|
The
accreditation reorganization effort is in full swing. Academic
Senate President John Queen is pressing forth with an aggressive
schedule. Nine faculty and administrative writers took the lead on
the various standards, with the support of an assistant writer
and/or resource member(s). Review teams were set up consisting of 4
members: an administrator, faculty, classified and student. The
Accreditation Steering Committee was formed to act as a
decision-making team and “sounding board” for the self-study
document. This committee consists of 8 administrators, 8 faculty, 3
classified employees and 2 students. The first draft documents were
completed in April, and the second drafts are due during May.
As the second draft documents are submitted, they are scheduled for
discussion and examined by the Accreditation Steering Committee,
individual review teams and the writers. As the latest changes are
completed, the drafts will then be presented to the standing
committees, campus community and the Board of Trustees. It is the
intent of the committee to distribute the drafts to be reviewed by
standard (in nine parts as listed below) as they are completed and
not as an entire document at this time.
Standard I:
Institutional
Mission and Effectiveness (all together)
I A. Mission
I B. Improving Institutional Effectiveness
Standard II:
Student Learning
Programs and Services (in three parts)
II A. Instructional Programs
II B. Student Support Services
II C. Library and Learning Support Services
Standard III:
Resources (in
four parts)
III A. Human Resources
III B. Physical Resources
III C. Technology Resources
III D. Financial Resources
Standard IV:
Leadership and
Governance (all together)
IV
A. Decision Making Roles and Processes
IV B. Board and Administrative Organization
What happens next?
Under John’s leadership, we are all committed to a transparent
process with input by all constituencies. The current timeline does
not include enough time before the end of the semester to schedule
“town hall meetings” as originally planned to solicit and discuss
input from the campus community. The current plan is to notify the
campus community by email and make the “document” available for
review on the accreditation website and solicit feedback online in
June and through the summer months. The self-study document will be
organized and formatted in late summer and be submitted to the Board
for approval. Our publication deadline is the end of November.
Preparations will intensify for the evaluation team’s site visit in
March 2010.
Recent ACCJCactions…what does it mean?
Every year, approximately 26-30 institutions are scheduled for
accreditation site visits to
determine their accreditation status. The visits occur in March and
October of each year. The reports submitted to the ACCJC by the
numerous evaluation teams are reviewed by the ACCJC. Official
“action” letters are then forwarded by the ACCJC to these
institutions informing them of their accreditation “status,”
outlining any recommendations and any applicable timelines for
special reports or visits prior to the mandatory Midterm Report in
three years.
In January, four of the thirteen institutions that had been
recently evaluated received reaffirmation of their accreditation
status. All four of these colleges received “recommendations,” one
was given a six-month period to correct a deficiency, and two were
given one year to clear up issues. The rest received “sanctions”
such as warning or probation, and one was put on “show cause” (the
most serious sanction). During the period that colleges are “on
sanction” their accreditation status is retained. Typically, the
“Two Year Rule” is implemented, requiring institutions to resolve
their outstanding deficiencies in a specific timeframe
not
to exceed two
years. If compliance does not occur, the accreditation status is in
jeopardy.
Common areas of deficiency…
The most common problems (recommendations) for institutions
include: the linkage of institutional planning, program review,
budget and decision-making processes concerning the allocation of
resources; SLOAC plans and timelines to meet the 2012 proficiency
level outlined in the ACCJC Rubric; financial responsibility;
staffing and ethics policies; safe keeping of student records;
multi-campus decision making policies and processes; and Board
issues.
How
does GCC measure up?
In 2004, GCC received ten recommendations from our regularly
scheduled accreditation visit.
Many of these were completed over the subsequent years and
addressed in our 2007 Midterm Report, and others were accomplished
during the next year. The significant issue remaining for us is
“linkage” of our planning, program review and budget allocation
processes. We have made significant strides in this area but will
need to show evidence that our budget decisions are based on this
linkage and that we use ongoing evaluation and planning processes
for institutional improvement and to improve student leaning.
The
commission will almost certainly not ignore the fact that this issue
has been an ongoing recommendation since 1987.
We still have the opportunity to implement changes and evaluate our
processes for improvement in order to provide evidence of our
progress and compliance prior to our March 2010 site visit.
What
can we do to help?
Everyone can be involved and assist with the process by
participating in the campus-wide review of the document. This will
start with the standing committees, and John Queen will forward
email messages in the coming months to share the draft documents
online. All you will need is online access, your internal links
password and a little time. Accreditation is the responsibility of
the entire campus community. When the evaluation team visits, they
may request to meet with constituency groups, committees or
individuals to understand more fully how the college operates. You
can help by being informed, active and involved.
I hope to share more information in the coming months and
invite you to visit the accreditation website for more information.
http://www.glendale.edu/accreditation/.
&
back to top |