FAQs on Accreditation | FAQs on Substantive Change

How to make Third Party Comments regarding institutions scheduled
for a Comprehensive Visit

Third Party Comments

The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges is responsible for evaluating quality and effectiveness of two year degree granting colleges in California, Hawai‛i, and the Pacific Basin.  The ACCJC invites comments from any member of the public about the institutions it accredits.  The Commission publishes a list of institutions scheduled for evaluation in the coming year (see list below) so that individuals may submit comments regarding the qualifications of institutions applying for accreditation. 

The commission staff will review any third party comment and decide whether to share it with the institution and the chair of the team due to visit the institution.  The Third Party Comment Form may be downloaded and submitted to the ACCJC office by email attachment or by mail.

Click here to view the Third Party Comment Form.

   Third Party Comment Form

Note: There is a separate complaint process for individuals wishing to request the Commission to investigate institutional actions that may constitute a violation of Commission Standards.  To view the Complaint Process follow the link at the top of this page:  Complaint Policy.

List of 2008-9 Evaluation Visits:  List of 2008 - 2009 Evaluation Visits

Frequently Asked Questions About Accreditation

Q. What is accreditation?

 A. Accreditation is a status granted to an educational institution that has been found to meet or exceed stated criteria of educational quality. Institutions voluntarily seek accreditation, and it is conferred by non-governmental bodies.

Accreditation has two fundamental purposes:

• to assure the quality of the institution, and
• to encourage institutional improvement.

Accreditation of an institution by an institutional accrediting body certifies to general public that the institution:

• has appropriate purposes;
• has the resources needed to accomplish its purposes;
• can demonstrate that it is accomplishing its purposes; and
• gives reason to believe it will continue to accomplish its purposes.

 Q. How does the Commission determine if an institution meets accreditation standards?

 A. An institution seeking initial accreditation prepares an extensive report on itself based on the criteria set forth in the document on Eligibility Requirements for Accreditation. This period of extensive self study is followed by an on-site visit by a team of peers selected by the Commission. Based on its findings, the team makes a recommendation to the Commission regarding the accreditation status of the institution. The team will recommend denial, further candidacy, or initial accreditation. The Commission then acts to determine accreditation status, communicating its decision to the institution. Once accredited, an institution is expected to comply with the eligibility requirements and accreditation criteria continuously and must be evaluated periodically.

Q. How often are colleges evaluated?

 A. Colleges maintain accreditation through continuous adherence to accreditation criteria as set forth by the Commission. Colleges follow a six-year cycle during which institutional review is continuous. These reviews include an Annual Report, an Annual Fiscal Report, a Midterm Report, completion of a comprehensive institutional self study, and an evaluation review by a team of peers. The Commission frequently requests other reports.

Q. Do colleges ever lose accreditation?

 A. Loss of accreditation occurs infrequently. Commission practices, which include periodic institutional self study, peer evaluation, and Commission action, are designed to foster education excellence and continuous improvement at each institution. The processes of peer evaluation and follow-up offer support and guidance to institutions that need to improve practice in order to meet accreditation standards or policy requirements. Most institutions are able to correct any errant practices and retain institutional accreditation.

However, the primary purpose of accreditation is quality assurance to the public. Termination signals the Commission believes the institution lacks sufficient quality to be accredited. The Commission may terminate accreditation if an institution has taken action that places it significantly out of compliance with Commission standards or has not satisfactorily explained or corrected matters of which it has been given notice. Termination of accreditation is subject to a request for review and appeal. The institution’s accredited status (including the sanction last issued by the Commission) continues pending completion of any review or appeal that is filed.

Q. What are the benefits of accreditation?

 A. Accreditation provides both tangible and intangible benefits:

• It certifies to the public that an institution meets or exceeds specific standards of quality;
• It facilitates institutional eligibility to participate in Title IV student financial aid programs; and
• It provides a process of periodic self and peer review.

These activities are a positive force in improving institutional effectiveness. Many institutions rely in part on regional accreditation in their decisions to recognize transfer credit.

Q. Does accreditation mean that credits and degrees can transfer to another institution?

 A. While it is typically true that many institutions recognize transfer credits only from regionally accredited institutions, the basic principle underlying issues of transfer is that each institution is responsible for determining its own policies and practices in regard to transfer and award of credit. The Commission requires that institutions have a policy on transfer of credit by which the institution certifies that courses accepted for credit from sending institutions achieve student learning outcomes comparable to its own courses.

Q. Does the Commission rank colleges?

 A. Since each college is unique and has its own mission, the Commission does not rank colleges. The responsibility of the Commission is to accredit colleges based on standards of good practice in higher education.

Q. Can the Commission recommend a college to a student?

 A. The Commission does not recommend colleges. Specific information about colleges can be located in the many references books found in libraries. Other valuable sources of information are high school or college counselors and advisors, or college admissions officers.

Q. What happens to a student’s records when a college closes?

 A. Commission policy states that when a college is closing, all academic, financial aid, and other records should be prepared for permanent filing. The college should arrange with the state department of higher education, another appropriate agency, or another college or university for the filing of student records. Notification regarding the location of records and their accessibility should be sent to all students, including where possible, a copy of the student’s record.

Q. Who evaluates the Commission?

 A. The Commission is authorized by the U.S. Department of Education as a reliable agency of accreditation and must go through a periodic review process. ACCJC is also recognized by the Council of Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), a non-profit organization of colleges and universities, which recognizes, coordinates, and periodically reviews the work of its member accrediting bodies and the appropriateness of existing or proposed accrediting bodies and their activities

Frequently Asked Questions About Substantive Change.

Q. What is the purpose of the Commission’s Substantive Change Policy?

A. ACCJC’s Substantive Change Policy is long-standing, first adopted in 1972 and revised several times since then. Many of those revisions have been motivated by the changes to the Education (USDE) regulations; others have been developed through the Commission’s policy review procedures. In the last few years, the Commission has developed and circulated a Substantive Change Manual designed to inform member institutions of the process in seeking substantive change approval.

The area of substantive change is of particular concern to the USDE which sets the requirements of recognized accreditors and of institutions that participate in federal financial aid programs. The USDE regulations are often driven by concerns that have emerged with particular kinds of institutions, and in the case of substantive change, it is fair to say the USDE’s concerns stem from those institutions that have (in the past) rapidly developed new programs of questionable quality, and then closed those programs abruptly or even become insolvent due to the costs of such new programs relative to the revenue these programs generated. The USDE has steadily expanded its requirements of accreditors regarding substantive change review as a result of the emerging concerns and the subsequent impact on students.

Q. What are the kinds of institutional changes that require the approval of the ACCJC Substantive Change Committee?

A. The Substantive Change Manual, available on line at www.accjc.org under Core Documents and Publications, clearly details the kinds of institutional changes that will require prior approval by the Substantive Change Committee. These include: a change in the mission, scope, or name of the institution (including change in degree level offered); a change in the nature of the constituency served (including closure); a change in the location or geographical area served (including establishing or closing an additional location or center); a change in the control of the institution (including merger with another institution or a change by a parent institution of one of its off-campus sites or centers into a separate institution); a change in credit awarded; a change in courses or programs or their mode of delivery that represent a significant departure from current practice (including addition of new courses/programs); as well as other significant changes.

Q. What if a particular institutional change is not covered by the criteria set forth in the Manual?

A. Should an institution discover that a projected change is not described in the examples above or in the Manual, it should contact ACCJC staff for clarification. (Dr. Owyang can be reached at lowyang@comcast.net). Institutions should remember that institutional accreditation is extended to the institution, and not to a particular program. Consequently, everything conducted under the name of the institution is subject to the Standards of Accreditation.

Q. How often does the Committee meet, and how can institutions participate in the review of its application?

A. In the past two years with the increase of substantive change proposals, the Committee has tried to adhere to a schedule of monthly meetings. Institutions are urged to contact the Substantive Change staff for scheduling the application. When applications are complete, the staff member will provide the list of names and addresses of Committee members where applications should be sent. Completed applications with supporting documentation need to be received by Committee members no later than one month before the scheduled review.

Normally, when an institutional substantive change is scheduled for review, the institutional representatives will be contacted by the ACCJC staff member about the date and time of the review. Institutional representatives are invited to participate in a telephone conference call with members of the Committee to respond to any questions or needs for clarification that the Committee might have. Since these conference calls are limited in time, institutions are urged to select those representatives who can speak directly to the specifics of the application and its content.

Q. How long does the approval process take from submission of the substantive change proposal application until Committee review and action?

A. The Commission has given the Substantive Change Committee, a committee of Commissioners, the authority to act on its behalf for requests that require the approval for substantive change. Normally, after a substantive change proposal has been reviewed, staff will inform the institution via e-mail within 48 hours of the Committee’s action. A formal letter follows within 2-4 weeks. There will be instances when the Committee might wish to defer its decision for full Commission action. In that event, final action will take place at the next scheduled meeting of the Commission. The institution will be informed in every case. A list of the Substantive Change Committee meeting dates and deadlines for submission of documentation is provided in this newsletter and on the ACCJC website.

Q. Are there particular kinds of applications that receive favorable Committee action more than others?

A. There is no one kind of application that will receive favorable Committee action over any others. In general, the Committee makes its decision based on the specifics of the institutional change that is being proposed and the accompanying information submitted with the application. It is important to stress that complete proposals with sufficient supporting data and documentation are less likely to experience a delay in Committee review and action. When an application is incomplete or lacks sufficient data and documentation, the Committee will seek additional information and table its decision until the next scheduled meeting of the Committee.

Q. Are there ways by which institutions can assure that applications submitted are sufficiently complete?

A. The staff member responsible for facilitating the substantive change process will review drafts of the proposal prior to the actual submission of the application if contacted early enough in the process. Applications should be mailed to the Committee members at least one month prior to the Committee meeting (see below). Consequently, if drafts need to be reviewed prior to the meeting, institutions are requested to plan accordingly. In every case, the institution remains responsible for the information submitted in the application.

Substantive Change Committee Meeting Schedule

Institutions seeking substantive change must submit complete documents to the Commission office one month before the Committee meeting. Results of the Committee action will be transmitted first via email notification to the Accreditation Liaison Officer and second via formal letter from the ACCJC President.

Spring 2006

February 17

March 17

April 21

May 19

 

ACCJC 2007 Annual Reporting Requirements Q & A

In March, the ACCJC sent all member institutions an Annual Report Form designed to gather information about implementation of the 2002 Standards of Accreditation that deal with student learning outcomes and assessment.  Institutions have asked for clarification about the purposes of the new form.

Q.   Why has the Commission decided to ask institutions for information about their progress in meeting the 2002 Standards of Accreditation that deal with definition of the expected student learning outcomes, assessment of student learning, and changes to the institution designed to improve learning?

A.  First, as part of a comprehensive review of its operations undertaken every six years, the Commission is in the midst of a year-long study of itself, its services, and the state of its member institutions.  As part of that study, the Commission wanted to know where the institutions are in implementing the student-learning-related new requirements of the 2002 Standards.  The Commission regularly uses the Annual Report to get information on new or innovative efforts at its member institutions, or to gather information on topics that are of interest to the Commission or the US Department of Education.  Good examples of this are the reporting on distance education and additional sites that the Commission’s Annual Report has asked for in the past and that have now become rather routine.

Second, the Commission has repeatedly stated that it expects institutions to take “eight to ten years” to fully implement the student learning requirements of the 2002 Standards of Accreditation.  In June 2007, five years will have passed since the Commission adopted and published those standards.  The timeline is half complete.  The Commission wants to know how much progress is being made.  It also believes that institutional leaders want to know how far their institutions have come, and how far they have to go.

Finally, the ACCJC is undergoing its review for recognition with the US Department of Education this year.  The application will be submitted in June, and the Commission will appear before the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Improvement (NACIQI) in early December.  Two other regional commissions have had some significant and negative NACIQI responses to their applications.  The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) was required to submit a report that will show how it will set the “bright line” measure of learning outcomes for technical programs at institutions it accredits, and how it will act to remove accreditation from those institutions that cannot meet the bright line measure within a specified period of time.  The Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities (ACSCU/WASC) was asked how it would annually assess the amount of learning going on at institutions it accredits, and assure that steady improvements are made in that learning.  The ACCJC is anticipating being asked for specific information during its recognition hearing about where its institutions are in implementing its new standards, and it wants to be prepared to answer. 

Q.  Why did the ACCJC ask so many questions about institutions’ definition of expected student learning outcomes, assessment of learning, and changes to institutional practice to improve learning?

A.  The 2002 Standards require institutions to define expected student learning outcomes and assess them in order to improve learning at the course, program, and degree or institutional level.  The template the Commission developed for this Annual Report is designed to gather relevant information at all of those levels of institutional effort.

In trying to design the relevant questions, the Commission also took into account the many questions it has received from institutions over the years about “What do the Standards require?”  “Where should my institution start to work with student learning outcomes?”  “What are all the key things we must do?”  The Commission also examined published works on the assessment process that describe how institutions implement learning outcomes assessments that are linked to educational improvements. 

The Commission staff decided to create a template for gathering information that would also be a “roadmap” for institutions.  Its detail is designed to help institutions know where they are in their own developmental process.

Q.  How will the Commission use this information?

A.  The Commission will file the Annual Report form in individual institutional files, with other elements of the annual reports that we ask of institutions each year.  It will also provide the Annual Report forms to the team chair of a comprehensive evaluation visit as background information.

The Commission will also do an analysis at the aggregate level of where its member institutions are in the developmental process.  It will consider this information as part of its strategic planning efforts that will begin in fall 2007, when other components of the Commission’s research efforts are also completed.  The planning will include provisions for workshops and conferences designed to help institutions move forward in this important area of higher education development.

Finally, it is expected that this template, in some form, may eventually become part of the material that guides self study and team analysis of institutional quality during comprehensive evaluation visits.  It would then be embedded in the Guide to Evaluating Institutions and used by both colleges and teams.

The Commission hopes institutions will provide suggestions to improve this form as they work with it. 

Q.  Will the college annual report be used to evaluate the institution?

A.  At this point, it will not be used by the Commission to evaluate institutional progress (see paragraphs above).  It will simply be used to see where the institution is at this point in time, a year from now, and another year from now.  It is a tool to assess developmental progress of institutions.  The Commission will use the analysis of the aggregate results to gauge the progress of its member institutions over time.  Evaluation teams will use the report as background information to their evaluation work.

However, a college or college system can use the completed form to get a more exact sense of where it is in the process of full implementation.  Institutional leaders may be able to use this form to evaluate progress over time.

Q.  How should a college fill out the form?

A.  Institutions should accurately and honestly report where they are.  An institution that began working with Student Learning Outcomes at the programmatic level may not be able to answer, yet, the questions about implementation at the course or degree level.  But eventually, when the work is “done,” an institution should be able to answer all or most of the questions.

This should not take a lot of work.  Curriculum committees, program or department chairs, and deans should be able to tell the person filling out the form what has been done.  Institutions should not rush to “do” the steps in student learning outcomes work that the form implies, but should just report on where they are in their work at this point in time.

Q.  What other new reporting requirements does the Commission expect to have?

A.  Institutions can expect that the Department of Education—through the negotiated rulemaking sessions this spring, through the Higher Education Act that will probably be adopted this year, or through its recognition process for accreditors—will be trying to impose new reporting requirements on accreditors and institutions.  We do not yet know what these will be, but the areas of likely impact are:

• Student Learning Assessment and Levels of Learning
• Transfer of Credit policies and decisions made by a college in considering transfer
• Distance education offerings, programs, and quality assurance
• Quality assurance of off-campus sites or additional locations
• Information about the outcomes of students completing vocational/technical and career-oriented programs

Any additional questions about the Annual Report form can be directed to the Commission offices via email at accjc@accjc.org.