Accreditation

Whereas, The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges has traditionally developed and distributed papers and resources that provide guidance to local districts in meeting state developed regulations;

Whereas, The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges held its annual Accreditation Institute on February 10-11, 2012, in Anaheim, and feedback from the attendees indicated the value of the specific examples presented in the general sessions and breakouts;

Whereas, Formally stating and assessing student learning outcomes (SLOs) is required by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) 2002 Accreditation Standards, and SLOs and assessment have curricular and program implications, as well as a vital connection to accreditation, which are all areas of faculty responsibility clearly defined in AB 1725 (1988);

Whereas, Fully online and hybrid course offerings by California community colleges are continuing to increase; and access to library resources and availability of library services for students taking fully online and hybrid courses varies across California community college libraries;

Whereas, The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges greatly values and respects the essential components of peer review and external accreditation in the educational process;

Whereas, The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) approach to accreditation has been punitive and publicly divisive, causing additional and unnecessary expenses and re-appropriation of resources from the classroom; and

Whereas, Alternative accrediting bodies other than the ACCJC exist and are utilized by our transfer institutions;

Whereas, Consistent application of accreditation standards is crucial to the effectiveness and fairness of the accreditation process;

Whereas, Feedback from various colleges which have undergone accreditation indicates that accreditation teams are interpreting standards in a variety of often inconsistent ways; and

Whereas, This variability could be mitigated through better training of accreditation teams, especially the team leaders;

Whereas, Faculty members from across the state are concerned with the ambiguity of language in Accreditation Standard III, specifically III.A.1.c, which states, "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,";

Whereas, The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges activated its new 2002 Accreditation Standards during the 2003-04 academic year; and

Whereas, The 2002 Standards, by virtue of their reliance on student learning outcomes, constitute a significant departure from previous accreditation standards;

Whereas, Faculty have primacy in crafting student learning outcomes (SLOs), selecting the means of assessing these outcomes, and interpreting these assessment results to improve teaching and learning, such as is explained in the Academic Senate’s 2007 paper Agents of Change: Examining the Role of Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment Coordinators in California Community Colleges, which emphasizes faculty’s central role “to create and assess outcomes (utilizing both quantitative and qualitative measures) and analyze that evidence to improve student learning and teaching”;

Whereas, The outcomes and assessment process is heavily reliant on the proper and value-added analysis of student performance data; and

Whereas, The results of this data will directly influence student learning at California community colleges;

Resolved, The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges research and communicate guiding principles of good practice in the collection, analysis, and use of assessment data. MSC Disposition: Local Senates

Whereas, The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) failed to follow the letter and the spirit of its own guidelines, timelines, or notification policies when it terminated accreditation at Compton College in June 2005, without a comprehensive review, with just a single site visit under the Show Cause order and with less than five months' time given for correction;