Standard IVa5- Template for Team Responses to the Accreditation Standards

 

1. Review the Specific Standard Section

 

5. The role of leadership and the institution’s governance and decision-making structures and processes are regularly evaluated to assure their integrity and effectiveness. The institution widely communicates the results of these evaluations and uses them as the basis for improvement.

 

2. List of Team Members working on this Standard

 

 

3. Read and Review Self-Study Questions and Suggested Source of Evidence

 

Major reference source for analyzing accreditation standards:

“Accreditation Commission Self Study Guidelines, August 2004, Guide to Evaluating Institutions”

http://www.ohlone.edu/org/instruction/docs/200408accredcomm-guidetoevaluatinginstitutions.pdf

 

4. Locate and Review the Evidence.  Include Suggested Sources of Evidence from the “Guide to Evaluating Institutions” as well as additional engagement activities conducted by your Team, such as team meetings, special meetings of existing groups, special focus groups, open forums, surveys, etc…)

 

List of evidence being reviewed and engagement activities being conducted:    campus climaite survey-  been 4 years plan is to now run the survey each year.   President met with deans/directors- regard ing effectiveness of organization   President met with each building regarding state of facilities     Program reviews   board reviews public-  includes extended board.   ASOC surveys-       enrollment reports- awareness of the faculty about WSCH/FTEF

 

5. Descriptive Summary

 

Draft a brief one or two paragraph description of what the College is doing to meet the standard.

 

 

6. Integration Review

 

Is there an expression of our College Values?  Is there a contribution to our College Goals?  Is there an expression of the Accreditation Themes?

 

 

7. Self Evaluation

 

Provide a rating of how well the College is addressing the specific standard using this scoring rubric:

 

1. Superior: College has worked in this area and considerable improvement is noted

2. Satisfactory: College has taken some actions to address the area and some improvement is noted.

3. Needs Improvement: College has not adequately addressed the area.

 

Rating:

 

Draft a one or two paragraph explanation for this rating based upon your assessment of the College’s activities in relation to the standard. Pay particular attention to the quality of our involvement and interventions since the last WASC self-study report.

 

 

8. Planning Agenda

 

If the assessment process does not identify areas in need of change, simply state, No Plan Required

 

If the assessment process identifies areas in need of change, a planning agenda for improvement should be developed. The planning agenda should identify the activities and processes the institution should implement, or is implementing, to produce improvement.  How will these plans be incorporated into the evaluation and planning processes of the institution?  How will the outcomes of this planning agenda improve student learning and foster institutional improvement in general.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adapted from:  “Self Study Manual,” August 2006, A Publication of the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges Western Association of Schools and Colleges; and City College of San Francisco Self-Study Template