Whereas, The new Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) Standards will require colleges to reorient their data gathering and research capacity to address the assessment of learning outcomes in order to document the particular levels of skill, knowledge, and abilities attained by students in relation to stated course objectives;
Whereas, The new ACCJC standards will thus require that colleges invest resources in the measurement and documentation of a far more extensive array of minute learning outcome indicators than are currently tracked by institutional measures (such as the attainment of degrees and certificates, student persistence and retention, graduation and transfer rates, and long-term employment gains);
Whereas, Such a requirement will be extremely costly and will result in a redirection of college resources and faculty time toward the documentation of measurable outcomes and away from other activities; and
Whereas, Peter Ewell and other assessment authors have noted that one clear result of the requirements for continuous documentation of measurable student learning outcomes at affected colleges and universities has been a corresponding increase in the research superstructure (including data tracking technologies, increased research FTE, and consultant expenses);
Resolved, That the Academic Senate work with local senates to document the emergent costs of implementing the new Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges' (ACCJC) standards in terms of research and data tracking, addition of non-faculty research FTE, professional development and training in learning outcomes assessment, and other related costs; and
Resolved, That the Academic Senate publicize these findings in educational journals and conferences, and communicate these findings as an "unfunded mandate" to the Board of Governors for California Community Colleges, the Department of Finance, the California Legislature, the US Congress, and other relevant bodies and agencies.
MSU Disposition: Local Senates
Found Not Feasible. Costs are too integrated into past accreditation activities and are inseparable from additional present requirements due to accountability measures for other reporting such as ARCC. In addition, no comparative baseline costs exist. Accurately assigning costs associated with the accreditations standards is not feasible. In addition, these costs overlap other mandatory reporting which must be done despite accreditation standards.