Los Angeles Trade-Technical College
213 763-7063

The LATTC Follow-Up Report Shows Significant Progress

It has been a long road, a year of intense work aimed at improving our accreditation status. Just before the July 4th holiday, President Chapdelaine received the call directly from the ACCJC Executive Director, Dr. Barbara Beno, informing him that the college had been removed from probation and would be on warning for the 2010-2011 academic year, to ensure that the college completes a full cycle of program review, planning, and budget integration. It is a major accomplishment for this college and for all of the people who worked so hard to improve the campus communication, and constituent dialogue, shared governance and the integration of budget, planning, resource allocation and program review. While this is a significant achievement, it now sets a new standard that we must achieve from here on out. The work does not stop here; it has only just begun.

Back Page Focus: We are off probation but there is much work still to be completed…

At their meeting from June 9-11, 2010, the Accrediting Commission reviewed the LATTC Follow-Up Report that was submitted in March and the report prepared by the visiting team. In its letter to the college, the Commission noted “the considerable good work done by LATTC to address recommendations and to come into compliance with standards.” According to the Commission, “what remains is simply a FULL opportunity to implement new practices and assess their effectiveness.”

In the March 2010 Follow-Up Report, the college responded to three of six college recommendations and three of three district recommendations that were given to the college following the Spring 2009 comprehensive visit. The ACCJC only accredits colleges and not districts. If the Commission has concerns about district-level issues, those recommendations must be addressed at the college level. All three district recommendations have been resolved to the satisfaction of the ACCJC.

College recommendations one and six have been resolved.
Recommendation 1 was focused on improving communication on campus, and the ACCJC was impressed with both the level and types of dialogue reflected in meetings such as the one we are having today, and the many newsletters that we produced during the year in an effort to keep everyone informed. Recommendation 6 on strengthening our participatory governance policies, procedures and practices was also resolved to the satisfaction of the Commission. Although these recommendations were resolved, the college must continue to implement and follow the new procedures that were developed during the 2009-2010 academic year in order to meet the accreditation standards.

To address the ACCJC’s remaining concerns and to be fully accredited, the college must prepare another Follow-Up Report, which is due to the Commission on March 15, 2011.

In this upcoming Follow-Up Report, the college must address College Recommendations 2, 3, 4, and 5.

The 2011 follow-up report will be validated by a visit from representatives from the Commission in either later March or April of 2011. The Commission also expressed concern about the district funding of retirement benefits, which will have to be addressed by the college in the regular midterm report in March 2012. The college will also respond to any remaining issues with the 6 college recommendations if the Commission determines that is necessary following the spring 2011 visit.

College Recommendation 2 is focused on college planning and program review. This recommendation was extensively addressed in the 2010 Follow-Up Report, but the ACCJC wants to ensure that the college has developed sustainable processes and procedures relative to planning, program review and evaluation of those activities. The 2011 Follow-Up Report will address how we have continued to integrate these procedures into our annual work cycles.

College Recommendation 3 is focused on Student Learning Outcomes, which every college in the state must have fully implemented by fall 2012. We will probably have to address our progress on this recommendation again in the 2012 midterm report. During the 2009-2010 academic year under the leadership of Tom Vessella and the Academic Senate, an Assessment Management Plan was created and approved. This plan established an aggressive time table to achieve compliance with ACCJC Standards. The approved plan has the goal of assessing 30% of all active courses in each of the next three full-semesters (fall 2010, spring 2011, and fall 2011) with the remaining 10% of courses being assessed in spring 2012. The college MUST meet this aggressive schedule because the Commission will not be forgiving if the college does not achieve the requirements of the standards related to SLOs and SAOs.

College Recommendation 4 is concerned with turnover in administrative ranks especially at the senior management level. There is actually concern about this issue statewide. Recently a report was presented to the Board of Governors on this topic. We will be using some of the information from that recent study to address this issue. Additionally, we will be working with the district office to ensure stability in our administrative staff.

College Recommendation 5 is focused on improving communication between the college and the district related to the impact of district committees on college policies and procedures. As in Recommendation 4, we will be working with the district staff to address this recommendation.

It appears that the two most significant college recommendations that must be addressed in the spring 2011 Follow-Up Report are recommendations 2 and 3. We spent significant time and effort on Recommendation 2 in the 2010 follow-up report. In the 2011 Follow-Up Report, we will be updating our progress on that recommendation. Recommendation 3 will take significant commitment on the part of all faculty and staff in order to demonstrate to the ACCJC that Trade Tech will have reached proficiency as defined on the Commission’s rubric related to Student Learning Outcomes. This will require the following:

Classroom Faculty must:

1. Develop, assess, and evaluate SLOs for every active course in the college database.
2. Archive active courses that have not been offered in the last two years.
3. Archive any active courses if there is no plan to schedule them during the 2010-2011 or 2011-2012 academic years. If a course is not offered, it cannot be assessed.
4. Evaluate the results of the assessment and develop a plan for improving student learning by writing discipline goals and objectives during the annual program review process.
5. If the plan for improvement resulting from the SLO evaluation requires additional funding, the goals and objectives should include a request for funding.

Non-Classroom Faculty and Staff must:

1. Work within their respective units, departments and divisions to develop, assess, and evaluate either SLOs or Student Area Outcomes (SAOs).
2. Evaluate the results of the assessment and develop a plan for improving student learning by writing unit goals and objectives during the annual program review process.
3. If the plan for improvement resulting from the SLO/SAO evaluation requires additional funding, the goals and objectives should include a request for funding.

What can you do to be an active participant in this process?

Students

• Ask your instructors what SLO’s are.
• Ask your instructors what the SLO’s for the course are.
• Ask your instructors how these SLO’s are going to be evaluated.

Faculty

• Attend Convocation for Awareness of SLO’s/SAO’s and Basic SLO Training.
• Be prepared to explain to students what SLO’s/SAO’s are in general.
• Make sure all SLO’s are on course syllabi. Be prepared to explain what the SLO’s are for your courses and how you plan to assess these SLO’s.
• Post outcomes in your areas.

Staff

• Know what student area outcomes are and how they will be evaluated.
• Secure training related these evaluations and outcomes.

Administrators

• Become responsible for overseeing your areas to make sure they are identifying Area Outcomes and SLOs/SAO’s.
• Make sure your areas are collecting syllabi and other materials that provide SLO’s and Assessment Measures.
• Make sure your areas have an assessment plan and are archiving curriculum they do not teach.

MORE TO COME IN THE NEXT ASC NEWSLETTER

Download

View Printable PDF Version

We are pleased to inform you that the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior College (ACCJC) has removed LATTC from probation and placed the college on warning. (The ACCJC letter and team report from April are attached to this e-mail.) The Commission noted that “considerable work was done and what remains is simply a full opportunity to implement new practices and assess their effectiveness.” In addition to a follow up report on our planning, we are required to respond to the three other recommendations cited in our report from March 2009 and they are:

College Recommendation 2: Evaluation, Planning and Improvement

The team recommends that in order to meet standards, the college develop and fully implement an integrated planning process that clearly links program review, all aspects of human, physical, technology and fiscal planning, and resource allocation in a cohesive and inclusive manner. Development of this model should be based on prevailing best practices that include a clearly established and calendared cycle, use of current and relevant internal and external data, analysis of data to inform planning, a committee review process, linkage to resource allocation, and evaluation of the implemented plan.

College Recommendation 3: Student Learning Outcomes

In order to meet the standards by 2012, the team recommends that the college establish a formal review and evaluation process at the department level that will allow faculty and/or staff to dialogue about SLOs and continuous improvement, The process should be documented for tracking and program improvement purposes. Student learning outcomes must be clearly, accurately, and consistently stated in print and electronic documents. The training of faculty and staff for a clearer understanding and relationship between program review and student learning outcomes is essential.

College Recommendation 4: Leadership Stability

In order to meet standards, the team recommends that the college, working collaboratively with the district office, take steps to stem the turnover of senior management. The college requires a stable, experienced administrative team to meet many of its recommendations. Administrative turnover, especially within the ranks of senior management, is concerning.

College Recommendation 5: Communication

In order to meet the standards the team recommends the college work to improve communication between the district and the college’s constituent groups. District committees which have a direct relationship with campus committees, such as Student Success, should develop a seamless process of communication and reporting.

ACCJC Letters

• LATTC Followup report May 2010 ACCJC
• ACCJC Results of Follow-up Report

Los Angeles Trade-Technical College
213 763-7063

Accreditation Follow-Up Visit Scheduled for Monday April 19th

The time has come for us to show all of the work that has been completed in response to our accreditation visit. The follow-up team has selected Monday April 19th as the day when they will visit Los Angeles Trade-Technical College, and review our Follow-Up Report and evidence. The team will spend just one day on campus meeting with the president and others to learn more about our response to the recommendations submitted following its visit last year. Dr. Peter Garcia from Los Medanos College, who chaired our accreditation visit last year, will be returning to our campus along with his administrative assistant Christine Fithian and Arvid Spor from El Camino College. The visiting team will be given a team room in the ST-building for the day. The team will spend time reviewing the Follow-Up Report, the response to the spring 2009 ACCJC recommendations. It is more than 100 pages in length and is filled with documentation and refers to dozens of pieces of evidence supporting the incredible amount of work that has been going on at Los Angeles Trade-Technical College, not only since the ACCJC report was issued but over the past few months when many complicated tasks and reports were compiled and collected. Once again, congratulations need to go to the Accreditation Steering Committee, and its co-chairs Kathleen Burke-Kelly and Joe Ratcliff, for handling the lion’s share of the writing and the evidence collection. We can expect the visiting team to request interviews with specific campus personnel, though the team has not indicated who those interviewees might be, other than the president and the Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO). We are confident that all of the work we have put into our follow-up will convince the ACCJC that Los Angeles Trade-Technical is working hard to make itself one of the best community colleges in the nation.

From the ACCJC website…on what to expect in a Follow-Up visit.

Follow-up Report With A Visit

Institutions are required to submit periodic reports to the Commission between comprehensive Self Study Reports that are accompanied by evaluation visits. The list below will guide institutions as they prepare the various reports required by the ACCJC.
A Follow-Up Report is a report requested by the Commission for special purposes. It can occur at any time in the 6-year accreditation cycle. A Follow-Up Report requires that the institution provide information, evidence, and analysis regarding the resolution of the issues to which it was directed by the Commission’s Action Letter. The institution’s report will be reviewed by the Commission at its next regularly scheduled meeting, and the institution will be notified as to what action, if any, it must take next.
Visits accompanying Follow-Up Reports are normally one-day visits by a team of two members, typically the chair of the comprehensive evaluation team familiar with the issues confronting the institution and a member of the Commission or Commission staff. The team is appointed by the Commission and reviewed by the institution in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest.

The purposes of the team conducting this visit are to:

• Verify the accuracy and relevance of the report submitted by the college in response to the specific action of the Commission.
• Determine the extent to which the institution now meets the Commission standards cited in the recommendations.
• Report findings and recommendations to the Commission.

Following the visit, the team will write a brief report summarizing their findings, which will be sent to the ACCJC. The Commission will consider LATTC’s accredited status at its semi-annual meeting from June 9-11, 2010 in San Francisco. The college should be notified about the Commission’s decision in early July 2010.

Dear LATTC Family…please understand that the process of accreditation never ends. Our discussions, evidence-gathering and evaluations as a college, must now continue forever, if we hope to be the best college we can be. Do your part in making accreditation an ongoing effort. We owe that to our students and our community.

Download

View Printable PDF Version

Los Angeles Trade-Technical College
213 763-7063

Accreditation Steering Committee Completes Follow-Up Report

It has been a long road and a lot of work, but the Follow-Up Report, the response to the spring 2009 ACCJC recommendations has been completed. It is more than 100 pages in length and directly responds to the recommendations made by the accreditation visiting team last year. It is filled with documentation and dozens of pieces of evidence supporting the incredible amount of work that has been going on at Los Angeles Trade-Technical College, not only since the ACCJC report was issued but over the past few months when many complicated tasks and reports were compiled and collected. Leading the charge has been the Accreditation Steering Committee, and its co-chairs Kathleen Burke-Kelly and Joe Ratcliff. Not only did they handle most of the writing and coordination but they kept the campus on task and informed. Coordinating the timing of committee actions and reports has been critical to the compilation of this follow-up report. Now that the report is submitted to the ACCJC, the site visiting team will conduct our follow-up visit. It is expected that the team will be on campus sometime in April. Following the visit, the team’s findings will be submitted to ACCJC and our accreditation status will be known this summer. We will keep you updated about the visit and accreditation going forward throughout the process.

Trade Tech’s Follow-Up Report Presented to Board

ASC co-chairs Joe Ratcliff and Kathleen Burke-Kelly presented the Trade Tech Follow-Up Report to the Planning and Student Success Committee of the Board of Trustees, who were very impressed with the depth of the report and its thorough response to the concerns of the ACCJC. The report is being placed on CD-Rom for the accreditation visit team.

Los Angeles Trade-Technical College Accreditation

Accreditation Themes—Institutional Integrity
By: The Accreditation Steering Committee

The last of the themes concerns itself with the integrity of the college both internally and externally. This focus on integrity addresses all college operations including: college policies and procedures, college publications, student free inquiry in the classroom, faculty grading policies and practice, student academic honesty, evidence of concern for equity and diversity, college hiring and employment practices, and the college’s relationship with the ACCJC and other external agencies. Finally, the Commission expects that the college be honest with itself as it assesses and reflects on all of its policies, procedures, and operations so that the self-reflective dialogue that is part of the accreditation process leads to authentic improvements. The Accrediting Commission describes institutional integrity theme as:

This theme deals with the institution’s demonstrated concern with honesty, truthfulness, and the manner in which it represents itself to all stakeholders, internal and external. This theme speaks to the intentions of an institution as well as to how it carries them out. It prompts institutional assessment of the integrity of its policies, practices, and procedures and to how it treats students, employees, and its publics. It asks that the institution concern itself with the clarity, understandability, accessibility, and appropriateness of its publications; that its faculty provide for open inquiry in their classes as well as student grades that reflect an honest appraisal of student performance against faculty standards. It has an expectation of academic honesty on the part of students. It requires that the institution demonstrate regard for issues of equity and diversity. It encourages the institution to look at its hiring and employment practices as well as its relationship with the Commission and other external agencies. Finally, it expects that an institution be self-reflective and honest with itself in all its operations.
(Guide to Evaluating Institutions, August 2000, p.9)

In addition to the expectation that the college concern itself with integrity in all of its operations, this theme demands that the college represent itself honestly in all of its publications. Policies and procedures are to be written and presented in language that is clear and easily understood; furthermore, these policies and procedures should be made accessible in college publications including the college website. It is not enough for the college to maintain a continuous cycle of improvement; the results of these improvements must be published and made available to the public. The six themes: Institutional Commitment, Evaluation, Planning and Improvement, Student Learning Outcomes, Organization and Dialogue culminate in the final theme of Institutional Integrity in which everything that is accomplished in the first five themes is done honestly and is reported to the college’s internal and external public.

Download

Accreditation Newsletter #9 (PDF Version)

Los Angeles Trade-Technical College
213 763-7063

Down to the Wire: Working on Our Accreditation Response

The Accreditation Steering Committee is moving very quickly on the college accreditation response. ASC wants to have the entire response document up on the web by February 8th so the college can review and offer input. Evidence and information is being compiled to provide support for our best practices and thorough response. Drafts of our responses to ACCJC Recommendations 1 and 6 are being reviewed. There is more work to be done on Recommendation 6. At the 1/26 meeting, VP Mary Gallagher reported that the College Council had completed a three-meeting mini-retreat, in an attempt to bring all accreditation and governance issues to the table. Work completed during the mini-retreats is now part of the governance handbook draft. Gallagher reported all of the College Council Standing Committee evaluations had been submitted but there has been a delay in creating an external evaluation team. An AFT staff guild member is needed. VP Gallagher also reported that College Council has completed the first draft of the College Participatory Governance Handbook. That launched a discussion about establishing a governance agreement to be placed in the handbook, with signatures from all college constituency groups. It was decided that the co-chairs from the ASC would draft a proposal to begin a dialogue on a new agreement. The ASC believes it needs to be signed and agreed to by all constituency groups. This document would replace any and all previous agreements. Since all of this work must be concluded in the month of February to incorporate it into the report, a Friday 1/29 meeting is scheduled to complete that draft agreement. Dean Anna Badalyan gave an update on program review. The college is discussing a modular approach to comprehensive program review. This concept was approved by the Program Review Committee, and it will be consulted through other college governance bodies including PBC, the Academic Senate and the College Council. Tom Vessella reported that the SLO assessment plan is ready and needs to be reviewed by the entire Academic Senate at its first meeting of the new semester. The ASC expressed concerns about the status of program viability reports. These concerns are being referred to the Academic Senate for response and action.

Back Page Story Focus…
Accreditation Themes—Dialogue

By: The Accreditation Steering Committee

One of the major areas cited by the visiting team in College Recommendation 1 focused on the theme of effective institutional dialogue. According to the team’s Evaluation Report: “There is no evidence that formal, open, and collegial dialogue occurs to ensure that all program review recommendations support the mission and the goals of the institution before the recommendations are allocated resources and are added to the formal planning processes of the institution.” The team also stated that “The internal collegial dialogue in the college needs attention as a prerequisite to integrated planning, governance, decision making and program review, and assessment of student learning outcomes.” The Guide to Evaluating Institutions describes the dialogue theme as follows:

The standards are designed to facilitate college engagement in inclusive, informed, and intentional dialogue about institutional quality and improvement. The dialogue should purposefully guide institutional change. All members of the college community should participate in this reflection and exchange about student achievement, student learning, and the effectiveness of its processes, policies, and organization. For the dialogue to have its intended effect, it should be based on reliable information about the college’s programs and services and evidence on how well the institution is meeting student needs. Information should be quantitative and qualitative, responsive to clear inquiry, meaningfully interpreted, and broadly communicated. The institutional dialogue should result in ongoing self-reflection and conscious improvement. (Guide to Evaluating Institutions, August 2009 p 8).

There are several key best practices emphasized in this theme. The purpose of institutional dialogue is to improve the quality of the college’s service to students. There is an emphasis from the Commission’s perspective on engagement of “all members of the college community.” Dialogue involves not just faculty and administrators but staff and students. The college should actively recruit and support participation in its decision-making bodies from all four major campus constituencies. In addition to being inclusive, effective dialogue is also self-reflective and engages the campus community in analysis of practices and procedures that have a positive impact on student success both inside and outside of the classroom. This includes the assessment and evaluation of student learning outcomes and how the results of those activities better inform college planning and budget. This theme builds the practice of collegial dialogue on all of the preceding themes with its focus on guiding institutional change based on an informed analysis of data that is drawn from the assessment of student learning.

DOWNLOAD

Printable PDF Version

Accreditation Information Now Targeted Toward LATTC Students

As we move full-throttle toward completing our accreditation response, we need to make sure that simple and concise information is readily available to students. Recently several students visited the LACCD Board of Trustees meeting and stopped by some classrooms, and offered misinformation about our accreditation response. It is very clear that we must engage our students with truthful information. We have now instituted several strategies to answer common questions and to keep students up-to-date on the accreditation efforts. Our probation status DOES NOT affect their credits, their financial aid, or any student service. We have augmented our accreditation information strategies by delivering to students:

• Frequent messages on campus Twitter and Facebook sites.
• More Accreditation Centers around campus which will display videos of our efforts.
• Email blast to students on a weekly basis, to dispel falsehoods about our response.

Accreditation Steering Committee Actions 12/7/09 Meeting

The ASC has recommended a mini-retreat for the College Council to complete discussion and responses to the participatory governance issues. The mini-retreat will be on campus on December 16th between 9a-1pm.

Three College Council committees have turned in their committee self-evaluations. Three other committees will submit their evaluations shortly.

The Staff Development Committee will have a first draft of a college acronym glossary completed this week.

Over the last few weeks, the ASC developed a draft Code of Ethical Conduct to address the ACCJC’s Standard III.A.1.d. The proposed code of ethics applies to all college staff, and supplements the Faculty Code of Ethics available on the LATTC Academic Senate website.

Back Page Focus: Organization

Accreditation Themes: Organization
By: The Accreditation Steering Committee

Theme three focused the college on building a program improvement plan by basing our strategic directions and goals on the results from assessing student learning. Our efforts to complete authentic assessment are not just in the classroom but include an evaluation of the quality of our policies, processes, and procedures related to facilitating students’ access and pathways through the college. For students to be successful, the college must have organizational structures that support student success. The Guide to Evaluating Institutions describes the Organization theme as follows:

The standards require colleges to have inclusive, informed and intentional efforts to define student learning, provide programs to support that learning, and to evaluate how well learning is occurring. This requirement means that the institution must have in place the organizational means to identify and make public the learning outcomes, to evaluate the effectiveness of programs in producing those learning outcomes, and to make improvements. This requirement for adequate staff, resources and organizational structure (communication and decision making structures) is not new to accreditation standards, but the new expectation is that these be oriented to produce and support student learning. Consequently, they will be evaluated in part by how well they support learning (Guide to Evaluating Institutions, August 2009 p. 8).

This theme is related to how the college functions in regard to its resource allocation and decision-making structures. As stated in the description, the requirement for adequate staff, resources, and structure have always been in the standards. These best practices must be documented by the college in its responses to Standard 3, which covers human resources, technology, finance, and facilities. Added to these very tangible college resources is the expectation that there is a structure that supports communication and decision making about the allocation of these resources in service of student learning. For the first time in this theme, we see the Commission’s emphasis on making public what we do at our college. This theme of intentionally publishing our mission, learning outcomes, policies, and procedures is further defined in theme six, Institutional Integrity. Naturally, all of this activity relates back to the first theme about making an institutional commitment to providing a high quality learning experience congruent with the college mission.

Download

Download PDF Version

Los Angeles Trade-Technical College/
213 763-7063

Working Together is the Key to Our Accreditation Response

The Accreditation Steering Committee is moving on several issues. Chini Johnson-Taylor and the Staff Development Committee have been asked to put together a glossary of terms related to accreditation. Two handbooks are in the works. The Participatory Governance Handbook is being put together by a College Council task force while the Planning Handbook will be the work of the Planning and Budget Committee. Program Review reported that its effectiveness survey is available, and completed Program Review Updates (PRU) need to be turned into supervising deans and area managers by 11/13.

More ASC Area Actions and Progress…

Program Viability has posted its procedural documents on the web. SLOs will be having a town hall in December to encourage public input on the development of college-wide Core Competencies. The Marketing Committee continues to push ideas on communication including accreditation centers in the cafeteria, LRC and the admissions office area. The assignment of responses to 30 standards references in the three college recommendations made by the team has been completed. There has been initial discussion of a code of ethics for all campus employees. There is already a statement of ethics for the faculty but Standard III.A.1.d states that “The institution upholds a written code of professional ethics for all of its personnel.” An ASC task force including the Joe Ratcliff, Kathleen Burke-Kelly, and Shirley Chen volunteered to draft an employee code of ethics. Once it is developed and has received approval of the ASC it will go to College Council for consideration.

Back Page Story Focus…
Student Learning Outcomes

Accreditation Themes—Student Learning Outcomes
By: The Accreditation Steering Committee

This theme is the one that is the most familiar to us. The philosophy of developing an integrated planning and resource allocation cycle in order to demonstrate the college’s commitment to offering a high quality education has at its heart the improvement of student learning. In 2002 when the ACCJC revised the accreditation standards, they determined the best way to improve student learning was to actually assess what learning we expect to take place in both our courses and support services. The Commission describes the student leaning outcomes theme as follows:

The development of Student Learning Outcomes is one of the key themes in these standards. The theme has to do with the institution consciously and robustly demonstrating the effectiveness of its efforts to produce and support student learning by developing student learning outcomes at the course, program, and degree level. This demonstration of effectiveness requires that learning outcomes be measured and assessed to determine how well learning is occurring so that changes to improve learning and teaching can be made. It requires that faculty engage in discussion of ways to deliver instruction to maximize student learning. It requires that those providing student support services develop student learning outcomes and evaluate the quality of their policies, processes, and procedures for providing students access and movement through the institution. And it requires that student learning outcomes be at the center of the institution’s key processes and allocation of resources. Ultimately, this theme requires that an institution engage in self-analysis leading to improvement of all that it does regarding learning and teaching (Guide to Evaluating Institutions, August 2009 pp. 7-8).

The Commission uses the terms course, program, and degree level to describe the three areas in which they expect learning outcomes to be developed. Generally, colleges have interpreted the “degree” level to mean college core competencies or those skills, abilities, and values we believe all students should possess when they leave our colleges. Often these core competencies are gained through the general education curriculum that is offered as part of our degrees and certificates. In addition to learning outcomes in instruction, the Commission suggests areas of emphasis in developing outcomes for Student Services and Administrative Services. The ACCJC states that the focus should be on “policies, processes, and procedures for providing students access and movement throughout the institution.” Recently, we have discovered that agreement on core competencies or “degree-level” learning outcomes is a prerequisite for moving forward on the development of program-level outcomes. It is critical that each faculty member, staff member, and administrator actively engage in the very important college-wide dialogue about to begin on the development of core competencies and program-level learning outcomes. As we go through a complete cycle of assessment over the next two years, the discoveries we make about improving student learning will become the basis of resource allocation to complete the cycle of continuous improvement of programs and services to support our most important constituency—the students.

Download

Download PDF Version

Accreditation Steering Committee Asks College Council for Standing Committee Evaluation Process Evaluations

Trade Tech’s College Council is being asked to review all of its standing committees. Each would undergo both a self-evaluation as well as an external assessment conducted by a council task force. The self-evaluation will be due in November with the external assessment due in December. This will become part of a cycle of review. The next self-evaluation of committees will take place in April with the external evaluation following in May. The task force assigned to the external evaluation of committees has not been established. The committee plan template also is being reviewed by the Planning and Budget Committee, and eventually it will be sent to the College Council.

Other ASC Actions…

Since Joe Ratcliff has been named co-chair of the Accreditation Steering Committee, a representative for the Chairs was needed. History/Social Sciences instructor Alicia Rodriquez-Estrada has been selected to serve in that capacity for the ASC.
There was a discussion about a need for a code of ethics, beyond anything offered by the district.
The Academic Senate president raised some governance issues during consultations with the chancellor. It is imperative that these issues be addressed as part of the accreditation response. Another campus climate survey is being developed to assess the opinions of the staff. There are also plans for another open forum to discuss these specific issues. The Marketing Committee has decided to engage the communication issues related to accreditation, and recommendation 1.

Back Page Story…Evaluation, Planning, and Improvement…

Accreditation Themes—Evaluation, Planning, and Improvement

The first of the six accreditation themes we reviewed was Institutional Commitments. As you may recall, the thrust of that theme is the college’s commitment to provide “high quality education congruent with the institutional mission.” The second theme focuses colleges on the process of achieving that high quality education through a cycle of data gathering, analyzing the data, planning, linking the results of planning to resource allocation, and evaluating the results to determine both planning outcomes and cycle effectiveness. The Guide to Evaluating Institutions describes this theme as follows:

The standards require ongoing institutional evaluation and improvement to help serve students better. Evaluation focuses on student achievement, student learning, and the effectiveness of processes, policies, and organization. Improvement is achieved through an ongoing and systematic cycle of evaluation, integrated planning, implementation, and re-evaluation. The planning cycle begins with the evaluation of student needs and college programs and services. This evaluation in turn informs college decisions about where it needs to improve, and the college identifies improvement goals campus-wide. Resources are distributed in order to implement these goals. When resources are insufficient to support improvement goals, the college adjusts its resource decisions to reflect its priorities or seeks other means of supplying resources to meet its goals. Once improvement plans have been fully implemented, evaluation of how well the goals have been met ensues. Thus, the planning cycle is comprised of evaluation, goal setting, resource distribution, implementation, and re-evaluation (Guide to Evaluating Institutions, August 2009 p. 7).

As defined by the ACCJC all planning begins with an evaluation. The use of the term evaluation in this case is the gathering and analyzing of data that documents student needs. Once the data is analyzed the college is able to make informed decisions and develop a program improvement plan. College resources are then dedicated to achieve plan goals. Finally, the cycle is completed once the college evaluates the effectiveness of plan implementation and goal achievement. Notice that the emphasis of all of this activity is to “help serve students better.” This theme is the primary focus of College Recommendation 2. College committees and the Academic Senate have been working over the last several weeks to define a planning and budget cycle for LATTC to keep the college moving forward in meeting this ACCJC requirement. Many of those new and revised processes have been highlighted in these Accreditation Updates. Keep reading so that you stay informed and direct any questions you may have to one of your constituency’s representatives.

Download

Download PDF Version

What does accreditation mean?

Educational accreditation is defined as a type of quality assurance process under which services and operations of an educational institution or program are evaluated by an external body to determine if applicable standards are met. If standards are met, accredited status is granted by the agency. In most countries in the world, the function of educational accreditation is conducted by a government organization, such as a ministry of education. In the United States, however, the quality assurance process is independent of government and performed by private membership associations, such as Western Association of Schools and College (WASC)/Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC). ACCJC is the accrediting body for Los Angeles Trade Technical College.

Why is it important for a college to be accredited?

Not only is it important for a college to be accredited because of quality assurance of programs and offerings, but also because colleges that are accredited are allowed to offer federal financial aid assistance to eligible students who apply.

What is the accreditation process?

In a six-year cycle, the accreditation arm of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), called the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) visits each of the colleges in California, and performs an assessment visit. Before the team arrives, the college provides a self-study, a compilation of data which responds to a series of lengthy educational standards used to measure a school’s effectiveness. ACCJC has raised its standards to insure that each college is providing a truly viable educational experience for its students. During its site visit, the accreditation team not only reviews the self-study, but directly interviews key college personnel to gather information about the institution’s process and programs. Once the visit is complete, the accreditation team submits its preliminary report to ACCJC, which then issues a final report on the college’s status.

I understand Trade Tech was placed on probation, what does it mean that LA Trade Tech is on probation?

Probationary status is a moderate level of sanction by the ACCJC. It means the college needs to respond directly to questions being asked by the ACCJC during a follow-up visit and report in March of 2010. The ACCJC found on its visit in March of 2009 that LA Trade Tech had not yet completed a cycle of program review that links planning for the college with the budget process, along with the financial resources of the college. This had been recommended by ACCJC teams on prior site visits, years before the current college administration was in place. Since LA Trade Tech had not fully addressed this prior recommendation, the ACCJC accredited LA Trade Tech but felt it necessary to place the school on probation until this recommendation is fully addressed. The ACCJC also wants to see a more effective shared governance process on campus, allowing various constituencies a variety of forums to offer input on college decisions and procedures.

May I still receive a degree or certificate while LA Trade Tech is on probation?

Yes. The ability of a California community college to grant a degree or certificate is conferred to the Board of Trustees of the Los Angeles Community College District.

Are my credits still transferable during the probation period?

Yes. The probation has no effect on transfer credits. Credits that qualified for transfer remain unchanged. Check with your counselor or the LATTC Transfer Center about the eligibility guidelines for particular four-year institutions,

Is my financial aid affected by the probation?

No.

What is LA Trade Tech doing to remove itself from probation?

In April 2009, a special task force was formed on campus to develop a plan to address the recommendations that LA Trade Tech expected from the ACCJC. Teams of staff, faculty, and students have been meeting to insure the ACCJC recommendations are fully addressed by the time the next report is due on March 15, 2010. The College Council Retreat in August 2009 was committed to developing the action plans needed to fully comply with the standards. The college will have gone through a full planning cycle by March of 2010, and will be able to provide information on the effectiveness of that process to the ACCJC. In addition, the college is holding open forums to answer questions about the accreditation process, to stifle misinformation and to provide a pipeline of input for all constituencies on campus. Since LA Southwest College recently removed itself from probation status, the district does have a blueprint on effective and proper response to the ACCJC.

For those interested in participating in our accreditation response, please contact President Chapdelaine’s office ext. 7052

You can find out more about accreditation at the ACCJC website, www.accjc.org, or at the U.S. Department of Education website.

Download

Download PDF Version

Keep Moving Forward!

The accreditation process is in full swing now and the work is being distributed to various committees. The College Council has adopted the district’s Decision-Making and Governance model as a guide for the soon-to-be-completed LATTC Participatory Governance Handbook. The Council also needs all of its standing committees to fill out a committee template and a self-assessment form. The Council wants those committee evaluations completed and submitted by its November 2nd meeting. An external assessment will also take place. A task force is being formed to evaluate the committees. For clarification, the Planning and Budget Committee will be named as such. There was direction in the area of campus plans, with critical discussion about the committees responsible for each of the various plans (Strategic Master Plan, Facilities Plan, Student Equity Plan, etc) and the need to make sure they all support the Strategic Master Plan. The Council also approved linkage of the annual unit plans to the budget planning cycle.

Accreditation Steering Committee Actions

Please mark November 23rd on your calendars. We will be having another large Town Hall meeting with district rep Gary Colombo and Southwest College president Jack Daniels, talking about getting that college off probation. Gary has suggested that the participatory governance handbook be streamlined and real usable document. He says we can pull information from various sources but don’t overload the handbook. One of the approaches to informing the campus about the accreditation strategies in addition to capturing input will be an accreditation wall in the cafeteria and possibly other places on campus. Look for information about the accreditation process and progress, and take advantage of the response/suggestion box. Some of them will appear in future newsletters.

Back Page Focus: Institutional Commitments

Accreditation Themes—Institutional Commitments
By: The Accreditation Steering Committee

The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) in preparing the 2002 Standards focused on the importance of student learning as reflected in their emphasis on student learning outcomes at all levels of the institution. As the Commission revised the standards, it was clear that certain themes reflective of Commission philosophy were present. In order to assist colleges with understanding the overarching themes that thread throughout the standards, the Commission, in its Guide to Evaluating Institutions provides a definition of these themes. There are six accreditation themes. Over the next six accreditation newsletters beginning with this one, the Accreditation Steering Committee (ASC) would like to feature the six themes so that all college community members can become familiar with these best practices expected by the ACCJC. The first featured theme is Institutional Commitments. This theme calls for colleges to demonstrate commitment to providing students with “high quality education congruent with the institutional mission.”

Institutional Commitments

The standards ask institutions to make a commitment in action to provide high quality education congruent with the institutional mission. The first expression of this is in Standard I, which calls for an institutional mission statement that reflects the intended student population and the institution’s commitment to student learning. Throughout the standards, the Commission asks that institutions ensure the consistency between mission and institutional goals and plans and ensure that the mission is more than a statement of intention—that it guides institutional action. The standards also ask that an institution commit to supporting student learning as its primary mission.

The number of references to student learning outcomes throughout the standards are designed to guide this institutional commitment to student learning. The standards’ requirement that the entire institution participate in reviewing institutional performance and developing plans for improvement of student learning outcomes is intended to help the institution sustain its commitment to student learning. Finally, the requirement that an institution regularly review its mission statement asks that the institution periodically reflect on its mission statement, adapt it as needed, and renew commitment to achieving the mission (Guide to Evaluating Institutions, August 2009 pp 6-7).

Download

Download PDF Version