1 / 31

“You can do it!”

This session focuses on effective governance practices that help colleges address accreditation deficiencies and successfully navigate probation statuses. Facilitators from various schools share insights on their self-studies, site visits, and strategies implemented to turn around their accreditation status. Key areas of discussion include participatory governance, program review processes, and the importance of continuous planning with stakeholder engagement. Attendees will learn from real experiences and actionable steps taken by colleges to enhance their accreditation processes and institutional effectiveness.

heinz
Télécharger la présentation

“You can do it!”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “You can do it!” Effective Governance that Addresses Accreditation Deficiencies (aka Getting Off Probation)

  2. Facilitators • Curriculum and SLO Committee: • Sue Granger-Dickson, Bakersfield College • Gary Williams, Crafton Hills College • Lesley Kawaguchi, Santa Monica College, chair

  3. Presenters • Maggie Taylor, Fresno City College • Allison Merzon, Cuesta College • Yolanda Bellisimo, College of Marin

  4. Breakout Focus • When was your self-study conducted and when were your visitations? • What were the areas of deficiency that resulted in probation or warning? • How did you organize or what was done to address the deficiencies? • What did you and your college learn and what improvements in your process resulted?

  5. Fresno City College

  6. Self-Study and Visit #1 • October 2005 Application • Site visit October 25-27, 2005

  7. Warning – Jan. 31, 2006 • Participatory governance process • Program Review • Planning process, that includes budgeting, program review, technology/distance education, and human resources planning • Deficiencies in Library Collections • Strategic plan • Some were recommendations from previous visit

  8. Progress Report • Due October 15, 2006 • Site visit, October 31, 2006

  9. Warning – January 31, 2007 • Continue to work on: • Participatory governance • Program Review • Planning • Strategic plan • Met Deficiencies in Library Collections

  10. Progress Report • Due March 15, 2007 • Site visit April 17, 2007

  11. Removed from Warning – June 29, 2007 • Continue to work on: • Participatory governance • Human resources planning • Strategic plan • Met: • Program Review • Three areas of the planning process

  12. Progress Report • Due October 15, 2007 • No site visit • January 31, 2008 – ACCJC accepted report • Midterm report – October 15, 2008

  13. Addressing the deficiencies: • Administration support • Consultants hired for strategic plan • Revised Program Review process • College-wide committees have all constituent groups • College Governance Council • College representation on District’s facilities and strategic planning committees

  14. What did you learn? • Accreditation is continuous, not every 6 years • Planning should be continuous, with input from all constituent groups • College processes continue even while preparing progress reports and site visits. • Importance of Program Review to planning and budget • Walk the talk

  15. The Politics of Accreditation—when three forces collide! • The college • ACCJC • The Department of Education

  16. Self-study and visits • Midterm Report 2005 – visit 2006 • Midterm Report 2006 – visit 2007 • Placed on Warning Status – January 2008 • Progress Report 2008/Visit – March 2008 • Taken off Warning Status – April 2008 • Site visit – Fall 2008 • STATUS PENDING

  17. Deficiencies? • Program Plan and Review Processes were not sufficiently linked with budgeting processes • Failure to meet Eligibility Requirement-Administrative Capacity (too many interims)

  18. Addressing the deficiencies • Program Plan and Review Processes – Budgets • Organization: • Worked through existing channels (Planning and Budget, Accreditation Steering Committee, Academic Senate)

  19. Addressing deficiencies • Addressed deficiencies: • Evaluated current college practices and ACCJC concerns • Developed college planning and budgeting calendar • Detailed Cyclical planning and allocation models (example)

  20. Addressing deficiencies • Developed and began implementing program and college level planning processes • Annual Program Plans (APPW) – KEY (example) • Comprehensive Plans • Board Goals • Unit/Cluster Plans • Prioritization Processes • Categorical Funds • Reporting/Informing Lines – Complete the Cycle

  21. Addressing deficiencies • Administrative Capacity • Hired new administration

  22. What did you learn? • ACCJC warnings get the district’s attention and create motivation for change • Bad press; student fear • The development of processes and their actual implementation are two different things • Theoretical transparency of budget allocation tied with planning • ACCJC does not care about shared governance!

  23. College of Marin

  24. Self-study and visit • Self-study • 2004-2005 • Visits • 2005 • 2006 • 2007 • 2008

  25. Deficiencies • Warning: • Governance, accounting/fiscal, planning, program review • Probation: • Program Review

  26. What did you learn? • Student “houses” or pathways explains what we learned and how we have used this to prepare for our next self-study

  27. What’s improved? • We are so far ahead of the game this time!

  28. Conclusions • Common themes • Common issues • You can do it!

More Related