Relevant
resolutions by the State Academic Senate re ACCJC imposition of SLO standards.
(From 2002)
Roy Bauer
[This concerns a
resolution to challenge the ACCJC's embrace of the "outcomes based"
SLO philosophy, which would seem to have no empirical support. I made that
point at a senate meeting; that led to my crafting a resolution, which passed,
which was sent on to the state ac. senate.]
Use of Current Measures Absent
"Clear Showing of Inadequacy"
Fall 2002
Resolution
Number:
02.01
Contact:
Mark
Snowhite
Assigned to :
President
Topic:
Accreditation
Status:
Completed
Whereas, The
American Association of University Professors (AAUP) 1991 Statement on
"Mandated Assessment of Educational Outcomes" notes that the
justification for developing any assessment plan must be "accompanied by a
clear showing that existing methods of assessing learning are inadequate for
accomplishing the intended purposes of a supplementary plan"; and
Whereas, Given that the new Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior
Colleges (ACCJC) Standards require that faculty develop student learning
outcome measures at the course, program, certificate, and degree level, even
though the ACCJC has provided no evidence that these would document the
inadequacy of current methods for assessing learning;
Resolved, That the Academic Senate urge local senates to assert the right and
responsibility of faculty to determine appropriate measures of student learning
and achievement (such as grades, certificates, and degrees), and that absent
"clear showing" of the inadequacy of current measures faculty need
not develop additional outcome measures simply to satisfy the Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) requirements for
continuous documentation and improvement of student learning outcomes.
MSCDisposition:
Local Senates
Status Report:
The Senate
published in December 2002 guidelines for the field covering these points.
These guidelines are available on the Senate website.
http://www.asccc.org/resolutions/insistence-academic-and-institutional-excellence-self-study-process
Insistence on Academic and Institutional
Excellence in the Self-study Process
Fall
2002
Resolution
Number:
02.02
Contact:
Kate Clark
Assigned to :
President
Topic:
Accreditation
Status:
Completed
Whereas, The
American Association of University Professors (AAUP) statement on the
"Role of the Faculty in the Accrediting of Colleges and Universities"
addresses the centrality of faculty in the accrediting process and contains
recommended standards for institutions of higher education;
Whereas, The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC)
Standards adopted in June 2002 have generally retreated from a commitment to
such commonly accepted standards for excellence in institutions of higher
education and to the baseline resources that define a quality educational
institution;
Whereas, Quality higher education institutions support the needs of students in
the learning process by providing them with qualified full-time faculty who have
appropriate control over the assessment of students and over the content and
teaching of their courses and programs; and
Whereas, The protection of academic freedom and processes of collegial
governance are critical to the sound operation of a college and are essential
components of providing students the opportunity to learn and explore in
educational environments that are free of coercion, encourage open inquiry, and
promote the development of critical thinking and multiple perspectives;
Resolved, That the Academic Senate urge local academic senates to insist that
their local accreditation self-studies continue to include attention to
generally accepted standards for institutions of higher education including:
The provision of
qualified full-time faculty sufficient to conduct programs of academic
excellence and to meet the learning and support needs of our students;
Appropriate faculty control over the assessment of students And over the
content and teaching of their courses and programs;
The right of faculty to determine that grades and other current indicators of
student achievement (such as degree and certificate attainment, transfer, and
subsequent occupational success) are appropriate to the measurement of student
learning;
The protection of academic freedom, due process, and tenure;
A substantive role for faculty in college and district governance and support
for the processes of collegial governance; and
The provision and allocation of sufficient resources to support high quality
educational programs, student services, and libraries.
MSU Disposition:
Local Senates
Status Report:
Covered in
guidelines to the field (see above) and at the Spring 2003 session.
Documentation of Cost of Implementing
New Standards
Fall
2002
Resolution
Number:
02.03
Contact:
Nancy Silva
http://www.asccc.org/resolutions/lack-evidence-restructuring-accreditation-standards
Lack of Evidence for Restructuring
Accreditation Standards
Fall
2002
Resolution
Number:
02.04
Contact:
Lacy
Barnes-Mileham
Assigned to :
Unassigned
Topic:
Accreditation
Status:
Completed
Whereas, The
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) adopted new
Standards for accreditation over the objections of the Academic Senate for
California Community Colleges as well as those of the American Association of
University Professors and the Community College Council of the California
Federation of Teachers among others;
Whereas, The ACCJC has not responded to repeated requests to provide the
Academic Senate the background materials and research upon which it based its
decision to restructure the Standards around the continuous monitoring of
student learning outcomes; and
Whereas, The ACCJC has not responded to repeated requests to provide the
Academic Senate with evidence or research to support the contention that such
an approach in fact leads to improvements in the quality of undergraduate
education or enhances student achievement;
Resolved, That the Academic Senate continue to request the background evidence
and supporting research that would justify recent radical restructuring of the
Accrediting Standards by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior
Colleges (ACCJC); and
Resolved, That the Academic Senate publicize in relevant educational and public
venues its concerns regarding the secrecy and lack of substantive evidence
provided by ACCJC to support these costly new accreditation requirements.
MSC
Disposition:Accrediting Commission
Status Report:
Working group
formed in 2003, chaired by the Accrediting Liaison, failed to function as
chaired called no meetings. Since then it has become obvious that the ACCJC has
no evidence and was only complying with federal demands (also not supported by
evidence) to shift to outcomes based assessments.
http://www.asccc.org/resolutions/continued-use-current-standards-and-redirection-professional-development-resources
Continued Use of Current Standards and
Redirection of Professional Development Resources
Fall
2002
Resolution
Number:
02.06
Contact:
Beverly Shue
Assigned to :
President
Topic:
Accreditation
Status:
Ongoing
Whereas, The new
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) Standards do
not actually take effect until Fall 2004, and colleges undergoing accreditation
prior to that date will have a choice between the new and the old Standards;
Whereas, Recent reports regarding national and congressional debate over the
processes and content of accreditation portend a likely period of instability
and possibly even restructuring of accreditation;
Whereas, Local academic senates are experiencing enormous pressure to conform
immediately to the new Standards, even if they are not yet the ones by which
their college will be next accredited; and
Whereas, Faculty are being offered generous support for attending conferences
on learning outcomes and the new Standards, but have had funding cuts for all
other professional development programs slashed;
Resolved, That the Academic Senate urge local senates in those colleges
undergoing their next accreditation visit prior to Fall 2004 to insist that the
current Standards continue to be used and resist the premature imposition of
the new Standards;
Resolved, That the Academic Senate urge local senates to recommend directing
scarce college resources toward professional development and away from
promotion of the new Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
(ACCJC) Standards; and
Resolved, That the Academic Senate work with local senates to develop materials
and strategies for resisting the new Standards in ways most relevant to their
local situation and place in the accreditation cycle.
MSC Disposition:
Local Senates
Status Report:
The President met
with colleges piloting standards in 2003-04.
These colleges shared their experiences and strategies at a breakout at the
2003 Spring Session. Recommend that specific guidelines be developed with
colleges undergoing accreditation in subsequent years.
http://www.asccc.org/resolutions/continued-coalition-faculty-organizations-address-imposition-standards
Continued Coalition of Faculty
Organizations to Address Imposition of Standards
Fall
2002
Resolution
Number:
02.07
Contact:
Shaaron
Vogel
Assigned to :
President
Topic:
Accreditation
Status:
Ongoing
Whereas, The
response to the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges'
(ACCJC's) new Standards will require a coordinated faculty response and
multiple, multidimensional strategies at the local, state, and national levels;
Resolved, That the Academic Senate continue to work in alliance with other
faculty organizations to develop a coherent set of strategies to oppose the new
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges Standards, consider
and coordinate legal or legislative challenges, and educate legislators and
other state and federal policy-makers regarding its concerns with the new
Standards.
MSC Disposition:
AAUP,COFO
Status Report:
Recommend that an
effective working group be assembled to pursue these issues. Working group
formed in 2003, chaired by the Accrediting Liaison, failed to function as
chaired called no meetings.
http://www.asccc.org/resolutions/opposition-standardized-objectives
Opposition to Standardized Objectives
Fall
2002
Resolution
Number:
02.09
Contact:
Lauren
Coodley
Assigned to :
Unassigned
Topic:
Accreditation
Status:
Ongoing
Whereas, The new
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) Standards
require that departments develop standardized course content and objectives;
Whereas, The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges as well as the
Board of Governors and the Chancellor's Office encourage a range of approaches
and course content which are culturally sensitive and reflect the latest
disciplinary developments; and
Whereas, The pressure toward curricular standardization in the new ACCJC
Standards will likely discourage innovation in course content and objectives
and potentially disempower faculty who may belong to traditionally marginalized
groups, thus fostering a retreat from a commitment to diversity in both content
and teaching and learning approaches;
Resolved, That the Academic Senate urge local senates and the Board of
Governors to protect diversity and multiculturalism by respecting academic
freedom and not imposing standardized objectives and outcomes at the course,
degree and certificate levels; and
Resolved, That The Academic Senate vigorously oppose the Accrediting Commission
for Community and Junior Colleges' and legislative pressure to standardize with
the resultant exclusion of alternative viewpoints.
MSC Disposition:
Accrediting Commission, Board of Governors, Chancellor's Office, Local Senates
Status Report:
Issues set forth
in this resolution have been repeatedly addressed in ASCCC papers, letters,
workshops, articles, and institutes, and ongoing resistance to any hints of
standardization remain essential
http://www.asccc.org/resolutions/resisting-imposition-learner-outcomes-assessment
Resisting Imposition of Learner Outcomes
Assessment
Fall
2002
Resolution
Number:
02.10
Contact:
Rory O'Brien
Assigned to :
President
Topic:
Accreditation
Status:
Ongoing
Whereas, The
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) has adopted a
new set of Accreditation Standards which will radically alter the way
institutions of higher education are evaluated in the State of California while
refusing to produce quantifiable evidence indicating that the imposition of
learning outcomes assessment will contribute to any meaningful improvement in
the delivery of instruction at the community colleges;
Whereas, Faculty
bodies at the state level, the American Association of University Professors
(AAUP), the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, and the
Community College Council of the California Federation of Teachers (CCC/CFT),
have recommended that faculty not participate in activities involving the
development of learning outcomes as a part of accreditation self-studies;
Whereas, The new
Accreditation Standards may be interpreted as interfering with the collective
bargaining process, may be inconsistent with the shared-governance provisions
of Title 5 53200, and may lead to infringement of academic freedom; and
Whereas, The
above groups have raised concerns that the level of emphasis on learning
outcomes and the associated amount of record keeping mandated by the new
Standards will be costly and time-consuming, diverting scarce resources away
from classrooms, libraries, and counseling;
Resolved, That
the Academic Senate resist and recommend that local senates resist any attempt
to have the measurement of learning outcomes imposed upon faculty by the
Standards of the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
(ACCJC); and
Resolved, That
the Academic Senate vigorously reject the notion that faculty evaluation be
based on the measurement of student learning outcomes as defined by the Accrediting
Commission's new Standards.
MSC Disposition:
Accrediting Commission, Local Senates
Status Report:
Recommend that an
effective working group be assembled to pursue these issues. Working group
formed in 2003, chaired by the Accrediting Liaison, failed to function as
chaired called no meetings.
http://www.asccc.org/resolutions/request-commission-solicit-input-pilot-institutions
Request the Commission to Solicit Input
from Pilot Institutions
Fall
2002
Resolution
Number:
02.11
Contact:
Dave Clarke
Assigned to :
President
Topic:
Accreditation
Status:
Ongoing
Whereas, Several
institutions, with the implicit promise of being able to positively impact
adjustments to the new Accreditation Standards, agreed to pilot those
Standards; and
Whereas, There has been no effort by the Accrediting Commission for California
and Junior Colleges to solicit feedback from the pilot schools currently
undergoing self-study;
Resolved, That the Academic Senate formally request of the Accrediting
Commission for California and Junior College that it actually solicit input and
in corporate consensus suggestions from the colleges piloting the new
Standards.
MSC Disposition:
Accrediting Commission
Status Report:
The President met
with colleges piloting standards in 2003-04.
These colleges shared their experiences and strategies at a breakout at the
2003 Spring Session.
http://www.asccc.org/resolutions/conflict-interest
Conflict of Interest
Fall
2002
Resolution
Number:
02.12
Contact:
Julie
Stewart
Assigned to :
Unassigned
Topic:
Accreditation
Status:
Ongoing
Whereas, The
proposed Accreditation Standards have been developed in accord with consultants
who may have a conflict of interest;
Whereas, The implementation of the proposed Accreditation Standards involve
high cost to the taxpayers;
Resolved, That the Academic Senate of California Community Colleges formally
request investigation by a statewide body, such as the Joint Legislative Audit
Committee or a commission appointed by the Legislature, of the potential
conflicts of interests and the cost of implementing the proposed Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges' accreditation Standards. MSC
Disposition: Legislature
Status Report:
Recommend that an
effective working group be assembled to pursue these issues. Working group
formed in 2003, chaired by the Accrediting Liaison, failed to function as
chaired called no meetings. Recommend that this be directed to the ACCJC
Liaison.
http://www.asccc.org/resolutions/make-available-background-research-accreditation-requirements
Make Available Background Research on
Accreditation Requirements
Spring
2002
Resolution
Number:
02.02
Contact:
Linda
Collins
Assigned to :
Unassigned
Topic:
Accreditation
Status:
Completed
Whereas, Only
four of the thirty-four institutions that have undergone the accrediting
process in the last several years have satisfactorily met the Commission's
expectations with regard to institutional effectiveness and planning, but
nevertheless these expectations will become a central focus of accreditation
decisions in the new standards;
Whereas, This dramatic shift in emphasis to documentation of student learning
outcomes and systematic cycles of data analysis will require all colleges to
make new, significant, sustained, and targeted investments in professional
researchers, data analysis and computing capability, professional development,
and faculty and staff time;
Whereas, This new emphasis will, by necessity, shift resources from those
places most likely to produce enhanced student achievement, the classrooms,
counseling offices, and libraries, where faculty and students interact, and
will coincide with a time of economic downturn and lowered state support for
the majority of institutions accredited by Accrediting Commission for Community
and Junior Colleges (ACCJC); and
Whereas, Accreditation should evolve gradually and reflect evolving consensus
regarding essential standards in the higher education community rather than
abrupt, and possibly faddish, changes and trends;
Resolved, That the Academic Senate urge the Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges, prior to adopting new standards, to make
available to the public and the educational community the background research
materials that formed the basis for its recommendations, provide the public
with data supporting the efficacy of this approach in improving education for
students, and provide a more detailed analysis of the projected costs, impact,
and implications of this shift in standards for the colleges.
Status Report:
Recommendation
repeated in paper to be presented for adoption in Fall 2004.
http://www.asccc.org/resolutions/excessive-and-intrusive-documentation
Excessive and Intrusive Documentation
Spring
2002
Resolution
Number:
02.03
Contact:
Linda
Collins
Assigned to :
Unassigned
Topic:
Accreditation
Status:
Ongoing
Whereas, Draft B
of the new accrediting standards will require all colleges to specify student
learning outcomes at the course, program, degree, and certificate levels, and
to measure, document, and improve the attainment of these outcomes by students;
Whereas, Draft B will require that colleges specify and measure the
competencies expected of students at the course, program, degree, and
certificate levels;
Whereas, Draft B will require that faculty validate department or program
examinations; and
Whereas, Draft B will require demonstration that student services, including
counseling and library and learning resources, measure, document, and improve
their effectiveness in contributing to the achievement of student learning
outcomes;
Resolved, That the Academic Senate continue to engage the Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges in a dialogue about the need for
extensive documentation of student outcomes and competencies (at the course,
program, degree, and certificate levels) as well as for documentation of the
contribution to these student learning outcomes made by student development and
support services and library and learning resource services; and
Resolved, That the Academic Senate work to change the standards to avoid such a
prescriptive and intrusive set of requirements.
Status Report:
The Commission
has been presented with these and related resolutions on several occasions.
Numerous subsequent resolutions were developed for consideration by the body in
order to highlight, refine and communicate the Academic Senate's positions and
continuing concerns regarding the standards. All were adopted at the Fall 02
and/or Spring 03 plenary sessions.
http://www.asccc.org/resolutions/work-accrediting-commission-buffer-colleges-political-pressures-and-agendas
Work with Accrediting Commission to Buffer
Colleges from Political Pressures and Agendas
http://www.asccc.org/resolutions/continue-use-current-accrediting-standards-and-suspend-pilots
Continue Use of Current Accrediting
Standards and Suspend Pilots
Spring
2002
Resolution
Number:
02.09
Contact:
Bob Grill
Assigned to :
Unassigned
Topic:
Accreditation
Status:
Completed
Whereas, The
concerns about the new accreditation standards are widespread and still un
Resolved; and
Whereas, Even members of the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior
Colleges agree that the assessment of student learning outcomes is a new and
evolving approach;
Resolved, That the Academic Senate urge the Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges to continue to use the current accreditation
standards while engaging in more extended dialogue about any proposed new
standards, and
Resolved, That the Academic Senate urge the Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges and local districts to refrain from piloting the
proposed accreditation standards until the direction and content of any new
standards are satisfactorily
Resolved.
Status Report:
The resolutions
have been presented to the ACCJC and shared widely with the field. Breakouts
and/or general sessions to discuss implementation of the standards were held at
the Fall 02 and Spring 03 plenary sessions.
Leon F. Marzillier
(Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, October,
2002; Rostrum)
In June 2002, the
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) passed radical
new standards by which to accredit community colleges, incorporating the idea
of "continuous improvement" of "measurable student learning
outcomes" (MSLOs) throughout. The ACCJC passed these new standards over
the vociferous objections of respected faculty organizations. Nationally, the
American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has come out against
modifying accreditation standards this way, and in California, the Academic
Senate for California Community Colleges along with the Community College
Council of the California Federation of Teachers (CCC/CFT) have condemned this
radical change by ACCJC. Why?
In the last 15
years, new attempts to track the success of school systems around the world
(e.g., PISA) have achieved impressive bodies of data useful in measuring the
effectiveness of education approaches. These data indicate that the more
successful countries do not embrace the notion of “measurable student learning
outcomes”—central to the ACCJCs existing standards for evaluating and reviewing
institutions—and the philosophy that emphasizes that tool. Further, it
continues to be the case that research fails clearly to establish that
continuous monitoring of MSLOs results in measurable improvements in student
success at a given institution. Given the great difficulty and frustration that
continues to characterize community colleges’attempts to implement the SLO
approach, and given the aforementioned evidential situation, we ask that the
ACCJC justify its continued implementation of SLOs and explain why it does not
opt for approaches more consistent with the approaches of successful countries
in education their students.
The whole concept of
MSLOs as the latest fad in education is somewhat akin to the now discredited
fad of the `90's, Total Quality Management, or TQM. Essentially, the ACCJC
adopted MSLOs as the overarching basis for accrediting community colleges based
on their faith in the theoretical treatises of a movement, just as advocates
for the use of TQM in education (often called continuous quality improvement or
CQI in educational circles) were part of an ideological movement. After
repeated requests for research showing that such use of MSLOs is effective,
none has been forthcoming from the ACCJC. Prior to large scale imposition of such
a requirement at all institutions, research should be provided to establish
that continuous monitoring of MSLOs has resulted in measurable improvements in
student success at a given institution. No such research is forthcoming because
there is none. If the "learning paradigm" is so superior as to
justify its widespread adoption, then the research should clearly be
compelling.
