Ultimately, commissions have the opportunity to generate a sense among their respective colleges that undertaking the accreditation process is worth the substantial commitment of time and resources required for reaffirmation. This investigation suggests commissions engender a positive return on a college’s investment when they demonstrate theoretically and practically that they value quality rather than quantity throughout the review process.
NCA AQIP participants cited enhanced faculty dialogue, increased attention to institutional improvement and the opportunity to extend the application of AQIP principles to other parts of their colleges as significant benefits resulting from their accreditation efforts. Similarly,
interviewees from SACS colleges noted the focus on quality afforded by the completion of their QEP and the ability to rapidly advance action through reaffirmation as particularly worthwhile. Colleges involved with ACCJC also expressed satisfaction with the ability to leverage
accreditation for institutional change. However, unlike NCA and SACS interviewees, several ACCJC respondents questioned the value of the review process given the amount of time, effort and resources required for reaffirmation.
Generating a Positive Return on Investment “Having a visit where the team went through your processes with you and you didn’t have to product this publishable document would be more valuable and less wasteful of time and resources. All this work to produce the self‐study report is superfluous.” (ACCJC College B ALO) Some respondents from across the commissions
studied noted that colleges realize a positive return on their investment when they integrate accreditation requirements into everyday institutional practices. Interviewees noted that on one hand, colleges must take responsibility for doing so and those that have linked accreditation with their planning processes cite greater ease with preparing for review. On the other hand, respondents indicated that when a commission takes an approach to reaffirmation that emphasizes compliance rather than improvement, real and lasting change is difficult to achieve.
The issues raised about the balance between the amount of work involved in the reaffirmation process and the rewards that result from it for an institution led to the following two questions: How can the commission act to ensure that there is a balance between the work required for
accreditation review and the results achieved (i.e., positive return on investment)?
What can California community colleges do to integrate accreditation requirements into planning efforts?
Conclusion
This study identifies several areas where commissions and colleges can work together and separately to serve students, the public and member institutions by assuring high quality education and operations. This chapter also offers ACCJC, the colleges and constituent groups questions that should be considered and could help guide these efforts. By presenting in-depth information from three different commissions, this study attempts to provide a broader
perspective on accreditation processes and practices than what a college can find within its own
region. In addition to this broader purpose, it is the RP Group’s specific hope that this research will engage all parties involved in accreditation—such as commission board members and staff, community college administrators, accreditation liaison officers, institutional researchers, faculty and other constituent groups—in a dialogue about what these findings mean and how they can be used.
References
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (2007). ACCJC Bylaws. Retrieved from http://www.accjc.org/accjc-bylaws
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (2009, Summer). ACCJC News. Retrieved from http://accjc.org/pdf/ACCJC%20NEWS%20Summer%202009.pdf Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (2009, June 25). Letter from
Barbara Beno to Chancellors, College Presidents, Chief Instructional Officers and Accreditation Liaison Officers. Retrieved from
http://accjc.org/pdf/Rubric%20for%20Evaluating%20Institutional%20Effectiveness.pdf Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (2010, Spring). ACCJC News.
Retrieved from http://accjc.org/pdf/ACCJC%20NEWS%20Spring%202010.pdf Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (2010). Guide to Evaluating
Institutions. Retrieved from
http://accjc.org/pdf/Guide%20to%20Evaluating%20Institutions%20August%202010.pdf Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (2010). Team Evaluator Manual.
Retrieved from
http://accjc.org/pdf/Team%20Evaluator%20Manual%20August%202010.pdf Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities (2010). Retrieved from
http://2010.wascarc.org/
Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities (2010). Retrieved from http://www.wascsenior.org/seminars/assessment1
Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities (2008). Handbook of Accreditation. Retrieved from http://www.wascsenior.org
Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities (2008). The Institutional Review Process. Retrieved from http://www.wascsenior.org
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2003). The Value of Accreditation: Four Pivotal Roles. Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/pdf/pres_ltr_value_accrd_5-03.pdf
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2006). CHEA At-A-Glance. Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/pdf/chea_glance_2006.pdf
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2009). An Overview of US Accreditation. Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/pdf/2009.06_Overview_of_US_Accreditation.pdf
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2010). Inside Accreditation with the President of CHEA. Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/ia/IA_2010.08.10.html
Creswell, JW. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dano, T. & Stensaker, B. (2007). Still balancing improvement and accountability? Developments in external quality assurance in the Nordic countries 1996-2006. Quality in Higher
Education, 13(1), 81-93.
Harvey, L. (2005). A history and critique of quality evaluation in the UK. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(4), 263-276.
Isaac, S. & Michael, W.B. (1997). Handbook In Research and Evaluation: A collection of Principle, Methods and Strategies Useful in the Planning, Design and Evaluation of Studies in Education and the Behavioral Sciences. San Diego, EdITS
Leef, G.C., & Burris, R.D. (2004). Can college accreditation live up to its promise? American Council of Trustees and Alumni. Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/pdf/CanAccreditationFulfillPromise.pdf
Middle States Commission for Higher Education (2010). Vision, Mission and Core Values. Retrieved from http://www.msche.org/?Nav1=ABOUT&Nav2=MISSION
Middlehurst, R. (1997). Enhancing quality. In F. Coffield and B. Williamson (Eds.), Repositioning Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press. New England Association of Schools and Colleges—Commission on Institutions for Higher
Education (2010). CIHE Mission. Retrieved from http://cihe.neasc.org/about_us/mission/ North Central Association – Higher Learning Commission (2003). Handbook of Accreditation.
Retrieved from http://www.ncahlc.org/information-for-institutions/publications.html North Central Association – Higher Learning Commission (2007). Introduction to AQIP.
Retrieved from http://www.ncahlc.org/aqip-home/
North Central Association – Higher Learning Commission (2010). Academic Quality
Improvement Program (AQIP). Retrieved from http://www.hlcommission.org/aqip-home/ North Central Association – Higher Learning Commission (2010). Action Project Guide.
Retrieved from http://www.ncahlc.org/aqip-action-project-directory/collaborating-with- other-aqip-participants.html
North Central Association – Higher Learning Commission (2010). How Action Projects Function. Retrieved from http://www.ncahlc.org/aqip-action-project-
directory/collaborating-with-other-aqip-participants.html
North Central Association – Higher Learning Commission (2010). Institutional Accreditation: An Overview. Retrieved from http://www.ncahlc.org/information-for-
institutions/publications.html
Focusing Accreditation on Quality Improvement | Final Report | February 2011 | Page 109
North Central Association – Higher Learning Commission (2010). Minimum Expectations within the Criteria for Accreditation. Retrieved from http://www.ncahlc.org
Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (2010). About NWCCU. Retrieved from http://www.nwccu.org
Northwest Commission of Colleges and Universities (2010). Accreditation Standards. Retrieved from
http://www.nwccu.org/Standards%20and%20Policies/Accreditation%20Standards/Accre ditation%20Standards.htm
Southern Association of Schools and Colleges Commission on Colleges (2008). Handbook for Institutions Seeking Reaffirmation. Retrieved from
http://sacscoc.org/pdf/081705/Handbook%20for%20Institutions%20seeking%20reaffirm ation.pdf
Southern Association of Schools and Colleges Commission on Colleges (2008). QEP Handbook. Retrieved from http://sacscoc.org/pdf/081705/QEP%20Handbook.pdf
Southern Association of Schools and Colleges Commission on Colleges (2010). Mission Statement. Retrieved from http://sacscoc.org/about.asp
Southern Association of Schools and Colleges Commission on Colleges (2010). Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement. Retrieved from