASC)
has now adopted the new accrediting standards
over our many objections, this report was constructed
with three separate thrusts: (1) it accounts
for Academic Senate positions and continuing
faculty concerns with and objections to the
current accreditation approach; (2) it provides
a summary
of the experiences of the colleges who piloted
the new standards; and (3) it provides practical,
pragmatic assistance to local senates who must
address the new Student Learning Outcomes (SLO)
requirements and accommodate the shifting paradigm
required for completing the self study. All
of these approaches consider why and how
the accreditation
process should occur within boundaries of local
senate governance and with due attention to
institutional missions, local bargaining
authority, privacy
protections under the law, academic freedom,
and common sense. The paper concludes with
recommendations for local senates and contains
useful resources
and models within the appendices.
Introduction
In June 2002, the Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) approved
new accrediting standards which went into effect
for academic year 2003-2004. Where the former
ACCJC standards adopted in 1996 offered a checklist
against which an institution's provision of
adequate educational resources was considered,
the new standards require demonstration of
a “culture of evidence,” relying
principally on Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs).
The Academic Senate for California Community
Colleges fundamentally opposed this radical
change in philosophy.
Accreditation in California Community Colleges
is a faculty-driven process that requires institution-wide
participation. Title 5 (Sections 53200-53204)
is clear that accreditation requires collegial
consultation. Local senates, working with college
presidents, develop self study plans, committee
structures, and arrange for faculty appointments
to chair and/or co-chair each standard. California’s
community colleges place an emphasis on faculty
involvement, both at the policy and implementation
levels, so that educational processes and support
services may be maximized in support of the institution's
mission. The entire accreditation process, beginning
with the institutional self study and including
visits by an accrediting team, is intended as
a peer examination, which is submitted to the
Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC).
WASC, which includes the Accrediting Commission
for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC), is
a private, non-profit organization supported
through its assessments of member institutions.
Though not a governmental organization, its authority
derives from federal acknowledgement. WASC's
validation of institutional integrity and good
practice is recognized by prospective students
and institutions with whom California’s
community colleges articulate courses and degrees
as well as by federal and state agencies who
provide student aid funding.
With the advent of ACCJC’s new 2002 standards,
three California community colleges piloted the
first self studies and received evaluation reports
from the ACCJC in July 2004. In preparation for
their self studies, representatives attended
ACCJC training and in some instances served on
visitation teams to other colleges. Individual
faculty attended breakout sessions on current
accreditation issues at the Academic Senate's
Fall 2003 Plenary, reviewed materials provided
by the Academic Senate at its website <academicsenate.cc.ca.us> and
in print, and attended SLOs workshops with such
organizations as the Research and Planning Group
for California Community Colleges (RP Group).
The RP Group also presented two SLOs breakout
sessions at the Academic Senate’s Spring
2004 Plenary, as well as a keynote presentation.
This paper advances philosophical and ethical
responses to the 2002 standards that reflect
Academic Senate positions adopted during several
years of discussion. Because the ACCJC has now
enacted the new standards, this paper focuses
both on the Academic Senate’s general opposition
to the standards and how to work with the standards
at the local level in support of students, institutional
missions, and processes of collegial consultation.
Local senates must balance these two approaches:
continued philosophical opposition with effective
implementation.
Finally, this paper is the result of many Academic
Senate resolutions. Resolution 2.08 F02 requires
the Academic Senate to develop a position paper
on the outcomes/assessment movement. Several
other resolutions gave further direction to those
producing this paper. Readers are urged to review
this and other relevant resolutions in Appendix
E.
