Presentation on theme: "Orientation to the Accreditation Internal Evaluation (Self-Study) Flex Activity March 1, 2012 Lassen Community College."— Presentation transcript:
Orientation to the Accreditation Internal Evaluation (Self-Study) Flex Activity March 1, 2012 Lassen Community College
Topics to be Covered Accreditation Overview Lassen Community College History Format of the Internal Evaluation (Self- Study) Components of the Internal Evaluation (Self-Study) Four Standards of Good Practice Timeline Resources
What is Regional Accreditation? Regional Accreditation is a time-tested model of professional peer review that supports education excellence. Accreditation is a voluntary process of quality review that institutions agree to undergo periodically. The accrediting commission with responsibility for accreditation in various regions are legally recognized by the federal government.
How is Accreditation Review Conducted? There are four phases of the accreditation process: » »internal evaluation » »external evaluation by professional peers » »Commission evaluation » »institutional self-improvement The accreditation process involves a six year cycle.
Internal Evaluation (Self-Study) The institution engages in comparing itself to Accreditation Standards, writes an internal evaluation report, develops its own plans for improvement where needed, and submits the written analysis to the Accrediting Commission.
Peer Review At the second phase, a trained team of education professional peers from member institutions conducts an external institutional evaluation. The external evaluation team, all volunteers, visits the institution, examines the institutional internal evaluation, examines institutional practices, and writes an evaluative report with recommendations for improvement.
Regional Accrediting Commission Action The third phase occurs when the members of the regional accrediting commission evaluate all the information and make the decision on the accredited status of the institution. The Commission may also provide recommendations and direction for institutional improvement in areas where improvement is needed. The ACCJC reviews institutional cases at meetings in January and June of each year.
Self- Improvement Whether the institution meets the current Accreditation Standards or not, the fourth phase is about self-improvement and each institution uses the recommendations of the external evaluation team and the Commission to guide changes that make their educational quality better.
1996-2006 June 1996 – College placed on Probation (four recommendations) June 1997 – College elevated to Warning June 1999 - College removed from Sanctions June 2002 – Accreditation Re-affirmed following Self- Evaluation (three recommendations with Progress Report) June 2004- Progress Report Accepted June 2005 – Focused Midterm Report Accepted with Progress Report documenting progress on two of the original three recommendations identified in 2002. June 2006 – Commission identified major issues and scheduled a Special Visit July 2006 - Special Visit
2006-2008 August 2006 – College placed on Warning (twenty-one specific recommendations with a November Progress Report) January 2007 – College placed on Probation (seventeen remaining recommendation with a March Progress Report and Site Visit) June 2007 – College continued on Probation (ten remaining recommendation with a October Progress Report and Site Visit) January 2008 - College continued on Probation(seven remaining recommendation with a October Progress Report and Site Visit) March 2008 – Site Visit by Evaluation Team for 2008 Self- Study
2008-2012 June 2008- College continued on Probation (eight remaining recommendations with a Follow-up Report and Site Visit) January 2009-College place on Warning (three remaining recommendations with a March Follow-up Report and Site Visit) June 2009 – College continued on Warning (two remaining recommendations with a October Follow-up Report and Site Visit) January 2010 – College removed from Sanctions (reminder of Midterm Report due March 2011) June 2011- Midterm Report Accepted (Self Evaluation due Fall 2013 with Site Visit March 2014) October 2011 – Self-Evaluation Training Workshop March 2012 – Orientation Training for Self -Evaluation
Format of the Internal Evaluation Introduction Organization of Self Evaluation Process Organizational Information Certification of Continued Institutional Compliance with 20 Eligibility Requirements. Responses to Recommendations from the Most Recent Educational Quality and Institutional Effectiveness Review (Self Evaluation) – eight recommendations Structure of the Institutional Analysis (Standards)
Analysis of Each Standard The following three elements should guide the structure of the analysis of each of the Standards: Descriptive Summary Self Evaluation Actionable Improvement Plans
Descriptive Summary What is? A concise factual description of the current status of the college relevant to the subcomponent of the standard.
Self Evaluation How is it working? An analysis supported by documentation of the current status of the college relevant to the subcomponent of the standard. An analysis of how the description meets the standard. Nearly every statement should have documentation Not opinion
Actionable Improvement Plans Specific actions that the institution plans to take to improve status related to the subcomponent of the standard. Not keep doing what we are doing “None” is appropriate if the analysis supports that the subcomponent is being met The institution must track and report on every actionable improvement plan for the next six years.
Commission Requirements for Evidence Student Achievement Data Evidence of Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment of Outcomes Evidence of Quality Program Review Evidence of Quality Student Support Services Evidence of Financial Performance and Integrity Evidence of Compliance with other Areas Related to Federal Requirements. » »Distance Education and Correspondence Education » »Public Information » »Campus Sites
Accreditation Standards The ACCJC Accreditation Standards consists of four fundamental standards, each divided into subsections, that describe the best practices for education quality and institutional effectiveness.
Standard I Institutional Mission and Effectiveness Mission Improving Institutional Effectiveness
Standard I: Institutional Mission and Effectiveness A. Mission The institution has a statement of mission that defines the institution’s broad educational purposes, its intended student population, and its commitment to achieving student learning. 1. The institution establishes student learning programs and services aligned with its purposes, its character, and its student population. 2. The mission statement is approved by the governing board and published. 3. Using the institution's governance and decision- making processes, the institution reviews its mission statement on a regular basis and revises it as necessary. 4. The institution’s mission is central to institutional planning and decision making.
Standard II Student Learning Programs and Services Instructional Programs Student Support Services Library and Learning Support Services
Standard III Resources Human Resource Physical Resource Technology Resources Financial Resources
Standard IV Leadership and Governance Decision-making Roles and Processes Board Administrative Organization
Themes In addition to the standards, the institution must also address six themes separately or throughout the self evaluation.
Institutional Commitment The standards ask institution’s to make a commitment in action to providing high quality education congruent with institutional mission. The standards’ requirement that the entire institution participate in reviewing institutional performance and developing plans for improvement of student learning outcome is intended to help the institution sustain it’s commitment to student learning.
Evaluation, Planning and Improvement The standards require ongoing institutional evaluation and improvement to help serve students better. Evaluation focuses on student achievement, student learning, and the effectiveness of processes, policies, and organization. Improvement is achieved through an ongoing and systematic cycle of evaluation, integrated planning, implementation and re-evaluation.
Student Learning Outcomes The development of student learning outcomes is one of the keys themes in the standards. Learning outcomes must be measured and assessed to determine how well learning is occurring so that changes to improve learning and teaching can be made. The faculty must engage in discussions of way to deliver instruction to maximize student learning. Those providing student support must develop student learning outcomes and evaluate the quality of their policies, processes, and procedures for providing students access and movement through the institution. Student learning outcomes are required to be at the center of the institution’s key processes and allocation of resources.
Organization The standards require colleges to have inclusive, informed and intentional efforts to define student learning, provide programs to support that learning, and to evaluate how well learning is occurring. This requirement means that the institution must have in place the organizational means to identify and make public the learning outcomes, to evaluate the effectiveness of programs in producing those outcomes, and to make improvements.
Dialogue The standards are designed to facilitate college engagement in inclusive, informed and intentional dialogue about institutional quality and improvement. All members of the college community should participate in reflection and exchange about student achievement, student learning, and the effectiveness of the college’s processes, policies, and organization.
Institutional Integrity Institution’s demonstrated concern with honesty, truthfulness, and the manner in which it represents itself to all stakeholders, internal and external.
Spring 2012 March 1, 2012 – Orientation Meetings for each Standard Initial Standard Meetings Identification of Standard Chairs Assignment of Areas of Responsibility Gather Evidence Identify Tasks for Completion/Improvement May 2012 – Selection of Internal Evaluation Accreditation Chair
Fall 2012 Standard Meetings to Monitor Progress Write initial drafts for each subsection of each Standard Gather Evidence to support statements (Electronic) Completion of tasks (program review, student learning outcome assessments, planning)
Spring 2013 Refine Draft Sections of Internal Evaluation Compile Additional Evidence May 2013 – Completion of Draft Internal Evaluation
Fall 2013 August through October – Constituent Group Review of Internal Evaluation November – Governing Board Approval of Internal Evaluation December - Submit Internal Evaluation to ACCJC
Spring 2014 February – Final Preparation for Team Visit March 2014 - Peer Evaluation Team Visit June 2014 – Accrediting Commission Action on Internal Evaluation and Evaluation Team Report July 2014 – Receipt of Action Letter
Resources ACCJC Website – www.accjc.orgwww.accjc.org Accreditation Reference Handbook Manual for Institutional Self Evaluation Guide to Evaluating Institutions Guide to Evaluating Distance Education and Correspondence Education College Website