Accreditation in the California Community CollegesInfluential Cultural Practices

1

Nathan Tharp, Ed.D.

Digital Technology Instructor/Program Coordinator

Feather River Collegentharp@frc.edu

Accreditation trends

1887

: NE

AS

C

1926

: WA

SC

1965

: Fin

anci

al a

id li

nked

1788

: Con

stitu

tion

1950

s: G

oal/p

ath

mod

el a

dopt

ed

1980

s: In

stitu

tiona

l effe

ctiv

enes

s

2000

s: S

tude

nt le

arni

ng o

utco

mes

None > Baseline > Aspirational > Accountable

1980

s: H

igh

loan

def

ault

rate

Too many California community colleges struggle

with accreditation

Colleges since 2003

Existing ResearchPolicy•Purpose: from legitimacy to accountability•Standards: similar, reflect changes in purpose, sanction level consistent, significant support, autonomy•State policies: mixed, regs valuable but cause conflictsEnvironmental Factors•Timing in cycle •Location: mixed results•Size: mixed, mid sizePerceptions: •Universal: valuable, low implementation •Group mediated: role, involvement, effect. vs. quality•Individual conflict: accountability vs. qualityPractices: •Engagement: improves adoption level •Leadership: strong leaders are influential•Institutional research: key component•Organizational models: AQIP/Baldridge impact preparedness

Accreditation Related Research

LITERATURE REVIEW

Gaps in Research

practices not linked to accreditation results •

recommendations not based on evidence •

contextually bound studies •

few studies on California community

colleges •

Nature of the study

Cultural practices at the institutional level influence accreditation processes and results.

Research Questions:•What are some of the cultural practices present in colleges that consistently have their accreditation reaffirmed?•What are some of the cultural practices present in colleges that have consistently been placed on sanction?•How do these practices compare and contrast?

Filling the gaps•Examines and identifies practices may influence accreditation results•Provides recommendations based on evidence•Accounts for context•Focuses on California community colleges

Nature of the Study

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

PurposeReduce the number of sanctions on California Community Colleges by:

•informing campus leaders

•influence accreditation policy makers

•increasing institutional effectiveness

•provide grounded findings for further research

Using activity as the unit of analysis for understanding cultural practices

Tools/Artifacts

Subject

Rules /norms

Division of Labor

Object

Community

Activity Theory•cultural-historical approach

•tools mediate behavior in cultural contexts

•object oriented activity as the unit of analysis

•tensions and disturbances propel the system

•inter-system relations

Tra

nsf

orm

ati

on

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Activity System

Serial Activity

Interacting systems

NestedActivity

Tools/Artifacts

Object

Observed Activity

Parallel Activity

Serial Activity

Qualitative Case Study of Four Institutions

• Two with five or more sanctions since 2003 (X colleges)

• Two that have two contiguous reaffirmations since 2003 (Y colleges)

• Unstructured interviews with 14 participants who varied according to role, tenure, and degree of involvement

• Colleges with common accreditation results were compared.

• Commonalities between colleges that have been placed on multiple sanctions were compared against those that have not.

College X1

College X2

College Y2

College Y1

Differences?

Sim

ilari

ties?

Sim

ilari

ties?

No Sanctions

5+ Sanctions

METHODOLOGY

Participant selection

METHODOLOGY

Role Tenure Involvement# College Admin Faculty 1-3 4-15 15+ Low Med High

1 X1 X X X

2 X1 X X X

3 X1 X X X

4 X2 X X X

5 X2 X X X

6 X2 X X X

7 X2 X X X

8 Y1 X X X

9 Y1 X X X

10 Y1 X X X

11 Y2 X X X

12 Y2 X X X

13 Y2 X X X

14 Y2 X X X

Totals

8 6 5 6 3 5 3 3

DATA ANALYSIS

• focuses only on differences between two California community colleges that have been succeeding and two that have been struggling

• not examining accreditation policies nor ACCJC practices

• not establishing “universal” findings

• not testing compliance

Some Limitations

Themes

Division of LaborHow the work of a particular activity is divided up amongst a community; the establishment of roles and responsibilities

MotivationThe reason for taking and action; willingness or desire to do something

IntegrationCombining multiple parts into a whole; coming into participation in an a group or institution

DATA ANALYSIS

Theme 1: Division of Labor

FINDINGS

X Colleges Y Colleges

Accreditation Work

Participants reported few difficulties in dividing work up among existing structures.

Institutional Roles

Participants reported more often that roles were not universally agreed upon.

Participants reported more often that roles were agreed upon and abided by and used similar language in describing the roles.

Role-related Conflict

Participants frequently reported conflicts and described them as acrimonious and long lasting.

Participants rarely described conflicts, and when pressed, reported them as minor and short-term.

Conflict Resolution

Participants reported more on progress in spite of ongoing conflicts.

Participants reported more on how conflicts were overcome (ad-hoc, repetitive reinforcement, mediation, co-leading).

Conflict: “there was a bit of a ‘none of the recommendations are relatedto instruction. The problems are with the administration of the institution.’”

Role definition: “The senate [is] on one side…saying faculty must do SLOs…you have the union, who on their website…says, ‘faculty do not Have to do SLOs.’”

Theme 2: Division of labor quotes

FINDINGS

Conflict: “They said, ‘It doesn’t matterif we lose accreditation. We'll be taken over by somebody else. That just means the administration will be gone, but we'll still be here.’”

Role definition: “[We’ve] had a board that has worked well for a long time…I bet it's been 40 years of strong involvement, but boards that knew their role. Haven't micromanaged.”

Conflict resolution: “If we start to lean away from [a shared governance topic], we each have a yellow card, and we can hold the yellow card up and say, ‘Caution, this is veering away from a [shared governance] issue.’”

Theme 2: Motivation

X Colleges Y Colleges

Perceptions of importance

Participants reported that accreditation was not universally interpreted as important.

Participants reported that accreditation was universally interpreted as important.

Source of motivation

Participants reported that motivation for accreditation was more externally driven.

Participants reported that motivation for accreditation was more internally driven.

Enforcement Participants reported that enforcement of accreditation-related processes has not been historically consistent.

Participants reported that enforcement of accreditation processes were a permanent part of the institution’s practices.

Critical Mass Participants reported on the concept of critical mass as being important to motivation.

FINDINGS

Theme 2: Motivation quotes

FINDINGS

Locus of motivation: “[The ACCJC] representative said,] ‘I knew you needed a stick,’ because it was just how hard she had to push us.”

Importance: “We saw ourselves more as kind of an exclusive, stand-alone institution…we don't have to abide by the regulations..”

Importance: “You live and die by staying accredited. [We] all know it's important.”

Locus of motivation: The college “[did] it for accreditation,” rather than, “because it's the right thing to do.”

Enforcement: “If somebody wants to go and develop curriculum…and they go somewhere [other than curriculum committee]…we say, ‘No.’”

Locus of motivation: “I think people are really proud of what we have here. So they take personal ownership. If we were put on warning, we would fall back and get out of it. You learn from your mistakes.”

X Colleges Y Colleges

Contact with accreditation

Participants reported that the level of contact with accreditation has varied.

Participants reported that contact with accreditation was constant.

Integrity of processes

Participants reported on the development of nascent accreditation processes.

Participants reported on the integrity of existing formal processes (transparency, faithfulness, simplicity, productivity).

Interconnec-tedness

Participants did not report on interconnectedness as often, and instead reported on procedures and heroes.

Participants reported more on informal and formal approaches that served to connect constituents and activities across the institution.

Resources available

Participants reported more often on a lack of resources.

Participants reported that resources were readily available.

Theme 3: Integration

FINDINGS

Theme 2: Integration quotes

FINDINGS

Integrity: “[It’s] a one-and-a-halfyear long process…to get funding for an idea…you could submit a strategic proposal…but there was only $100,000.”

Contact: “I walked in new...I took [being the accreditation chair] on. To be honest, I kind of stumbled through it.”

Contact: “The faculty senate…is sending in three names. The president will interview [them] and select one faculty as the co-chair. We are looking 2-3 years ahead.”

Interconnectedness: “[the college] would say, ‘oh yeah…transparency, production, dialogue’ but then not take action. “

Integrity: “Program review is the way to ensure money.”

Interconnectedness: [the campus community] accepted recent cuts because of “the culture of inclusiveness…they [were] at the table when all of these decisions are made.”’

Division of Labor

INTERPRETATION

Tool

Subject

Rules/Norms

Division of Labor

Accreditation

Community

Campus activity

system

Accreditation activity system

Motivation

Accreditation

Senate

Accreditation

activity system

Union

Admin

quality improvemen

t

working conditions

institution sustainabili

ty

INTERPRETATION

Integration

Accreditation Tools

Subject

Campus Rules/Norms

Division of Labor

Accreditation

Community

Accreditation activity system

INTERPRETATION

Summary

Subject

Division of Labor

Accreditation

Community

Accreditation activity system

Tools

Rules

Campus

Group A

Group B

Group C

Motivation

Integration

Division ofLabor

= tension points that appear more resolved in Y schools than X schools.

INTERPRETATION

Division of Labor1. Define underlying campus-wide roles and responsibilities and abide by them.2. Consistently resolve conflict related to role definition.

Motivation3. Establish accreditation as important.4. Account for group-mediated perceptions of accreditation importance.5. Reframe accreditation as an internally motivated activity.6. Enforce accreditation activities.7. Maintain a critical mass of motivated individuals and groups.

Integration8. Maintain ongoing contact with accreditation processes.9. Develop accreditation tools that align with campus rules/norms/customs.10. Maintain the integrity of accreditation processes.11. Interconnect parties across the institution with formal and informal accreditation processes.12. Prioritize resources for accreditation.

Recommendations for campus leaders

Supplemental Slides

24

Validation

RESEARCH METHODS

•Multi-site design

•Site selection: variance and confirming

•Participant selection: variance and confirming

•Member checking

•Framework triangulation: activity and grounded theory

•Finding triangulation

•three or more sites

•three or more participants, one from contrasting site

Data coding

• 600+ excerpts from dialog

• Activity theory

• Grounded theory

• 1800+ codes

• 200+ unique codes

Q: How does that [conflict] get resolved?“Usually by a change in leadership in one of the other organizations.  And it's tended to be at the margins.  There are somethings that are clearly senate business, and other things that are clearly union business. But there are these things in the gray areas where maybe both have some claim to them.  And the problems I've seen have been where one or the other party encroaches to the point where the other organization feels like somebody's on their turf.”

conflict leadership

resolution division

of labor

Sample excerpt

Sample codes

DATA ANALYSIS

Theme development

• 33 unique codes occurred 10 or more times, accounted for 55% of all codes, and were selected as the base group

• codes consolidated by collapsing related codes into more frequently occurring codes

• The top 33 unique codes collapsed into 6 primary themes

• Division of labor

• Motivation

• Change

• Leadership

• Integration

• Tools

• Returned to data and sought differences between A and B colleges for each theme

DATA ANALYSIS

Subtheme Development

Division of Labor

Motivation Integration

Accreditation work

Perceptions of

importance

Contact with accreditation

Institutional Roles

Source of motivation

Integrity of processes

Role-related Conflict

EnforcementInterconnec-

tedness

Conflict Resolution

Critical MassResources available

DATA ANALYSIS

• Imported 400 direct quotes into text editor, ~130 per theme

• Clustered similar quotes by drag and drop

• To be consider meaningful, quotes had to be confirmed by:

• 3 or more quotes

• 3 more participants

• 3 or more colleges

• 4 subthemes per theme

• Findings substantiated by direct 200+ quotes

• Largest higher education system in the United States

• 2.5 million students,112 colleges, 72 districts

• Mission: two-year degrees, preparation for transfer to 4-yr, career and technical education, and life-long learning

• High degree of local autonomy

LITERATURE REVIEW

California community college system

LITERATURE REVIEW