Changing the Culture – Facilitating Campus Wide Involvement in the Self-Evaluation Process ASCCC Accreditation Institute February, 20, 2015, 2:15 pm – 3:30 pm Kay Weiss, San Bernardino Valley College Stephanie Curry, Reedley College Timothy Pawlak, San Diego Continuing Education (non-credit) Danny Martino, Santiago Canyon College

Breakout Description This is a discussion breakout for those of you trying to figure out how to disseminate all the great information you have acquired about accreditation to the rest of your campus. How do you truly involve the institution in a continuous dialog pertinent to the self-evaluation process? Bring your ideas, what has or has not worked at your campus, and join us for a discussion. Ideas and comments have been added to the presentation slides based on conversations that occurred during the session.

Who Are You?  Senate Presidents?  Administrators?  Accreditation Chairs?  How many have been on a visiting team?  What do you most want out of this discussion?

On-going Processes  How many have standing accreditation committees on campus?  How many have ongoing surveys/data/evidence collection?  Create evidence NOW rather than finding it later  Make it a larger process, not 2-yr preparation  Talk in terms of best practices, not “for accreditation”  “Cross-pollinate” standing committees  Map standards to standing committees  Monitor new up & coming issues in accreditation  Committee chairs go through accreditation orientation

 What do your accreditation committees work on/with between visits?  How does the accreditation committee get/provide feedback of the data? Data sharing items that are “tagged” for easy search by keyword Searchable scanned documents/data Co-Chair of Accred. Committee is Senate appointed faculty Liaisons from standing committees to Accred. Committee Website for data, work with Divisions to collect & report back Close the loop from institution research Make recommendations & take to college/president’s council

Planning Ahead  How do you plan ahead?  How do you plan to sync up cycles? Program Review is critical Embed accreditation questions into program reviews Allows for easily accessible data Teams are there to confirm information Writers should have more vs. less data Standing accreditation committee should have parts in writing the report How much data do you really need? Make sure data answers the prompts for the standard Evidence vs. “just data” Data should be confirmed in 2-3 different areas eg. Distance Ed should be discussed in more areas than just the DE committee & be documented

Linking Together  How does the accreditation process interface with the Academic Senate, Professional Development, and other campus committees? Senate President/designee work with strategic planning committee Reporting structure should be through the Senate Senate needs to lead the way for reporting, closing the loop, disseminating information Professional Development: Campus wide “SWAT Analysis” of standards Present big ideas to larger body, then smaller committees Activities and “quick shots” from Senate

Living the Standards  What’s our current outlook?  Year before: hurry up and get things done???  How does the whole campus - and the community get involved in that cycle? Avoid overload by doing smaller pieces a long the way Start a dialogue NOW of the new standards NOW identify gaps in the new standards Multi-College Districts: Task Forces to bring groups together Avoid Board micromanaging beyond what their policies allow Faculty should be the driving force Remember  They have tenure!!

What does a cycle of continuous improvement look like? Transitioning to ongoing processes? Be systematic with clear cycles Resource allocation models link and cycle with Districts ASSESS

How can the whole campus/community get involved in the cycle?  Co-Chairs help spread out work  Faculty should be informed about all aspects  Show facilities committee impacts the faculty  Senate names someone (Senator) to every committee  Look at how enrollment management ties to facilities and other committees  Have standing committee reports to Senate  Have “summary reports” made to Senate  synopsis of actions taken, follow-ups, need to dos

What have YOU done to form an ongoing process?  Think of how every piece impact the students  Faculty input needed  What do faculty need? NOT-what does administration THINK they need.  Faculty should know their college

How do we look at new standards now, without a rush?  How to prioritize when not under the gun?  Pull one topic at a time to discuss at Senate  Do a search for keywords from ACCJC website to link where topics, ie. Disaggregated data, are  Review ACCJC documents on evaluation  Assign new standards to individuals to summarize, learn, research & report  Plan out who/how are we going to talk to the District  Have a District person on the standing Accreditation Committee

Senate Involvement  10+1 Language  What can Senate do to encourage change in our own process?  What are YOUR ideas for working with Administration?  Tools for how can we help each other?  Approve by standard or substandard, one at a time  Break up review so it’s not all at once  Set critical readers for certain areas  Pull in non-specific area people to review  Google Docs to promote dissemination & edits of reports  Chairs help set up timelines, overseen by the VP  They need to feel support!!

How can Senate have fruitful discussion of Self-Eval?  Reedley College example to review Self-Eval

Syncing Up  What have some colleges done to align plans and planning processes?  What does non-credit do?

Questions