ACCREDITATION FORUM PANEL LESLIE BUCKALEW, ACTING PRESIDENT JOHN LEAMY, ACADEMIC SENATE PRESIDENT RAELENE JUAREZ, PAST ACADEMIC SENATE PRESIDENT DORALYN FOLETTI, CLASSIFIED SENATE PRESIDENT MATT CHRISTMAN, ASCC VICE PRESIDENT MARCH 15, 2013 Columbia College

What is the purpose of accreditation? Accreditation is a proven method for assuring that a higher education institution has the ability to offer a quality education to the men and women who will lead their communities in the future, and to improve that quality over time. By establishing high standards and then being externally evaluated against those standards, colleges and universities can provide a degree or certificate that students and the community can trust.

Sanctions in layman's terms Warning: Sanction when ACCJC finds that an institution has pursued a course deviation from the Commission’s Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, or Commission policies. Probation: Sanction when ACCJC finds that an institution deviates significantly form the Commission’s Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, or Commission policies or fails to respond to conditions imposed upon it by the Commission, including a warning. Show Cause: Sanction when the ACCJC finds an institution to be in substantial non- compliance with its Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, or Commission policies, or when the institution has not responded to the conditions imposed by the Commission. Terminate Accreditation: If, in the judgment of the Commission, an institution has not satisfactorily explained or corrected matters of which it has been given notice, or has taken an action that has placed it significantly out of compliance with the Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies, its accreditation may be terminated.

“Columbia College is Fully Accredited” Columbia College is an accredited institution (and always has been). It is important to note that an institution’s accreditation status is not lost or taken away during “warning” and that accreditation will not be “reaffirmed” until all recommendations which warranted the warning status are resolved. The Follow-Up Report submitted last fall demonstrated that the college resolved four college recommendations and two district recommendations. Once the Commission confirms that the remaining recommendations are resolved (College Recommendations 1 & 2 and District Recommendations 2 & 3) the Commission will “reaffirm” the college’s accreditation.

ACCJC Progress Report Timeline 2013 Completion Date & Key Time Points Summary of Progress March 15Teams meet to discuss Recommendation and identify work plan for written responses March 29Outline for responses due to VPSL April 121 st Draft of Response to Raelene, Leslie, and John April 262 nd Draft of Response to President May 16Draft to College Council June 21Final Draft to President, John and Raelene August 15Move for Adoption by College Council August 20Submit for Board approval September 12Send ACCJC Follow-Up Report to the Commission October 15ACCJC Report Due to the Commission

Response Team Members COLLEGE RECOMMENDATION 1 Chris Vitelli, Dean of CTE Kathy Sullivan, Faculty Micha Miller, Faculty Craig Johnston, Faculty Dave Chesnut, Classified Brandon Moore, Student COLLEGE RECOMMENDATION 2 Gary Whitfield, Vice President of College & Administrative Services Raelene Juarez, Faculty Wendy Griffiths-Bender, Faculty Tom Johnson, Faculty Nancy Bull, Classified Aiko Gonzales, Student

College Recommendation 1 In order to meet the standard, the team recommends that the institution complete the development and assessment of student learning outcomes for all courses and programs and develop and assess learning outcomes in administrative services, student services, as well as the Library and Learning Support Services and use the results for improvement of student learning and institutional effectiveness (Standards I.B.3, I.B.7)

College Recommendation 2 In order to fully meet the standard, the team recommends the institution continue to assess the evaluation mechanisms through a systematic review of their effectiveness in improving instructional programs, student support services, the library and other learning support services (Standards I.B.6; IV.A.5)

District Recommendation 2 In order to fully meet the standard, the teams recommend that the District and the colleges review institutional missions and their array of course offerings and programs in light of their current budgets (Standards III.D, III.D.1, ER 17)

District Recommendation 3 The team recommends the District and Board of Trustees develop policies on the delegation of authority to the college president (Standards IV. A.2.a, IV.B.3.e)

You’re Invited to the District Planning Session Friday March 29th The purpose of this session is to revisit the District Mission Statement. Transportation Available  MORNING Depart – Columbia 8:00 a.m. Arrive – 9:30 a.m.  AFTERNOON Depart – 1:30 p.m. Return – Columbia 3:00 p.m. Please R.S.V.P. no later than Monday, March 18 to Graciela Molina in the YCCD Chancellor’s Office and include dietary restrictions, if any.

Summary  Our Report is due to ACCJC Oct. 15  What do we need to do to prepare?  Complete full cycle of the development and assessment of student learning outcomes for all courses and programs.  Complete Program Review and develop sustainable evaluation mechanisms that lead to continuous quality improvement at all levels.

Next Steps: Creating a Culture of Accreditation Processes are ongoing, systematic and used to evaluate and improve student learning and achievement Planning, Program Review, SLOs, and Assessment

Q & A This presentation will be posted under Accreditation via Columbia College’s website

Thank you everyone for being committed and conveying that Columbia College is an accredited college!