----------------------------- Step 2.2 -- Creating a NEW Account  ------------------------------------------

How to get started to Read and Reply to the News:  4 Steps below: 1. Click to Create a New Account to join News Forum. Must have valid email address where your Account Login info will be sent.   You'll be asked for a Username (suggest:  your "firstlastname, e.g., juancruz) and Password (suggest: last 4 of SSN or Student ID), enter your valid email address twice,  complete First Name,  Last Name (surname), City, Country (Scroll down for United States), hit "Create my New Account".   Open email to confirm signing up.  This completes "Creating new account".

----------------------------- Step 2.3 -- Logging on -----------------------------------------------------------

How to get started to Read and Reply to the News:  Step 02: 2. Click to Login. (must have an account). On the left-hand side, you will type in your Username and Password, then the "Login" button. Return to this screen or hit "Blogquot; link which takes there.

----------------------------- Step 2.4 -- Enrolling -----------------------------------------------------------

How to get started to Read and Reply to the News:  Step 03: 3.  Click to Enroll in Course if necessary (Not a real course, just a container for the Forum) At the left panel, on the 1st run, you will see a link: "Enrol (Enroll) me in this course"  .... Click it.  "You are about to enrol (enroll) yourself as a member of this course. Are you sure you wish to do this?"   Click yes Then you see the link "Blog for Online"

----------------------------- Step 2.5 -- Creating a NEW Account  ------------------------------------------

How to get started to Read and Reply to the News:  Step 04: 4. Click to participate in the Forum (read and write News).  (Must be logged in and enrolled.) At this point, you should see " Blog Web 2.0 -- Your Source for Information"  ...  Read and scroll it.  Hit "Reply" below right,  type your comments.  Hit "Post to forum" button.   Go Collaborative!   Go Learn!  Out!

 

----------------------------- Section 3 -- Accreditation Policy ----------------------------------------

REVIEW OF ACCREDITATION UNDER SANCTION Donald F. Averill, Ed.D.     When your college has been placed on sanction by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC), the Commission can impose three (3) sanctions: issue warning; impose probation; and order show cause.  Unless the sanction is to deny accreditation, the college retains its accreditation status and has a maximum period of two (2) years time to correct the deficiencies and file a report to the Commission.  Depending on the time that the sanction is set, the reports will be due in October 15 for the January Commission meeting and March 15, for the June Commission meeting.  It is important for the college to be open and honest with the community and your students about your sanctions.  Often your feeder schools do not understand and tell their students you have lost your accreditation.  It is up to you to maintain open communications and assure that community that your institution is still accredited. All community colleges that are members of ACCJC have agreed to abide by the Eligibility Requirements (21) requirements and the Commission standards defined in four areas: (see Accreditation Reference Handbook, August 2008, p.5) ·       Standard I:  Institutional Mission and Effectiveness ·       Standard II:  Student Learning Programs and Services ·       Standard III:  Resources ·       Standard IV:  Leadership and Governance. It is expected that each member college will continue to review these standards on a continuous basis.  Colleges that receive a full term of accreditation (six years) will still prepare a written midterm report that will be sent to the commission. Colleges establish an Accreditation Steering Committee and appoint an Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO) when the self study report is prepared.  It is important to keep an accreditation review  structure in place after the reaffirmation is complete so that continuous review of the standards are woven into the fabric of the planning, review, and evaluation of institutional effectiveness. California community colleges have developed elaborate structures for dealing with “collegial consultation “as defined under AB 1725.  This is complicated by the standards of accreditation that also expect colleges to have open communication and dialogue about the direction of the institution.  Many colleges will have in excess of 40 campus committees to address these expectations.  It is important for the campus community to really think through its infrastructure to address oversight and ensure that the process is manageable and incorporates accreditation and state statute, and focuses on campus needs. Some member colleges of the Commission are part of multi-college districts with a district office.  The Commission does not accredit districts; it accredits colleges.  With the exception of the Los Angeles Community College District, the Commission usually visits all colleges in a district at the same time.  Specific standards under Standard IV B (Board and Administrative Organization) address the responsibilities of the district and the board of trustees.  When a standard is not being met by the district, the recommendation for correction is part of the college report.  In responding to the Commission through the Follow-up Report, the college needs to include the district response to any recommendations directed to the district. Since multi-college districts are reviewed by separate teams, the district is asked to prepare a “District Functional Map” that defines the responsibilities for the district and the colleges particularly in areas of finance, human resources, planning and other functions that are performed at both the district and the college levels.  Hopefully, this document has been reviewed at the college and there is agreement on its implementation. The Commission represents member institutions from other states and territories, non-profit and proprietary education communities.  The standards are designed to serve all members and are not expected to ensure compliance with individual state standards or legislative mandates.  The principles of some of the organizational management concepts such as participatory governance are embraced in the standards. Visiting teams will not be making recommendations that address state standards or legislative mandates. Federal Role in Accreditation Federal influence on accreditation is something else.  The United States Department of Education (DOE) has continued to exert its influence on the accreditation process.  The major leverage for the DOE has been through its oversight of financial aid.  Because of abuses in this field, the accreditation reviews focus on financial viability and procedures to validate those federal guidelines are being met.  Following the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s the federal government has taken an increasing role in school accountability.  This was first realized in funding for the Vocational Education Act, now called Career Technical Education (CTE).  In recent years, the call for some measure of success for student learning in higher education has been the focus of the DOE.  The Bush administration actually took steps to control the accreditation process and to ensure that more specific accountability was obtained.  This effort failed in the final passage of the current Higher Education Act (HEA).  Some educators thought the new administration would soften the accountability movement.  The exact opposite has resulted since the new stimulus packages are being designed with accountability guidelines to qualify for the funding.  It is apparent that accountability is here to stay. It is also important to note that the practices of looking at student learning outcomes, student achievement, fiscal viability, planning and continuous improvement has been embraced by all of the regional accrediting agencies.  Most of those regional groups are ahead of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) in this implementation. How do Colleges Get in Trouble? Colleges are expected to meet all the sub-standards that have been developed under the four (4) major standard headings.  A college can receive some level of sanction if they are not meeting any of these sub-standards. However, there are some general areas where colleges seem to be having more trouble.  Generally, these problems are grouped around planning, program review, and student learning outcomes.  Each of these elements was introduced in the accrediting process at different times since the 1980s and colleges are still having difficulty complying with these standards. ·         Planning – The first attempts at establishing planning as a best practice was in the 1980s.  This resulted in the development of educational master planning, strategic planning, and facilities master planning.  The latter document was required by the state of California to seek facilities financing and in many cases this has become the planning document for many colleges.  There is no defined process for developing educational master plans or strategic plans in the Commission guides.  What is expected is that the campus community will have a dialogue about expectations and develop improvement plans based on this dialogue.  ·         Program Review – Program review became an integral part of the accreditation review process in the 1990s.  There has always been an expectation that program review was taking place, but the emphasis on accountability called for the regular review of student achievement and the effectiveness of programs in meeting student needs.  This review was also expected to address the viability of programs and allow for transition and services to the students in the event that a program was to be discontinued.  Later, the Commission focused these standards on resource distribution and how the college was addressing continuous improvement. ·         Student Learning Outcomes – In 2002, the concept of student learning outcomes was introduced and member colleges were expected to develop these outcomes at the course, program and degree, level ( as identified in the Commission guides  many colleges refer to this as the institutional level)  and to incorporate this information into the process of institutional continuous improvement.  No specific guidelines are offered in developing this process except there is expected to be a flow from course to program to degree level.  Some programs such as those aligned with career technical education may find that student learning outcomes are defined easily as competencies required in the field.  While the standards do not specify level of learning, it would be expected that an academic institution will take into account higher order learning skills in the development of student learning outcomes.  Some controversy has been derived from the interpretation of Standard III.A.c.             “Faculty and others directly responsible for student progress toward achieving stated student           learning outcomes have, as a component of their evaluation, effectiveness in producing those             learning outcomes.” This standard has been challenged by the collective bargaining units of the community colleges as  a bargaining prerogative subject to negotiation.  The Commission does not argue with this principle, but it has not shifted away from the standard either.  Member colleges of the Commission agree to abide by the standard and at this time the standard is unchanged.  The 2002 version of the Commission Standards realigned the former ten (10) standards and placed new emphasis on the issue of institutional effectiveness.  A review of Standard I: Institutional Mission and Effectiveness identifies a need for the constituents of the college to address a cyclical process for the continuous improvement of the institution.  This calls for the INTEGRATION of the processes of: PLANNING – PROGRAM REVIEW – RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION – EVALUATION AND RE-EVALUATION OF THE PROCESS ·         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 reevaluation. ·         When colleges get cited for not meeting these standards there are specific shortcomings that are important to note: o        Usually, the college has not met the standard over the course of two or more visits. o        No evidence exists that the processes have been integrated and that dialogue is taking place within the college o        There is no evidence that constituent groups have been involved in or support the process.  Often this is aligned with issues that are outside the purview of the accreditation process. ·         Compliance with the standards on planning, program review and student learning outcomes is covered in a rubric identifying levels of accomplishment from awareness to sustainable continuous quality improvement.   It is easy to see that these rubrics are stated in relation to institutional effectiveness.  The set of rubrics for these three trouble areas has been included as an appendix to this paper. (See Rubric for Evaluating Institutional  Effectiveness Parts I – III Appendix A) Dialogue and Themes The ACCJC Guide to Evaluating Institutions addresses dialogue and the themes established for institutional review.  What the Commission is seeking from member institutions is a commitment to these themes.  The Commission wants the colleges to have reflective dialogue on ·        Institutional Commitment ·        Evaluation, Planning, and Improvement ·        Student Learning Outcomes ·        Organization ·        Dialogue ·        Institutional Integrity   To sustain this commitment, a campus-wide dialogue is expected by all constituencies that defines a model where they jointly agree on the direction of the institution, develop a cyclical evaluation model that measures progress on the institutional accomplishments, and leads to continuous improvement of the college. The governance processes should be defined and integration efforts implemented for planning, evaluation, and resource allocation based upon the use of data.  Once this occurs, the college needs to go another step and incorporate a continuous review model. An important element of the dialogue and themes is the concept of review and change.  All processes including the governance model, program review, and the evaluation processes need to be reviewed annually to determine if the college is accomplishing its stated goals.  Oversight must be a campus-wide effort and include input from all constituent groups. ·         Establish an oversight team that provides for the broad representation of all constituent groups.   ·         Annually evaluate the collegial governance and consultation model for the college and recommends changes.   ·         Examine the program review evaluation data, student learning outcome data, and other student achievement data to determine areas that the college needs to improve.   ·         Make recommendations to the College Council and as appropriate to the Budget Committee on priorities for available fiscal resources.   ·         Work with the college community to disseminate information on their findings to the college constituencies and the broader public community.   (A copy of the dialogue language from the Guide to Evaluating Institutions, August 2008 is attached as Appendix B)       Other Trouble Areas   There are other areas where colleges are being sanctioned by the Commission or where teams are specifically being trained to closely review these standards.   ·         Distance Education – The Commission has a separate guideline and policy for distance education.  Whenever a college has 50 percent or more of a degree or certificate program being taught in this modality, there are two significant requirements.  (1) A substantive change needs to be filed with the Commission; and (2) the college needs to ensure that the same rigor, standards and services are available to the students in this modality that are available to the traditional campus student.   ·         International Programs – Colleges are finding that they are working with the international community and other providers of education.  The college needs to ensure that it is not providing its accreditation to these institutions without proper review and approval by the Commission.   ·         Financial Viability – Increased review has been applied to the accreditation process to ensure that the college is maintaining fiscal viability.  This includes the relationships at the district level in multi-college districts.   ·         Board of Trustee Ethics and Governance – More attention is being given in Standard IV on the involvement of the Board of Trustees in contributing to the effectiveness of the college.  Poor application of ethics, micro-management, and absence of leadership to define and maintain the effectiveness of the colleges can lead to sanction.     Format of the Focused Report Responses to the recommendations are generally prepared by separate teams selected to work on the visiting team evaluation report and sanction letter from ACCJC.  There needs to be a person who is charged with editing the report and ensuring that it has continuity and clarity for the next visiting team.  .  The overall report needs to meet the following requirements: ·         The cover page needs to follow the recommended format of the Commission; All Commission publications can be accessed at www.accjc.org .   ·         A signature page needs to be developed that includes signatures of the appropriate constituent leaders on campus as well as the district chancellor and the board of trustee’s president.   ·         The report should start out describing the process that was used to prepare the report including a description of all the constituencies involved in the process.   ·         A response to each of the recommendations as described to the college in the letter received from the Commission is required. o        Describe the findings of the evaluation report that brought about the recommendation. o        Describe the action taken to respond to the recommendation. o        Describe a plan of action for recommendations that will not be completed at the time of the report submission o        Link your response to the accreditation standards that apply. o        Talk about results within the narrative of the report. o        Prepare evidence and code that evidence in the report. o        Have the paper evidence available for the committee coded or arranged so it is easy to find.   ·         Indicate where and how the reader can access the evidence for each section of the report.  A coding system must be developed for the filing of evidence.               (The Commission format for the Focused Visit report is attached as Appendix C)   Individual Sections of the Report The college needs to take the sanction seriously and work across campus constituencies to resolve the issues.    It is not always possible to have all the mitigations for each of the recommendations completed by the October 15th or March 15th date when the progress report has to be submitted.  However, you do need to complete the following: ·         Identify what you have to do to meet the standards that are referenced in the recommendations. ·         Define the progress that has been made to meet the standards. ·         Define what has to be done to complete meeting the requirements. ·         Define the timeline when the campus will have completed this work.   When PPL is a consultant working with the college’s committees and constituent groups on the accreditation response, it will be reviewed by the consultant who will work with the team leaders, the Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO), and the assigned editor to ensure that the final document appropriately addresses the sanction.     APPENDIX  A Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges Western Association of Schools and Colleges Rubric for Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness – Part I: Program Review Levels of   Implementation    Characteristics of Institutional Effectiveness in Program Review (Sample institutional behaviors)   Awareness • There is preliminary investigative dialogue at the institution or within some departments       about what data or process should be used for program review.                                              • There is recognition of existing practices and models in program review that make use of         institutional research. • There is exploration of program review models by various departments or individuals. • The college is implementing pilot program review models in a few programs/operational       units. Development   • Program review is embedded in practice across the institution using qualitative and   quantitative data to improve program effectiveness.                                           • Dialogue about the results of program review is evident within the program as part of   discussion of program effectiveness. • Leadership groups throughout the institution accept responsibility for program review   framework development (Senate, Admin. Etc.) • Appropriate resources are allocated to conducting program review of meaningful quality. • Development of a framework for linking results of program review to planning for   improvement. • Development of a framework to align results of program review to resource allocation.   Proficiency   • Program review processes are in place and implemented regularly. • Results of all program reviews are integrated into institution-wide planning for    improvement and informed decision-making.     • The program review framework is established and implemented.    • Dialogue about the results of all program reviews is evident throughout the institution as   part of discussion of institutional effectiveness. • Results of program review are clearly and consistently linked to institutional planning   processes and resource allocation processes; college can demonstrate or provide specific   examples.                                                        • The institution evaluates the effectiveness of its program review processes in supporting   and improving student achievement and student learning outcomes.   Sustainable Continuous Quality Improvement • Program review processes are ongoing, systematic and used to assess and improve   student learning and achievement. • The institution reviews and refines its program review processes to improve institutional   effectiveness.     • The results of program review are used to continually refine and improve program practices   resulting in appropriate improvements in student achievement and learning.     Rubric for Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness – Part II: Planning   Levels of Implementation    Characteristics of Institutional Effectiveness in Planning                                                   (Sample institutional behaviors)   Awareness   • The college has preliminary investigative dialogue about planning processes. • There is recognition of case need for quantitative and qualitative data and analysis in   planning. • The college has initiated pilot projects and efforts in developing systematic cycle of   evaluation, integrated planning and implementation (e.g. in human or physical resources). • Planning found in only some areas of college operations. • There is exploration of models and definitions and issues related to planning. • There is minimal linkage between plans and a resource allocation process, perhaps   planning for use of "new money" • The college may have a consultant-supported plan for facilities, or a strategic plan.       Development • The Institution has defined a planning process and assigned responsibility for    implementing it. • The Institution has identified quantitative and qualitative data and is using it. • Planning efforts are specifically linked to institutional mission and goals. • The Institution uses applicable quantitative data to improve institutional effectiveness in      some areas of operation. • Governance and decision-making processes incorporate review of institutional   effectiveness in mission and plans for improvement. • Planning processes reflect the participation of a broad constituent base. Proficiency   • The college has a well documented, ongoing process for evaluating itself in all areas of    operation, analyzing and publishing the results and planning and implementing    improvements. • The institution's component plans are integrated into a comprehensive plan to achieve    broad educational purposes and improve institutional effectiveness. • The institution effectively uses its human, physical, technology, and financial resources to    achieve its broad educational purposes, including stated student learning outcomes. • The college has documented assessment results and communicated matters    of quality assurance to appropriate constituencies (documents data and analysis of    achievement of its educational mission). • The institution assesses progress toward achieving its education goals over time   (uses longitudinal data and analyses). • The institution plans and effectively incorporates results of program review in all areas of   educational services: instruction, support services, library and learning resources.      Sustainable  Continuous     Quality Improvement • The institution uses ongoing and systematic evaluation and planning to refine its key   processes and improve student learning. • There is dialogue about institutional effectiveness that is ongoing, robust and pervasive;   data and analyses are widely distributed and used throughout the institution. • There is ongoing review and adaptation of evaluation and planning processes. • There is consistent and continuous commitment to improving student learning;   and educational effectiveness is a demonstrable priority in all planning structures and   processes.     Rubric for Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness – Part III: Student Learning Outcomes   Levels of Implementation Characteristics of Institutional Effectiveness in Student Learning Outcomes (Sample institutional behaviors)   Awareness • There is preliminary, investigative dialogue about student learning outcomes. • There is recognition of existing practices such as course objectives and how they relate to   student learning outcomes. • There is exploration of models, definitions, and issues taking place by a few people.  • Pilot projects and efforts may be in progress. • The college has discussed whether to define student learning outcomes at the level of   some courses or programs or degrees; where to begin. Development • College has established an institutional framework for definition of student learning   outcomes (where to start), how to extend, and timeline. • College has established authentic assessment strategies for assessing student learning   outcomes as appropriate to intended course, program, and degree learning outcomes. • Existing organizational structures (e.g. Senate, Curriculum Committee) are supporting   strategies for student learning outcomes definition and assessment. • Leadership groups (e.g. Academic Senate and administration), have accepted responsibility   for student learning outcomes implementation. • Appropriate resources are being allocated to support student learning outcomes and   assessment. • Faculty and staff are fully engaged in student learning outcomes development. Proficiency • Student learning outcomes and authentic assessment are in place for courses, programs   and degrees. • Results of assessment are being used for improvement and further alignment of   institution-wide practices. • There is widespread institutional dialogue about the results. • Decision-making includes dialogue on the results of assessment and is purposefully   directed toward improving student learning. • Appropriate resources continue to be allocated and fine-tuned. • Comprehensive assessment reports exist and are completed on a regular basis. • Course student learning outcomes are aligned with degree student learning outcomes. • Students demonstrate awareness of goals and purposes of courses and programs in     which they are enrolled.    Sustainable  Continuous     Quality Improvement • Student learning outcomes and assessment are ongoing, systematic and used for   continuous quality improvement. • Dialogue about student learning is ongoing, pervasive and robust. • Evaluation and fine-tuning of organizational structures to support student learning is   ongoing. • Student learning improvement is a visible priority in all practices and structures across the   college. • Learning outcomes are specifically linked to program reviews. JP;DB: cg 8/2007           APPENDIX B Dialogue   As the Commission developed the current standards, it became evident that if an institution is to ensure that its resources and processes support student learning and its continuous assessment, as well as the pursuit of institutional excellence and improvement, an “ongoing, self-reflective dialogue” must become central to institutional processes. This dialogue, it was thought, should serve to provide a college community with the means to integrate all of the elements of the standards, resulting in a comprehensive institutional perspective that would serve to verify integrity and “promote quality and improvement.” Accordingly, the subtitle of the Introduction to the Accreditation Standards is “Shaping the Dialogue.” A dialogue is a group discussion among “colleagues,” often facilitated, that is designed to explore complex issues, create greater group intelligence and facilitate group learning. The idea of “colleagues” is important; dialogue occurs where individuals see themselves as colleagues. In order for the group to engage in dialogue, individuals must suspend their own views to listen fully to one another in order to understand each other’s viewpoints. Groups engaged in dialogue develop greater insights, shared meanings and ultimately develop a collective understanding of complex issues and how best to address them. Dialogue improves collective thinking. A practice of dialogue can have benefits for the individual as well as the institution. Dialogue can help build self-awareness, improve communication skills, strengthen teams, and stimulate innovation that fosters effective change. Dialogues are powerful, transformational experiences that lead to both personal and collaborative action. Dialogue also allows controversial topics that may have in the past become sources of disagreement and division to be explored in a more useful context that can lead to greater group insight The Standards emphasize dialogue as a means for an institution to come to collective understanding of what it means to be learning-focused in the context of a particular institution’s history and mission, of what the meaningful student learning outcomes at the program and institutional level should be, and on how college resources and processes might be structured to support the improvement of student learning. Unlike debate, in which most academicians are trained to seek to score points and to persuade, the goal of dialogue is mutual understanding and respect. Dialogue involves active listening, seeking to understand, giving everyone the opportunity to talk, and trying not to interrupt. A conscious commitment to engage in dialogue ensures that a group welcomes a range of viewpoints during its search for effective ways of addressing important issues. Retaining the use of a facilitator can help ensure that the ground rules are maintained and can help clarify themes and ideas. While dialogue may not lead to a resolution of conflict, it can lead to a makeover of the way in which the conflict is pursued from one which is destructive and divisive to one which is constructive and leads to personal and institutional growth. Too often on campus, we avoid certain controversial topics or we take a perspective that leaves us in about the same place we started, with little to no additional understanding of the issue. By assisting in the discovery of common ground and by developing increased willingness to work collegially to illuminate and solve problems, dialogue has the potential to improve an college’s ability to deal with the inevitable disagreements that arise in the life of an institution. The focus in the 2002 Standards on learning outcomes calls for higher education institutions to deal with a very complex issue, improving student learning. It also calls on institutions to change–and to learn. Dialogue can be a powerful strategy for generating the creative discussions and collective wisdom that can enable institutional change.   Themes Several themes thread throughout these standards. These themes can provide guidance and structure to self-reflective dialogue and evaluation of institutional effectiveness. The themes are as follows: Institutional Commitments The standards ask institutions to make a commitment in action to providing high quality education congruent with 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 insure the consistency between mission and institutional goals and plans and insure that the mission is more that 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. Evaluation, Planning, and Improvement The standards require ongoing institutional evaluation and improvementto 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 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 reevaluation. Student Learning Outcomes 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 discussions 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. Organization 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 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. Dialogue 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 a clear inquiry, meaningfully interpreted, and broadly communicated. The institutional dialogue should result in ongoing self-reflection and conscious improvement. Institutional Integrity This theme deals with the institution’s demonstrated concern with honesty, truthfulness, and the manner it 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 provides 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 to 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.    APPENDIX C Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges Western Association of Schools and Colleges   PREPARATION OF A FOLLOW-UP REPORT WITH A VISIT   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 recommendations 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 for the team conducting this visit arc to:   ·         verify the accuracy and relevance of the report submitted by the college in response to the specific action of tile Commission;   determine the extent to which the institution now meets the Commission standards cited in the recommendations;   report findings and recommendations to the Commission.   Follow-Un Report Format   The following format for the report should be used;   1.     Cover Sheet  - Include the date of submission, the name and address of the institution, and a notation that this is a Follow-Up Report.   2.     Table of Contents   3.     Statement of  Report Preparation - The statement, signed by the Chief Executive Officer of the institution, describes the process of report preparation and identifies those who were involved in its preparation, review, and approval.   4.     .Response to Team Recommendations and the Commission Action Letter - Each recommendation identified by the Commission in its action letter should be identified and discussed. The report should describe the resolution of each recommendation, analyze the results achieved to date, provide evidence of the results, and indicate what additional plans the institution has developed.   5.     Governing  Board Review - The Follow-Up Report must be reviewed by the Governing Board prior to its submission.   Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges Western Association of Schools and Colleges                                                                      page 2   The institution is required to send three copies of its report to the Commission plus an electronic version. The hard copies of the report should be sent to the Commission's mailing address at:    10 Commercial Boulevard. Suite 204, Novato, CA 94949.   The electronic version of the report should be transmitted to accjc@accjc.org .    A copy should also be sent to each team member listed on the team roster who will visit the institution.  The date of tile visit is listed on the team roster.   * Policy on the Rights and Responsibilities of ACCJC and Member Institutions in the Accrediting Process. (Adopted January 2005) Accrediting Reference Handbook.

--

----------------------------- Section 5  Forum  Under Construction-------------------------------------
                                                 

Sect. 05

 

----------------------------- Section 6 -- Slide Show ------------------------------------------
                                                 

<previous next> play stop Since your web browser does not support JavaScript, here is a non-JavaScript version of the image sliideshow: Please, we really want lots of pictures here!    Email them to Victor  ( foreeve@yahoo.com ) .   Use my camera and pictures will be saved on a memory card, which connects thru an adapter to the USB port,  making it easy to work with them.   This is an Internet-based Slide Show wizard that walks you thru building a slide show, which you pasted into a "container" (table) as part of a html program that you upload to a shared hosting site, such as what we will provide like Facebook and Youtube does.  Copy that?

----------------------------- Section 9 -- Four Agreements ------------------------------------------
                                                 

The Four Agreements.  Toltec Teachings of don Miguel Ruiz and don Jose Ruiz ... The Four Agreements® offer a powerful code of conduct that can rapidly transform  lives. agreement 1 Be impeccable with your word - Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the word to speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your word in the direction of truth and love.   Impeccability of the word can be measured by your level of self-love. If you love yourself, you will express that love in your interactions with others, and that action will produce a like reaction agreement 2 Don’t take anything personally - Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won’t be the victim of needless suffering. agreement 3 Don’t make assumptions - Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want. Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid misunderstandings, sadness and drama. With just this one agreement, you can completely transform your life. agreement 4 Always do your best - Your best is going to change from moment to moment; it will be different when you are healthy as opposed to sick. Under any circumstance, simply do your best, and you will avoid self-judgment, self-abuse and regret.

------------------------------Tech Note for " Blog Web 2.0" --------------------------------------                                                  

Tech Notes for " Blog Web 2.0!"  Nov. 30.  2009.  Again, "Battling for every pixel".  Lines must align.  "How it looks" gets you to look at the content.  It is certainly worth it to worry about Table size, and width and height of the Section-Scroll-areas! ... Nov. 05, 2009.  I am using the process of Continuous Quality Improvement and Innovation (CQII) here.  This site is updated frequently based on "heads up" improvement comments.  This demonstrates that the "industry standard" of CQII  applies well to Digital Communication. Oct. 23, 2009.  Web Design notes.  "I battle for every pixel and hexadecimal" -- I mean I want all tables exactly the same width in pixels  (definition: expressed, in this case, as a pair of numbers, like "640 by 480 display" -- 640 pixels from side to side and 480 from top to bottom for a total of 307,200 pixels).  Working at the "pixel" level increases "sharpness" which creates a Professional Look and Feel for the website.  I worked to align the top two tables), every color in Section 1 to "pastel" which means "brightened up" by increasing its Hex Code, for example, Pastel (light) Blue is #e7ebf8, which is, of course, RRGGBB, with Blue (BB) the "most white" at f8, with RR and GG slightly less so at e7 and eb.  So study and play with these codes.  Master them!   Also I put students' posting in Tables, with borders and varying background colors. I can also say that just as "Quality Lasts", so does Graphic Design.  Copy that?  ... Re this slide show:  If it does not operate as a slideshow,  it is caused by your browser not having "Active Script Enabled.   So, go ahead and enable "Script" by clicking Tools-Internet Options-Security-Internet-Custon Level then scroll down (near the bottom) for   Scripting-Active Scripting-Enable.  That will do it.  (Learn to look up problems on Google.) Oct. 19.  Just finished trying to make it easier to read the Forum,  and, giving the user the right to post.  There are 2 levels of "posting":  The 1st is to Reply to a Topic; the 2nd is to edit / create in the Topic Box.  Since our goals are Open-ness, Transparency, and Accessibility, we welcome other writers to this site.  How to contact us is written in the Marquee and near the bottom of Section 1 of this page ... The techniques of this page are continually being improved .... Oct. 15. I am assisted in this project by a number of students, whose combined talents are remarkable.  I'm advising a team that is constructing this blog as a commitment to Open Communication (Freedom of Expression),  and the new type of Internet Technology (Web 2.0) which is basically "In your Space" kind of immersive (almost invasive) technology where "your thoughts can be just keystrokes away" from World Wide Distribution!   Please think about that ... with me ... we are ushering in a totally new age of communication ... with a kind of "Gresham's Law" that "good content will drive out bad content", that ideas are to be "illuminated" and "rusty spots" "oxy-cleaned" to come up to, and meet, the World Class standards for Quality ... Restating:  Given "Collaborative, Interactive"  Technology, now we have new a "paradigm" of communication.  Good ideas will soar. Brilliant ideas will travel round the world in seconds.  Bad ideas will Crash!  The web allows us to "illuminate" our thoughts!  (Teacher note:  Already, this caused a significant improvement -- thankfully -- for students to write well.  Almost unbelievably, Spelling, Syntax, and Grammar are improving!).  Having this forum, this blog, also goes a long way in creating the kind of college environment that will help Accreditation. Acknowledgement for Work: Since a college has no other justification for its existence than its ability to create Success for Students, and the application of Technology is a vital tool for success, and, speaking as an Information Technology Scientist, I want to acknowledge the work of Profs. Bradley Vaden and Linda Delzeit-McIntyre in bringing Moodle -- this type of Collaborative-Interactive software -- part of the WEB 2.0 migration -- to the campus. (Moodle is a form of 'Content Management Systems' -- like You Tube and Facebook!-- allows Forums, uploading of Images, Videos, Essays, News Stories, etc!) ... For the future Trade Tech that I envision, Technology and Student Success will be a "Shared Mission" and decisions will be made for the best interest of the college .. Success and Technology Uber Alles! ... I am speaking up and recognizing their work! Thank you! ... As a teacher of Web Design and Multi-Media, this is heaven for me:  Students can download and upload, "read and write" / "take and give" with the WWW! -- Writers can publish easily;  Artist can display their works!  (I look forward to hosting and posting some students' "works of art"!) ...  It gives us a "virtual sandbox",  and garage-workshop, to play with,  and allows sharing it quickly and beautifully!  This extends out, follow me on this, to creating a level of "Perfection" and High Quality as everyone can strengthen and improve, and re-post the material presented!    So, if we took any idea -- say building of a Hydrogen-Powered Automobile -- and, starting with a video of a model with blueprints, tests, and evaluations ... and opened a blog with a collaborative Forum, so that Specialists in Mechanics, Chemistry, Physics, Electronics, Design could all build on and improve the Model, then "Design to Production" time could be reduced from months to days!  Copy that? So, this application of Web 2.0 Technology provide this High-Tech Communication mode to our students -- , who are in fact our Customers -- putting them on a "level playing field" with the rest of the world, and nurturing their success!  For me, this is payback time for those who helped me!  --------------------- Oct. 07. 2009.  Working on speeding up the "Write to Post" time, the time it takes from "authoring-to-publishing". .. keep watching ... Oct. 05.  Learned a lot about "color balancing" from working with the images .. which need better resolution .. Working on a set of Command (push button for content) and Control (set the environment) buttons.  Students are learning how to copy-paste, modify and test this Open Source code .. This has become a project for all my classes.  I feel we are ushering in a new form of Web Technology. .... Tech note: Having Scroll Boxes containing information, saves space (called "display Real Estate"), and helps to solve the arduous problem of "Too Much Info" (TMI) which can hurt communication.    So, technically, check out the <DIV> statements within a Table within a Table that is the format for the Scroll Boxes. Also, look into the Cascading Style Sheets that control the colors of the "Roll-over" buttons, and while studying the buttons,  learn about the "event" commands such as "onclick", "onmouseover", etc. Design (this is a heads-up for me too) -- If it does not look good, nobody will read it!  So, strain, force, innovate, and fight for every fraction of an inch and pixel of display space, and color-coordinate, and make it look like a "work of art"!  Connect with your latent artist side! ... Mission:  Technology Uber Alles!   Since our lives are dependent on technology, think of it as a Basic Living Skill,  woven into our lives,  and think of it separate from politics -- it is too important to get snared by politics (this advice is for me, too) .. and put it out there, and use it for the public good, and to help restore LATTC to its position!  As I write this, I want to acknowledge the work of former student Ethan Burrall on "scrolling-reading" projects, and design improvements, along Theron Dennis, a graphic designer  ... What I need to teach is "How Important HTML / XHTML is   I am constantly switching from English to HTML (and JavaScript .. soon, PHP) ... writing "Code" as fluently as English ... For sure, this is the new way of working. ...  Joseph Auciello. Prof. A. Out.

---------------------------------------Bottom ------------------------------------