University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Perspectives on accreditation and leadership: a case study of an urban city college in jeopardy of losing accreditation

(USC Thesis Other)

Perspectives on accreditation and leadership: a case study of an urban city college in jeopardy of losing accreditation

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 1
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION AND LEADERSHIP: A CASE STUDY OF AN
URBAN CITY COLLEGE IN JEOPARDY OF LOSING ACCREDITATION

by

Deborah Hall Kinley

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2015

Copyright 2015 Deborah Hall Kinley

PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 2
Acknowledgements
I wish to acknowledge the village of individuals who helped me to navigate this
tremendous educational journey.
First, I would like to thank my parents for instilling in me the belief that education is
something “nobody can take away from you” and that it is the pathway to make something of
yourself in the world. In my somewhat golden years I am still learning, as I am sure they would
want, because of the examples they set during my formative years.
My committee chair, Dr. Robert G. Keim (Bob), is owed a huge debt of appreciation
because he was instrumental in encouraging me to “Just conduct a case study!” and for
supporting me along the way with his straightforward approach and honest feedback of my
study. The remaining committee members also deserve recognition, Dr. Patricia Tobey and Dr.
P.J. Woolston, who gave positive, constructive feedback from the beginning and helped me to
structure and align my study.
My son, Glenn, and daughter, Reina and her husband Michael and their daughter, Emma,
must be included because they adjusted their schedules and lives to support my endeavors.
Especially missed is time that I could not spend with my granddaughter because, “Nana has to
study.” I am looking forward to spending more time with family.
My biggest thank you goes to my sweetheart, fiancé, and best friend, Don, who sacrificed
our time together so I could pursue my dream. You are so kind and considerate and I will always
love you!
Many thanks to family members, friends, colleagues, and Trojan buddies who showed an
interest in my study, engaged in thoughtful dialogue with me about it, and referred and requested
people for me to interview. I could not have achieved this without your support.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 5
Abstract 6
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 7
Background of the Problem 9
Accreditation 13
Statement of the Problem 15
Purpose of the Study 16
Importance of the Study 17
Limitations and Delimitations 18
Definition of Terms 19
Organization of the Study 21
Chapter Two: Literature Review 23
Early Institutional Accreditation – Beginnings to 1950 24
Regional Accreditation, 1885 to 1920 25
Regional Accreditation, 1920-1950 26
History of Accreditation 1950 to Present 27
International Accreditation in Higher Education 31
Internationalization of Accreditation 33
Specialized Accreditation 34
Effects of Accreditation 36
Framework for Learning Assessment 36
Benefits of Accreditation on Learning 38
Organizational Effects of Accreditation 39
Future Assessment Recommendations 40
Organization Learning Challenges 41
Lack of Faculty Buy-In 42
Lack of Institutional Investment 43
Difficulty with Integration into Local Practice 44
Outcome Equity 45
Tension Between Improvement and Accountability 45
Transparency Challenges 46
Conclusion of the Effects of Accreditation 47
Costs of Accreditation 48
Critical Assessment of Accreditation 54
Alternatives 58
Current and Future 61
California Community Colleges 65
Sanctions 66
Leadership and Governance in Education 67
Impact of Faculty on Accreditation 73
Community Colleges with Sanctions 74
Summary 75

PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 4
Chapter Three: Methodology 76
Research Question 76
Method of Study 77
Sample and Population 78
Instrumentation 80
Data Collection 81
Data Analysis 82
Chapter Four: Results 84
Preparation for the Study 84
Participants 85
Public Documents 88
Results 88
Background of Urban City 89
Research Question 1 - What specific documents and processes were used in the years
leading up to UCC being on the verge of losing their accreditation? 91
Research Question 2 - What processes did UCC follow in responding to the sanctions
and the notice of losing accreditation? 92
Research Question 3 - What is the perceived impact of leadership by administrators,
faculty, staff, and students in the process of losing accreditation? 96
Research Question 4 - What is the perceived impact of faculty by administrators,
faculty, staff, and students in the process of losing accreditation? 99
Research Question 5 - What is the perception of shared governance’s impact to
UCC’s impending loss of accreditation? 103
Notable Findings 106
Getting to Possibly Losing Accreditation 106
House Metaphors 109
Double Standards Processes of the Accrediting Agency 111
Perfect Storm 113
Urban City Values/Style 114
Summary 115
Chapter Five: Discussion 118
Research Questions 118
Findings 119
Limitations 124
Implications for Future Practice and Advice to Colleges 124
Future 126
References 129
Appendix A: Definitions of Sanctions from ACCJC 153
Appendix B: Accrediting Organizations 156
Appendix C: Interview Script 159
Appendix D: Recruitment Letter 161
Appendix E: Information Sheet 162
Appendix F: Urban City College’s Information Sheet/Consent Form 165

PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 5
List of Tables
Table 1: Ethnicity of Urban City College Students 2010-2011 79
Table 2: Gender of Urban City College Students 2010-2011 79
Table 3: Age of Urban City College Students 2010-2011 79
Table 4: Demographics of Participants 87
Table 5: Classification of Participants 87

PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 6
Abstract
Accreditation in higher education is a kind of quality assurance instrument: a formal
recognition by an external group of the maintenance of a certain minimum standard of education.
The acquisition and maintenance of institutional accreditation is a standard expectation and a
practical necessity for most colleges and universities operating in the United States (Council for
Higher Education Accreditation [CHEA], 2012). This necessity is due to the fact that
accreditation is required for access to federal funds such as student aid and other programs.
Federal aid funds are available to students only if the institution or program they attend is
accredited by a recognized accrediting organization. During the 2010-2011 academic year, the
federal government distributed an estimated $169 billion in financial aid to students attending
accredited institutions (Baum & Payea, 2011), and state funds to institutions and students are
also contingent on accreditation status.
The Accrediting Commission of Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) put Urban
City College (UCC) on Show Cause in July 2012 (ACCJC, 2012), and a July 2013 action letter
from ACCJC notified UCC it was losing its accreditation in July 2014. This study reviewed the
actions leading up to and since the impending loss of accreditation for Urban City College and
the many perceptions surrounding the notification.
This study embarked on an emergent qualitative review of public documents covering
UCC’s path toward possible loss of accreditation. In addition, interviews were conducted with
stakeholders in UCC, and representatives of the ACCJC were approached to learn what they
were thinking, feeling, and perceiving while in the midst of the accreditation process leading to a
community college’s losing accreditation. The overarching research question asked, “How did
ACCJC get to the point of recommending the shutdown of UCC in 2014?
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 7
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Just mention the word accreditation, and a variety of responses are roused from people in
education. To some, it is a stamp of approval, a mark that an institution met the necessary
requirements to produce quality education and competent students with legitimate degrees
(ACCJC, 2014). To others, it conjures illusions of accountability and student learning outcomes
as well as measures and collection of data. Accreditation in higher education is a kind of quality
assurance instrument: a formal recognition by an external group of the maintenance of a certain
minimum standard of education. The acquisition and maintenance of institutional accreditation is
a standard expectation and a practical necessity for most colleges and universities operating in
the United States (Council for Higher Education Accreditation [CHEA], 2012) because it is
required for access to federal funds such as student aid and other programs. The United States
Department of Education (USDE) dictates that federal aid funds are available to students only if
the institution or program they attend is accredited by a recognized accrediting organization.
During the 2010-2011 academic year, the federal government distributed an estimated $169
billion in financial aid to students attending accredited institutions (Baum & Payea, 2011).
Furthermore, state funds to institutions and students are contingent on accredited status.
The scope of accreditation is broad in the United States. Accreditation criteria or
standards address specific areas: student achievement, curricula, faculty, facilities (includes
equipment and supplies), fiscal and administrative capacity, student support services, recruiting
and admissions practices, measures of program length and objectives of degrees or credentials
offered, record of student complaints and record of compliance with program responsibilities for
student aid as required by the 1965 federal Higher Education Act (Title IV) as amended.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 8
In 2009, a total of 7,435 institutions were accredited by regional accrediting agencies
operating in six geographically distinct US regions, four national faith-related accrediting
agencies, and seven national career-related accrediting organizations. As of 2011, 18 institutional
accrediting organizations were or had been recognized by either the Council on Higher
Education Act or USDE or both. These organizations accredit approximately 7,818 institutions
that make up US higher education, and 62 programmatic accrediting organizations were or had
been recognized and accredit more than 22,654 programs (CHEA, 2012).
A formal process generally spanning two years and requiring significant coordination of
resources compels institutions to prepare for an evaluative visit on a cycle usually varying from
six to ten years. In addition, with a substantial federal investment in education (over $175 billion
available in Title IV funding for student aid in 2011), the federal process for determining aid
eligibility, to date, includes institutional or program accreditation as assurance of the quality of
the endeavors to which federal funds might be directed (NACIQI, 2012). More recently,
according to the Student Aid Alliance (2015), federal grant, loan, and work-study programs
accounted for 71% of all available student aid during the 2012-2013 academic year. That
translates into $170 billion out of a total $238.5 billion. Grants from institutions and private
sources account for another 22% ($59 billion), and state grants provide over 4% ($9.7 billion).
Losing accreditation is not a common occurrence for colleges and universities. Within the
last ten years, Urban Community College (pseudonyms used throughout for all college names)
lost its accreditation in August 2006 (ACCJC, 2007; Hoffman & Wallach, 2008). At that time,
the Western Association of Schools and Colleges’ Accrediting Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges (WASC-ACCJC) accepted Urban Community College’s closure report and
approved the partnership of its facilities with El Paseo Community College. The campus is now
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 9
known as El Paseo Urban Education Center and has been operating as such since Urban’s
closure in 2006. The El Paseo Urban Education Center was afforded time to fix several problems
(five to ten years) in the hopes of reopening as an autonomous school (Hoffman & Wallach,
2008).
ACCJC put Urban City College (UCC) on Show Cause in July 2012 (ACCJC, 2012), and
a July 2013 action letter from ACCJC notified UCC it was losing its accreditation in July 2014.
This study reviewed the actions leading up to and since UCC’s impending loss of accreditation
and the many perceptions surrounding the notification.
Background of the Problem
To better understand how a community college might lose its accreditation, it is
important to take a closer look at the process of accreditation, the history of accreditation, and
how it works in the United States. To begin, a triad relationship exists among accreditation,
federal, and state governments. Unlike other countries where this function is centralized within
the federal government, the United States has an external non-governmental accreditation system
for oversight of higher education for quality assurance and quality improvement. Although
accreditation is “voluntary,” it is not an option for most public, private, and not-for-profit
institutions, as it is tied to eligibility for financial aid (NACIQI, 2012; Wolff, 2005). Similarly,
the centrality of the federal role is evident within the triad. For example, the 1992
Reauthorization Act almost stripped accreditation of its accountability role due to dissatisfaction
with the proprietary sector’s loan default rates and regional agencies’ effectiveness in addressing
student academic achievement and learning outcomes (Wolff, 2005).
In response to the shift from inputs and processes to greater measures of outcomes and
performance, various regional accreditation agencies implemented new approaches to
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 10
accreditation, creating alternate methods of review and revising standards (Wolff, 2005). For
example, WASC’s Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities (WASC-
ACSCU), the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), and the North Central
Association of Schools and Colleges – Higher Learning Commission (NCACS-HLC)
collaborated to investigate other models. One model was the Malcolm Baldrige process for
educational excellence with a foundation in Total Quality Management. The group also studied
other countries’ academic audit models and engaged their institutional constituents in dialogue
regarding the standards (Wolff, 2005). As a result, the NCACS-HLC adopted new “Criteria for
Accreditation” and established two processes or methods offered to institutions: the Program to
Evaluate and Advance Quality and the Academic Quality Improvement Program. This process
examines nine areas and marks incremental improvement over time, which is a clear indicator of
the shifting focus from inputs to performance. Similarly, WASC-ACSCU implemented culture
of evidence practices and SACS-Quality Enhancement Program. While the standards have not
changed drastically in these commissions, the measures of effectiveness and emphasis on
continuous quality improvement have changed.
The WASC agency presiding over community colleges, ACCJC, also revised their
standards in 2002. Unlike the other regional agencies, however, a marked increase in sanctions
and recommendations by ACCJC was noted after the revisions. A report issued in 2008 revealed
40 California community colleges received a sanction between 2004 and 2008 (Karandjeff,
2011). As of January 2011, twenty-one institutions were on sanction (Beno, 2011). In contrast, in
January 2014, only 14 colleges were on any sanction, totaling 13% of California community
colleges (Karpp, 2014). Since 2009, ACCJC included an article on deficiencies contributing to
sanction in the spring edition of its newsletter, ACCJC News. As of July 1, 2010, new federal
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 11
regulations “require accrediting commissions to publish brief statements summarizing the
reasons for the commissions’ decision to place an institution on Probation or Show Cause or to
deny, withdraw, suspend, revoke or terminate accreditation or initial accreditation” (Beno, 2011,
p. 8). This is a step in the direction of the accrediting agency’s being more transparent to the
educational community it serves.
In 2009, an analysis of deficiencies leading to sanctions revealed adequate program
review of instructional programs. In other words, the academic programs were functioning well
in colleges. However, integrated planning using assessment results, financial management or
stability issues, appropriate governing board’s roles and responsibilities, and effective internal
governance processes were common recommendations (Beno, 2009, p.4). These areas of
deficiency remain in 2011 with a significant decrease noted in the area of program review: 16 in
January 2009, 13 in January 2010 and 4 in January 2011 (Beno, 2011). The ACCJC disseminated
rubrics for evaluating institutional effectiveness in the areas of program review, planning and
student learning outcomes (SLOs) with progressive levels of implementation and timelines as
tools for self-evaluation and consistency in evaluative responses by the visiting team (Beno,
2009).
Despite the commission’s efforts to support institutions to interpret and address the
standards and requirements for continuous quality improvement, several colleges continue to fall
short in the view of the commission. In March 2014, representatives of ACCJC noted in a
presentation to a local community college that 25 community colleges were on sanction in 2013
and 16 were on sanction in 2014. The most common four reasons pertained to appropriate
governing board’s roles and responsibilities; SLOs not included, not assessed, or not included on
syllabi; financial stability; and employee evaluations not up to date. The Commission published
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 12
data summarizing the deficiencies leading to sanction since 2009. Thus, the number of colleges
receiving sanction were reduced in recent years, and it remains to be seen what will happen with
the number of sanctions in the future.
After a 2-year review process, the ACCJC recently updated its standards again in 2014
(ACCJC, 2014). Although a preview of the revised standards showed them to not be drastically
different from previous ones, there is some combining of standards in the new version adopted in
June 2014. Since November 2011, the ACCJC conducted a review and comment period for the
revised standards to provide college administrators, faculty, staff, and the public time to respond
to the proposed changes. The time period for the first reading of the Accreditation Standards and
Practices concluded in April 2014, and the final version was voted on at the June 2014 ACCJC
meeting (ACCJC, 2014). The following is a description and overview of the standards from the
ACCJC (2014):
The Accreditation Standards are the basic tool used by member institutions to gauge their
success in providing high quality education and to continually improve. The
Accreditation Standards focus a good deal on institutional practices that support student
completion of certificates and degrees, and student learning. Accreditation helps assure
that students get a sound and useful education that is of lifelong value.
Accreditation standards are established by an accrediting commission in
collaboration with an accrediting association ’s member institutions and are discussed in
public hearings with multiple opportunities for comment by the member institutions and
the concerned public before they are adopted. ACCJC ’s Standards are reviewed, and
changes are considered, every six years. In addition, accreditation standards include
statements of expected practice reflecting federal requirements of the U.S. Department of
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 13
Education that come from Congressional guidelines and expectations for institutional
quality. These federal requirements are increasingly more rigorous.
The Accreditation Standards describe good practices in areas of institutional
operations, including institutional mission, institutional effectiveness (i.e., achieving
stated mission, providing effective educational services), instruction, support services,
library and learning resources, human resources, facilities and physical resources,
information technology resources, fiscal resources and fiscal management, and
governance and decision making.
The revised Standards are the basis for comprehensive institutional evaluations for
reaffirmation of accreditation beginning spring 2016. For all other purposes, the 2014
Accreditation Standards and Eligibility Requirements took effect upon their June 2014 adoption
(ACCJC, 2014).
Accreditation
California community colleges are accredited through WASC with the accreditation
activities conducted through ACCJC. Accreditation is granted to an educational institution when
the institution demonstrates that it meets or exceeds the Eligibility Requirements and Standards
of the ACCJC. Accreditation certifies to the general public that an educational institution meets
its educational mission, has adequate resources, can adequately demonstrate the educational
purpose is being achieved, and can meet its mission in the future (ACCJC, 2008). Accreditation
also affirms to the public that the education earned at the institution is of value to the student
who earned it and to employers, trade or profession-related licensing agencies. In addition, other
colleges and universities can accept a student’s credential as legitimate (ACCJC, 2014).
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 14
A review of the timeline for community college accreditation is presented below. The
accreditation timeline follows a 6-year cycle of continuous review. Comprehensive reviews and
self-studies are performed every 6 years with a midterm report in the third year following a
comprehensive review. In addition to comprehensive and midterm reports, accredited institutions
must submit annual fiscal reports on the financial conditions of the institution. During the 6-year
comprehensive self-study process, a team of peers performs a site visit of the institution to verify
the institution meets the eligibility requirements and accreditation standards (ACCJC, 2014).
The benefits of accreditation are significant to the campus community, and accreditation
provides eligibility for federal Title IV financial aid funding. Loss of accreditation is rare, but
occurred at least once for a California community college when Urban Community College lost
it accreditation in 2006 (Moltz, 2010). There is, however, a significant trend in the number of
California community colleges on accreditation sanction in recent history. From 2003 to 2008,
the ACCJC placed 41 California community colleges on warning, probation, or Show Cause
actions (Moltz). A review of the February 2009 and June 2009 sanction letters from the ACCJC
identified three main reasons colleges are sanctioned: program review, SLOs, and failure to
integrate planning and resource allocation (Beno, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2009e, 2009f).
The most recent community college to be placed on sanctions that might lead to losing
accreditation is UCC. The college was notified on July 3, 2013 that accreditation would be
terminated as of July 31, 2014 (CEOCCC, 2014). This action was generated by the findings of
standards deficits in 2012 that took many years to accrue. UCC failed to meet nine of eleven
standards.

PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 15
Statement of the Problem
UCC’s potential loss of accreditation may take several years to be resolved. Several
activities show how critical the loss of accreditation would be to the citizens of Urban City. The
Urban City Attorney filed a lawsuit in 2013 and stalled the action to shut down UCC in the
immediate future, and a court date was set for October 2014 (City Door, 2013). The Minority
Leader of the United States House of Representatives, state senators, the mayor of Urban City,
student and community protesters, and many others called for ACCJC to give UCC more time to
rectify the findings and allow the college to remain open (AFT, 2013). In support of UCC, in a
letter to the ACCJC, the CEOs of California community colleges gave reasons to keep UCC
open. Among these reasons was that sufficient progress was already made by UCC in
remediating identified deficiencies and that the cost of existing and forthcoming litigation would
place a burden on all ACCJC member institutions (112 California community colleges),
compromising student access at all colleges. Most importantly, it was not possible to redirect the
77,000 remaining UCC students to other community college campuses in the region (CEOCCC,
2014).
UCC’s potential loss of accreditation is important to ACCJC because on or around April
14, 2014, ACCJC sent member colleges a dues invoice that included a 5% surcharge, which
appears to average around $1,000 per college. The surcharge is to pay for the UCC-related legal
costs incurred by ACCJC to date. This does not appear to pay for future legal costs if one or
more legal cases go to trial (CEOCCC, 2014). In light of this background and timeline, this study
sought to determine what actions led to the ACCJC’s decision to shutter UCC and to learn of the
perspectives of leadership and faculty regarding the current accreditation situation. One may
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 16
wonder if the ACCJC is justified in its actions. With so many community colleges under sanction
in recent years, it seems likely that the accrediting commission may soon be under review.
Purpose of the Study
This is an in-depth study of UCC to examine what lies underneath a community college
losing, or imminently losing, its accreditation. The theoretical framework is based on ways a
community college can get to the point of losing accreditation while its staff and faculty do not
believe it is going to happen as appears to be the case for UCC. The accreditation process is
straightforward and the responses from the ACCJC are also straightforward. However, events
that are not foreseen, or not easily seen may alert a community college to its impending closure.
This study embarked is an emergent qualitative review of public documents covering
UCC’s path toward losing accreditation. In addition, interviews were conducted with
stakeholders in UCC and attempts to interview representatives of the ACCJC were made to learn
what they were thinking, feeling, and perceiving in the midst of the process leading to a
community college’s losing accreditation. The overarching research question asked, “How did
the ACCJC get to the point of their recommendation to shut down UCC in 2014?” Five sub-
questions also guided the study:
1. What processes did UCC follow in responding to the sanctions prior to the notice of
losing accreditation?
2. What specific documents and processes were used in the years leading up to UCC being
on the verge of losing their accreditation?
3. What is the perceived impact of leadership by administrators, faculty, staff, and students
in the process of losing accreditation?
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 17
4. What is the perceived impact of faculty by administrators, faculty, staff and students in
the process of losing accreditation?
5. What is the perception of shared governance ’s impact to UCC ’s impending loss of
accreditation?
Importance of the Study
With the increasing number of community colleges receiving sanctions in recent years, it
is important to note colleges nearing the loss of their accreditation. UCC is in a unique situation,
and there is talk of retaliation by the ACCJC in that faculty activists did not want to put their
college in jeopardy by speaking out on the ACCJC’s actions (Glass, 2013). Emotions ran high on
both sides of this situation, and it seems neither side was willing to back down. Recently, in
2014, ACCJC suggested UCC choose to seek “candidacy” status that would lead to
reaccreditation while administrators, faculty, and staff work to address remaining deficiencies
(Amador & Kinsella, 2014). However, this was not received well by UCC faculty because, in
effect, UCC would first lose its accreditation while filing for candidacy and that would render the
current lawsuit moot. In addition, the Urban Reporter reported in May 2014 that the ACCJC
could extend the revocation deadline without jeopardizing its standing with the USDE, which
oversees the commissions (Asimov, 2014). The ACCJC resisted this action. Thus, this study
reviewed how the battle developed and sheds light on the actions on both sides of the
accreditation coin, from the community college’s viewpoint as well as the ACCJC’s view. For
other colleges which may receive sanctions for a variety of reasons, this study may be
informative and revealing. While, in the history of accreditation, at least one community college
lost its accreditation due to sanctions, and, with an increase in the number of community colleges
receiving sanctions in recent years, there may be an underlying relationship. Uncovering that
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 18
relationship would benefit colleges. Furthermore, changing the standards or the accreditation
process may have an impact on accreditation and subsequent outcomes for a college. A
qualitative study may uncover these and other hypotheses. Community colleges employ a unique
group of educators who feel that what happens to one college may happen to another. As referred
to in a slogan heard via a UCC panel discussion at a local community college, “We are all Urban
City College.”
Limitations and Delimitations
There were several limitations in conducting this study. In the case of the faculty, staff, or
administrators who were interviewed, they may feel an “us versus them” attitude when
describing what happened for sanctions to be rendered to their college. In other words, they may
have biased opinions about what led to their college being targeted to losing its accreditation.
Some of that type of dialogue appeared in newspaper articles and it may be revealed through
some of the findings for this study. In addition, the memories of some of those interviewed for
UCC may not be accurate, since the original sanctions for UCC occurred in 2012. Lastly, the
researcher is the primary instrument in this qualitative study, and, as noted by Merriam (2009),
the researcher may have some biases as a community college administrator that needed to be
kept at bay to not invalidate the study.
As for delimitations for this study, there may be much to learn for other community
colleges going through the accreditation process, and findings may be generalizable to them. The
findings may serve as warnings or help college staff be cognizant of behaviors or activities with
respect to the ACCJC or other colleges. However, as Merriam (2009) points out, generalizability
is not expected in qualitative research, but a reader may choose to apply a finding to a certain
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 19
situation. It is hoped that administrators and faculty from other colleges, and perhaps members of
ACCJC, can learn and benefit from this study.
Definition of Terms
The following operational definitions are included to clarify the terms and concepts in
this study.
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC, or WASC-ACCJC):
The accrediting agency for community colleges and other associate’s degree granting institutions
in the western region of the United States. The ACCJC is one of seven regional accrediting
commissions. The ACCJC is authorized to operate by the USDE through the Higher Education
Opportunity Act of 2008 (ACCJC, 2014).
Accreditation: Process of peer review that ensures institutional quality. Colleges must be
accredited to receive federal funds and ensure course transferability (CHEA, 2002).
Board of Trustees: The popularly elected governing board within each specific community
college district in California. The board represents the populace within a district and is charged
with selecting the college president and approving or disapproving major college policies within
state education law guidelines.
California Community Colleges Chancellor ’s Office: The office that oversees all of
California’s community colleges and is responsible for implementing legislation and providing
statewide leadership.
City Door: Pseudonym given to a local newspaper that published articles about UCC and its
accreditation situation.
El Paseo Community College: Pseudonym given to the community college that took over UCC.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 20
El Paseo Urban Education Center: Pseudonym of new name of Urban Community College
after takeover by El Paseo Community College.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Team (FCMAT): A statewide resource focusing on fiscal and
management guidance to assist monitoring agencies in the performance of their tasks and to
assist educational agencies in school business management and related areas (FCMAT, 2014).
Probation: A sanction imposed by the ACCJC when the Commission finds that an institution
pursued a course that significantly deviates from the Commission’s eligibility requirements,
standards, but not to an extent as to warrant a Show Cause order of termination of accreditation.
Response: A comprehensive report developed by a college to respond to ACCJC’s
recommendations in the Accreditation Report.
Sanctions: Accreditation Commission actions imposed upon a college when a college is required
to correct deficiencies based on the findings of the accreditation team.
Self-Study: A comprehensive report, written by the college, which includes a narrative and
supporting documentation, to demonstrate that the institution has met all of the accreditation
standards.
Show Cause: A sanction imposed by the ACCJC when the Commission finds an institution to be
in substantial non-compliance with its eligibility requirements, standards, or policies, or when
the institution has not responded to the conditions imposed by the Commission. The burden of
proof rests on the institution to demonstrate why its accreditation should not be withdrawn at the
end of a stated period.
Special Trustee: Trustee appointed by the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office
whose vote supersedes those of the sitting Board of Trustees or serves as the governing Board of
the college.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 21
Termination of Accreditation: A sanction imposed by ACCJC when an institution has not
satisfactorily explained or corrected matters regarding which it received sufficient notice and
time to correct, or took actions that placed it significantly out of compliance with Commission
standards. Termination of accreditation is subject to a request for review and appeal. If
accreditation is terminated, the institution must complete a new accreditation process to qualify
for candidacy.
United States Department of Education: This study uses the acronyms DOE and USDE
interchangeably to refer to the United States Department of Education
Urban City College (UCC): A pseudonym for the community college that is in danger of losing
its accreditation in 2014.
Urban Community College: A pseudonym for the community college that lost its accreditation
in 2006.
Urban Reporter: Pseudonym given to a local newspaper that published articles about UCC in
relation to the leadership and governance issues and its impending loss of accreditation.
Warning: A sanction imposed by the ACCJC when the Commission finds that an institution has
pursued a course deviating from the Commission’s eligibility requirements, standards, or policies
to an extent that gives concern to the Commission.
A more thorough Definitions of Sanctions from ACCJC is listed in Appendix A.
Organization of the Study
The first chapter delineates an introduction of the study, a background of the problem,
and a brief background on accreditation. The introduction is followed by the statement of the
problem, the purpose of the study, and the importance of the study. The limitations and
delimitations of the study are given and then followed by definitions and terms. The second
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 22
chapter presents an extensive literature review, from the early years of accreditation to what the
future may hold for accreditation. This chapter also takes a look at leadership, governance, and
the impact of faculty on accreditation, and common sanctions received by community colleges.
The third chapter, Methodology, describes the sample and population used for the study along
with the instrumentation used and includes a description of the procedures and methods for data
collection and analysis. The fourth chapter, Results, states the results and summarizes them
around the common themes of accreditation, leadership, faculty, and governance. Notable
findings are also discussed in this chapter. The last chapter, Discussion of Findings, includes a
discussion of the findings, implications for practice, and concludes with recommendations for
future research.

PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 23
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
At the direction of the chair of the thematic group, Chapter Two was co-written by
members of the Accreditation Thematic Group as follows: Jennifer Barczykowski wrote the
section “Costs of Accreditation.” Nathan J. Barlow wrote “History of Accreditation in the
United States, Beginnings to 1950” while Rufus E. Cayetano wrote “History of Accreditation
1950 to Present.” Ben Dimapindan and Win Shih wrote “The Effects of Accreditation.” Deborah
Hall Kinley wrote “Critical Assessment of Accreditation.” Richard May wrote the segment on
“International Accreditation in Higher Education,” while Dinesh Payroda wrote “Specialized
Accreditation.” Lastly, Jill Richardson wrote “Current and Future” and Kristopher Tesoro wrote
“Alternatives.”
In this chapter, accreditation through the years is reviewed, from its early beginnings to
the current state. Included is how the regional bodies were formed, international accreditation in
higher education and the internationalization of accreditation. Specialized accreditation will be
examined along with the effects of accreditation, specifically the trend toward learning
assessment, the framework for, and the benefits of, learning assessment. Further, organizational
affects, challenges to SLOs and organizational learning challenges shall be examined.
Additionally, the lack of faculty buy-in and lack of institutional investment, difficulty with
integration into local practice, outcome equity, and the tension between improvement and
accountability will be reviewed. Transparency challenges, future assessment recommendations
and organizational outcomes, along with a critical assessment of accreditation, and a look at what
the future holds for accreditation are included in this chapter. Lastly, a look at community
college leadership, commonalities of community colleges receiving sanctions, and the impact of
faculty and governance on accreditation shall be reviewed. The history of accreditation is
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 24
important to see how it has changed over the years and made great strides to remain relevant in
the face of many obstacles.
Early Institutional Accreditation – Beginnings to 1950
Accreditation has a long parentage among the universities and colleges of the United
States dating back to the self-initiated external review of Harvard in 1642. This external review,
done only six years after Harvard’s founding, was intended to ascertain rigor in its courses by
peers from universities in Great Britain and Europe (Davenport, 2000; Brittingham, 2009). This
type of self-study is not only the first example in America of peer-review, but it also highlights
the need for self and peer regulation in the U.S. educational system due to the lack of federal
governmental regulation. This lack of federal government intervention in the evaluation process
of educational institutions is a main reason for the way accreditation in the U.S. developed
(Brittingham, 2009).
While the federal government does not directly accredit educational institutions, the first
example of an accrediting body was through a state government. In 1784 the New York Board of
Regents was established as the first regionally organized accrediting organization. The Board
was set up like a corporate office with the educational institutions being franchisees. The Board
created mandated standards that had to be met by each college or university if that institution was
to receive state financial aid (Blauch, 1959).
Not only did Harvard pioneer accreditation in the U.S. with its early external review of its
own courses, but the president of Harvard University initiated a national movement in 1892
when he organized and chaired the Committee of Ten, which was an alliance formed among
educators (mostly college and university presidents) to seek for standardization regarding
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 25
educational philosophies and practices in the U.S. through a system of peer approval (Davis,
1945; Shaw, 1993).
Around this same time different associations and foundations undertook an accreditation
review of educational institutions in the U.S. based on their own standards. Associations such as
the American Association of University Women, the Carnegie Foundation, and the Association
of American Universities would, for a variety of different reasons, and clientele (e.g. gender
equality, professorial benefits), evaluate various institutions and generate lists of approved or
accredited schools. These associations were responding to the desire of their constituents to have
accurate information regarding the validity and efficacy of the different colleges and universities
(Orlans, 1975; Shaw, 1993).
Regional Accreditation, 1885 to 1920
When these associations declined to broaden or continue their accrediting practices,
individual institutions began to unite together to form regional accrediting bodies to assess
secondary schools’ adequacy in preparing students for college (Brittingham, 2009). Colleges
were then measured by the quality of students they admitted based on standards at the secondary
school level that were measured by the accrediting agency. The regional accrediting agencies
began to focus also on creating a list of colleges that were good destinations for in-coming
freshmen. If an institution was a member of the regional accreditation agency, it was considered
an accredited college; or more precisely the institutions that belonged to an accrediting agency
were considered colleges while those that did not belong were not (Blauch, 1959; Davis, 1932;
Ewell, 2008; Orlans, 1974; Shaw, 1993).
Regional accrediting bodies were formed in the following years: New England
Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) in 1885, the Middle States Association of
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 26
Colleges and Secondary Schools (MSCSS) and Middle States Commission on Higher Education
(MSCHE) in 1887, the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA) and Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) in 1895, the Northwest Commission on Colleges
and Universities (NWCCU) in 1917, and, finally, WASC in 1924 (Brittingham, 2009).
Regional accrediting associations began to create instruments for the purpose of
establishing unity and standardization in regards to entrance requirements and college standards
(Blauch 1959). For example, in 1901 MSCHE and MSCSS created the College Entrance
Examination Board to standardize college entrance requirements. The NCA also published its
first set of standards for its higher education members in 1909 (Brittingham, 2009). Although
there were functioning regional accreditation bodies in most of the states, in 1910 the USDE
created its own national list of recognized (accredited) colleges. Because of the public’s pressure
to keep the federal government from controlling higher education directly, President Taft
blocked the publishing of the list of colleges and the USDE discontinued the active pursuit of
accrediting schools. Instead, it reestablished itself as a resource for the regional accrediting
bodies in regards to data collection and comparison (Blauch, 1959; Ewell, 2008; Orlans, 1975).
Regional Accreditation, 1920-1950
With the regional accrediting bodies in place, the ideas of what an accredited college was
became more diverse (e.g. vocational colleges, community colleges). Out of the greater
differences among schools in regards to school types and institutional purposes, there arose a
need to apply more qualitative measures and a focus on high rather than minimum outcomes
(Brittingham, 2009). School visits by regional accreditors became necessary once a school
demonstrated struggles, since qualitative standards became the norm. The regional organizations
began to measure success (and therefore grant accredited status) on whether an institution met its
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 27
own standards outlined in its own mission, rather than a predetermined set of criteria
(Brittingham, 2009). In other words, if a school did what it said it would do, it could be
accredited. The accreditation process later became a requirement for all member institutions.
Self- and peer-reviews, which became a standard part of the accreditation process, were
undertaken by volunteers from the member institutions to conduct the reviews (Ewell, 2008).
Accrediting bodies began to be challenged as to their legitimacy in classifying colleges as
accredited or not. The Langer Case in 1938 is a landmark case that established the standing of
accrediting bodies in the United States. Governor William Langer of North Dakota lost in his
legal challenge of the NCA’s denial of accreditation to North Dakota Agricultural College. This
ruling carried over to other legal cases that upheld the decision that accreditation was legitimate
as well as a voluntary process (Fuller & Lugg, 2012; Orlans, 1974).
In addition to the regional accrediting bodies, there arose other associations that were
meant to regulate the accrediting agencies themselves. The Joint Commission on Accrediting
was formed in 1938 to validate legitimate accrediting agencies and discredit questionable or
redundant ones. After some changes to the mission and the membership of the Joint Commission
on Accreditation, the name was changed to the National Commission on Accrediting (Blauch,
1959).
History of Accreditation 1950 to Present
The period between 1950 and 1985 was coined the golden age of higher education and
was marked by increasing federal regulations. During this period, key developments in the
accreditation process included the standardization of the self-study, the execution of the site visit
by colleagues from peer institutions, and the regular, cyclical, visitation of institutions
(Woolston, 2013). With the passage of the Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952, the
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 28
U.S. Commissioner of Education was required to publish a list of recognized accreditation
associations (Bloland, 2001). This act provided for education benefits to veterans of the Korean
War directly rather than to the educational institution they attended, increasing the importance of
accreditation as a mechanism for recognition of legitimacy (Woolston, 2012).
A more “pivotal event” occurred in 1958 with the National Defense Education Act’s
(NDEA) allocation of funding for NDEA fellowships and college loans (Weissburg, 2008).
NDEA limited participating institutions to those that were accredited (Gaston, 2014). In 1963,
the US Congress passed the Higher Education Facilities Act. This act required that higher
education institutions receiving federal funds through enrolled students be accredited.
Arguably the most striking expansion in accreditation’s mission coincided with the
passage of the Higher Education Act (HEA) in 1964 (Gaston, 2014). Title IV in this legislation
expressed the intent of Congress to use federal funding to broaden access to higher education.
According to Gaston (2014), having committed to this much larger role in encouraging college
attendance, the federal government found it necessary to affirm that institutions benefitting from
such funds were worthy of it. That same year, the National Committee of Regional Accrediting
Agencies (NCRAA) became the Federation of Regional Accrediting Commissions of Higher
Education (FRACHE).
The HEA was first signed into law in 1965. That law strengthened the resources available
to higher education institutions and provided financial assistance to students enrolled at those
institutions. The law was especially important to accreditation because it forced the USDE to
determine and list a much larger number of institutions eligible for federal programs (Trivett,
1976). In 1967, the NCA revoked Parsons College accreditation citing “administrative
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 29
weakness” and a $14 million debt. The college appealed but the courts denied it on the basis that
the regional accrediting associations were voluntary bodies (Woolston, 2013).
The need to deal with a much larger number of potentially eligible institutions led the US
Commissioner of Education to create in the Bureau of Higher Education the Accreditation and
Institutional Eligibility Staff (AIES) with an advisory committee. The purpose of the AIES,
which was created in 1968, was to administer the federal recognition and review process
involving the accrediting agencies (Dickey & Miller, 1972). In 1975, the National Committee on
Accrediting (NCA) and FRACHE merged to form a new organization called the Council on
Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA). The newly created national accreditation association
encompassed an astonishing array of types of postsecondary education to include community
colleges, liberal arts colleges, proprietary schools, graduate research programs, bible colleges,
trade and technical schools, and home-study programs (Chambers, 1983).
Since 1985, accountability is of paramount importance in education. According to
Woolston (2013), key developments in the accreditation process during this period include
higher education’s experiencing rising costs resulting in high student loan default rates as well as
accreditation’s enduring increasing criticism for a number of apparent shortcomings, most
ostensibly a lack of demonstrable SLOs. Similarly, various champions of the practice
increasingly, and formally, defend accreditation. For example, congressional hostility reached a
crisis stage in 1992 when Congress, in the midst of debates on the reauthorization of the HEA,
threatened to bring the role of the accrediting agencies as gatekeepers for financial aid to a close.
During the early 1990s the federal government grew increasingly intrusive in matters
directly affecting the accrediting agencies (Bloland, 2001). As a direct consequence, Subpart 1 of
Part H of the HEA amendments involved an increase role for the states in determining the
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 30
eligibility of instructions to participate in the student financial aid programs of the
aforementioned Title IV. For every state, this meant the creation of a State Postsecondary
Review Entity that would review institutions that the USDE secretary identified as having
triggered such review criteria as high default rates on student loans (Bloland, 2001). The SPREs
were short lived and, in 1994, were abandoned largely because of a lack of adequate funding.
The 1992 reauthorization also created the NACIQI to replace the AIES.
For several years, the regional accrediting agencies entertained the idea of pulling out of
COPA and forming their own national association. Based on dissatisfaction with the
organization, regional accrediting agencies proposed a resolution to terminate COPA by the end
of 1993. Following a successful vote on the resolution, COPA was effectively terminated
(Bloland, 2001). A special committee, generated by the COPA plan of dissolution of April 1993,
created the Commission on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation (CORPA) to continue
the work of recognizing accrediting agencies (Bloland, 2001). However, CORPA was formed
primarily as an interim organization to continue national recognition of accreditation. In 1995,
national leaders in accreditation formed the National Policy Board (NPB) to shape the creation
and legitimization of a national organization overseeing accreditation. The national leaders in
accreditation were adamant that the new organization should reflect higher education’s needs
rather than those of postsecondary education. Following numerous intensive meetings, a new
organization named CHEA was formed in 1996 as the official successor to CORPA (Bloland,
2001).
In 1996, the Spellings Commission “on the future of higher education” delivered the
verdict that accreditation “has significant shortcomings” (USDE Test, 2006, p. 7) and accused
accreditation of being both ineffective and a barrier to innovation. Since the release of the
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 31
Spellings Commissions, the next significant event on the subject of accreditation came during
President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address on February 12, 2013. In conjunction with
the president’s address, the White House released a nine-page document titled “The President’s
Plan for a Strong Middle Class and a Strong America.” The document stated that the president
was going to call on Congress to consider value, affordability, and student outcomes in making
determinations about which colleges and universities receive access to federal student aid, either
by incorporating measures of value and affordability into the existing accreditation system or by
establishing a new, alternative system of accreditation that would provide pathways for higher
education models and colleges to receive federal student aid based on performance and results
(White House, 2013).
International Accreditation in Higher Education
The United States developed a unique accreditation process (Brittingham, 2009). The
most obvious difference between the US and other countries is in the way education is governed.
In the US, education is governed at the state level, whereas other nations are often governed by a
ministry of education (Ewell, 2008; Middaugh, 2012). Dill (2007) outlined three traditional
models of accreditation. These include “the European model of central control of quality
assurance by state educational ministries, the US model of decentralized quality assurance
combining limited state control with market competition, and the British model in which the
state essentially ceded responsibility for quality assurance to self-accrediting universities” (p. 3).
These models were used in some form by other nations in South America, Africa, and Asia.
Historically, direct government regulation (the European model) of higher education is the most
prevalent form of institutional oversight outside of the United States (Dickeson, 2009).
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 32
Unfortunately, the low level of autonomy historically granted to post-secondary
institutions limited their ability to effectively compete against institutions in the United States
and other countries (Dewatripont et. al, 2010; Jacobs & Van der Ploeg, 2006; Sursock & Smidt,
2010). Overall, European institutions “suffer from poor governance, are insufficiently
autonomous and offer often insufficient incentives to devote time to research,” (Dewatripont et
al., 2010, p. 3). Many European countries have a “very centralized” system of higher education,
such as France, Germany, Italy, and Spain (Van der Ploeg & Veugelers, 2008). In addition, the
level of governmental intervention inhibits European universities from innovating and reacting
quickly to changing demands (Van der Ploeg & Veugelers, 2008).
Institutions in Europe with low levels of autonomy have historically had little to no
control in areas including hiring faculty, managing budgets, and setting wages (Aghion,
Dewatripont, Hoxby, Mas-Colell, & Sapir, 2008). Thus, it is difficult for universities with low
autonomy to attract and retain the faculty needed to compete for top spots in global ranking
indices (Aghion, et. al, 2008; Jacobs & Van der Ploeg, 2006; Dewatripont, et. al., 2010).
However, some European nations, including Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, and the
United Kingdom, highly reformed their higher education systems. Not surprisingly, universities
with high autonomy in these countries have higher levels of research performance compared to
those in European countries with low levels of institutional autonomy (Dewatripont et. al., 2010).
This sentiment is echoed by Aghion et al (2008) in arguing that research performance (which has
an impact on academic prestige and rankings) is negatively affected by less institutional
autonomy.
While research on accreditation’s direct impact on SLOs is sparse, Jacobs and Van der
Ploeg (2006) argue the European system of greater regulation has some benefits. They concluded
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 33
that institutions in continental Europe had better access for students from lower socioeconomic
status, better outcomes in terms of student completion, and even lower spending per student.
Internationalization of Accreditation
Due to globalization, there is an increased focus on assuring quality of standards in
higher education across nations. Assessment frameworks are initiated and modified to meet these
increased demands for accountability (World Bank, 2002). Recent studies tried to compare these
assessment trends across multiple countries.
Bernhard (2011) conducted a comparative analysis of such reforms in six countries
(Austria, Germany, Finland, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada). Stensaker and
Harvey (2011) identified a growing trend that nations rely on forms of accreditation distinctly
different from the US accreditation processes. Specifically, they identified the academic audit as
an increasingly used alternative in countries such as Australia and Hong Kong. Specifically,
Yung-chi Hou (2014) examined challenges the Asia-Pacific region faces in implementing quality
standards that cross national boundaries.
Another outcome of globalization is the internationalization of the quality-assurance
process itself. Rather than each nation setting its own assessment frameworks, international
accords attempt to bridge academic quality issues between nations. Student mobility across
national borders drives this need for “international mutual accreditation networks” (Van Damme,
2000, p. 17). Over the last decade, many loosely or unconnected initiatives formed.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2005) began the
discussion on guidelines for international best practices in higher education. The International
Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education is a network of quality assurance
agencies aimed at helping ensure cross-border quality assurance measures. Public-policy led
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 34
initiatives in Europe include the establishment of the “European Standards and Guidelines for
quality assurance in higher education (ESG) in the framework of the Bologna Process”
(Cremonini et al., 2012, p. 17). The CHEA International Quality Group provides a forum to
discuss quality assurance issues in an international context.
In conclusion, the US system of accreditation serves as a model for higher education
assessment worldwide. Nonetheless, there is considerable difference in how other nations govern
quality assurance. While internationalization of the higher education accreditation process will
continue to increase, the precise frameworks used to achieve cross-national quality standards
remain undetermined. For the immediate future, nations will continue to use their own
frameworks for accreditation. International accreditation processes may eventually supersede
these existing frameworks, but not anytime soon.
Specialized Accreditation
Specialized accreditation or programmatic accreditation is granted and monitored by
national organizations (Adelman & Silver, 1990; Eaton, 2009; Hagerty & Stark, 1989) and
focuses on the specialized training and knowledge needed for professional degrees and careers.
The Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education, the Accrediting Council on Education in
Journalism and Mass Communications, the Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia
Educational Programs, the Council on Social Work Education Office of Social Work
Accreditation, and the Teacher Education Accreditation Council, Inc. are just a few noted by the
CHEA. CHEA is associated with 3,000 degree-granting colleges and universities and recognizes
60 institutional and programmatic accrediting organizations (CHEA, 2014).
As noted by the Global University Network for Innovation’s (2007) publication,
institutional accreditation focuses on academic programs in order to be effective while
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 35
supporting overall institutional accreditation goals for overall institutional success. Coordinating
institutional accreditation efforts where possible can be cost effective, since there is overlap
between the processes of regional and programmatic accreditation. However, the review process
and resource allocations can become complicated. An example of complication lies in the good
practices suggested by WASC (2009).
Programmatic accrediting organizations recognized by CHEA affirm that the standards
and processes of the accrediting organization are consistent with CHEA’s academic quality,
improvement and accountability expectations (CHEA, 2014). Institutions acknowledge the
pressure of meeting institutional and specialized accreditation programs, upholding the notion of
efficacy of students and professions (Bloland, 2001), and specialized program accreditation
carries distinctive institutional quality assurance importance because differences between
programs within an institution can be greater when compared to the entire institution. The
credibility of program accreditation review is strengthened by the fact that it is focused on a
particular area of study and carried out by colleagues from peer institutions who are specialists in
those areas (Ratcliff, 1996).
Research on program accreditation suffers from the same lack of volume and rigor as
research on institutional accreditation. Nonetheless, strong faculty involvement and instruction
are linked to individual program accreditation (Cabrera, Colbeck, & Terenzini, 2001; Daoust,
Wehmeyer, & Eubank, 2006). Studies focused on student outcomes in measuring competencies
find that program accreditation does not provide enough support for student success (Hagerty &
Stark, 1989) and that program accreditation both outlines the parameters of professional
education (Ewell, Wellman, & Paulson, 1997; Hagerty & Stark, 1989) and upholds the national
professional standards (American Accounting Association, 1977; Bardo, 2009; Floden, 1980;
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 36
Raessler, 1970). These results call for further empirical research on specialized accreditation
given its importance on students’ educational and professional achievement.
Effects of Accreditation
This section of the literature review examines the effects of accreditation, focusing
primarily on the assessment of SLOs. Specifically, outcomes assessment serves two main
purposes: quality improvement and external accountability (Bresciani, 2006; Ewell, 2009). Over
the years, institutions of higher education made considerable strides with regard to learning
assessment practices and implementation. Yet, despite such progress, key challenges still remain.
The trend toward learning assessment over the years is included in the accrediting
standards of the accrediting institutions. The shift within higher education accreditation toward
greater accountability and student learning assessment began in the mid-1980s (Beno, 2004;
Ewell, 2001; Wergin, 2005, 2012). During that time, higher education was portrayed in the
media as “costly, inefficient, and insufficiently responsive to its public” (Bloland, 2001, p. 34).
The impetus behind the public’s concern stemmed from two reasons: first was the perception that
students were underperforming academically, and second was the demand of the business sector
(Ewell, 2001). Employers and business leaders expressed their need for college graduates who
could demonstrate high levels of literacy, problem solving ability, and collaborative skills in
order to support the emerging knowledge economy of the 21
st
century. In response to these
concerns, institutions of higher education started emphasizing SLOs as the main process of
evaluating effectiveness (Beno, 2004).
Framework for Learning Assessment
Accreditation is widely considered a significant driving force behind advances in both
student learning and outcomes assessment. According to Rhodes (2012), in recent years,
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 37
accreditation contributed to the proliferation of assessment practices, lexicon, and even products
such as e-portfolios, which are used to show evidence of student learning.
Kuh and Ikenberry (2009) surveyed provosts or chief academic officers at all regionally
accredited institutions granting undergraduate degrees and found that student assessment was
driven more by accreditation than by external pressures such as government or employers.
Another major finding was that most institutions planned to continue their assessment of SLOs
despite budgetary constraints. They also found that gaining faculty support and involvement
remained a major challenge.
Additionally, college and university faculty and student affairs practitioners stressed how
students must now acquire proficiency in a wide variety of learning outcomes to adequately
address the unique and complex challenges of today’s ever-changing, economically competitive,
and increasingly globalizing society. In 2007, the Association of American Colleges and
Universities published a report focusing on the aims and outcomes of a 21
st
century collegiate
education, with data gathered through surveys, focus groups, and discussions with postsecondary
faculty. Emerging from the report were four “essential learning outcomes:” knowledge of human
cultures and the physical and natural world through study in science and mathematics, social
sciences, humanities, history, languages, and the arts; intellectual and practical skills, including
inquiry and analysis, critical and creative thinking, written and oral communication, quantitative
skills, information literacy, and teamwork and problem-solving abilities; personal and social
responsibility, including civic knowledge and engagement, multicultural competence, ethics, and
foundations and skills for lifelong learning; and integrative learning, including synthesis and
advanced understanding across general and specialized studies (p. 12). With the adoption of such
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 38
frameworks or similar tools at institutions, accreditors can be well positioned to connect teaching
and learning and, as a result, better engage faculty to improve SLOs (Rhodes, 2012).
Benefits of Accreditation on Learning
Various empirical studies focus on accreditation and student performance assessment,
with several pointing to benefits of the accreditation process. Ruppert (1994) conducted case
studies in Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, and Wisconsin to evaluate different accountability programs based on student
performance indicators. The report concluded that, “quality indicators appear most useful if
integrated in a planning process designed to coordinate institutional efforts to attain state
priorities” (p. 155).
Accreditation is helping shape outcomes inside college classrooms. Specifically, Cabrera
et al. (2001) investigated classroom practices and their relationship with the learning gains in
professional competencies among undergraduate engineering students. The study involved 1,250
students from seven universities. It found that the expectations of accrediting agencies may be
encouraging more widespread use of effective instructional practices by faculty.
A study by Volkwein, Lattuca, Harper, and Domingo (2007) measured changes in student
outcomes in engineering programs following the implementation of new accreditation standards
by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. Based on the data collected from a
national sample of engineering programs, the authors noted that the new accreditation standards
were, indeed, a catalyst for change, as they found evidence that linked the accreditation changes
to improvements in undergraduate education. Students experienced significant gains in the
application of knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering; usage of modern
engineering tools; use of experimental skills to analyze and interpret data; designing solutions to
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 39
engineering problems; teamwork and group work; effective communication; understanding of
professional and ethical obligations; understanding of the societal and global context of
engineering solutions; and recognition of the need for life-long learning. The authors also found
accreditation prompted faculty to engage in professional development-related activity. Thus, the
study showed the effectiveness of accreditation as a mechanism for quality assurance (Volkwein
et al., 2006).
Organizational Effects of Accreditation
Beyond SLOs, accreditation also has considerable effects on an organizational level.
Procopio (2010) noted that the process of acquiring accreditation influences perceptions of
organizational culture. According to the study, administrators are more satisfied than staff – and
especially more so than faculty – when rating organizational climate, information flow,
involvement in decisions, and utility of meetings. “These findings suggest institutional role is an
important variable to consider in any effort to affect organizational culture through accreditation
buy-in” (Procopio, 2010, p. 10). Similarly, Weidman (1992) describes how the two-year process
of reaffirming accreditation at a public university drives the change of institutional culture.
Meanwhile, Brittingham (2009) explains that accreditation offers organizational-level
benefits for colleges and universities. The commonly acknowledged benefits include students’
access to federal financial aid funding, legitimacy in the public, consideration for foundation
grants and employer tuition credits, positive reflection among peers, and government
accountability. However, Brittingham (2009) points out that there are “not often recognized”
benefits as well (Brittingham, 2009, p. 18). For example, accreditation is cost-effective,
particularly when contrasting the number of personnel to carry out quality assurance procedures
in the United States versus internationally, where it is far more regulated. Second, “participation
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 40
in accreditation is good professional development” because those who lead a self-study come to
learn about their institution with more breadth and depth (Brittingham, 2009, p. 19). Third, self-
regulation by institutions – if done properly – is a better system than government regulation, and,
fourth, “regional accreditation gathers a highly diverse set of institutions under a single tent,
providing conditions that support student mobility for purposes of transfer and seeking a higher
degree” (Brittingham, 2009, p. 19).
Future Assessment Recommendations
Many higher education institutions developed plans and strategies to measure SLOs, and
such assessments are already in use to improve institutional quality (Beno, 2004). For future
actions, CHEA, in its 2012 Final Report, recommends further enhancing the commitment to
public accountability:
Working with the academic and accreditation communities, explore the adoption and
implementation of a small set of voluntary institutional performance indicators based on
mission that can be used to signal acceptable academic effectiveness and to inform
students and the public of the value and effectiveness of accreditation and higher
education. Such indicators would be determined by individual colleges and universities,
not government. (p. 7)
In addition, Brittingham (2012) outlines three developments that can influence
accreditation and increase its ability to improve educational effectiveness. First, accreditation is
growing more focused on data and evidence, which strengthens its value as a means of quality
assurance and quality improvement. Second, “technology and open-access education are
changing our understanding of higher education” (p. 65). These innovations – such as massive
open online courses – hold enormous potential to open up higher education sources. As a result,
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 41
this trend will heighten the focus on SLOs. Third, “with an increased focus on accountability –
quality assurance – accreditation is challenged to keep, and indeed strengthen, its focus on
institutional and programmatic improvement” (p. 68). This becomes particularly important amid
the current period of rapid change.
Assessment is critical to the future of higher education. The WASC agency presiding
over community colleges, ACCJC, revised its standards in 2002 and again in 2014 (ACCJC,
2014). In 2002, SLOs had a significant role in the standards and again in the updated 2014
revision. As noted earlier, outcome assessment serves two main purposes: quality improvement
and external accountability (Bresciani, 2006; Ewell, 2009). The practice of assessing learning
outcomes is now widely adopted by colleges and universities since its introduction in the mid-
1980s. Assessment is also a requirement of the accreditation process. However, outcomes
assessment in higher education is still a work in progress and there is still a fair amount of
challenges (Kuh & Ewell, 2010).
Organization Learning Challenges
First, there is the organizational culture and learning issue. Assessment, as clearly stated
by the American Association for Higher Education (1992), “is not an end in itself but a vehicle
for educational improvement.” The process of assessment is not a means unto its own end.
Instead, it provides an opportunity for continuous organizational learning and improving (Maki,
2010). Too often, institutions assemble and report sets of mountainous data just to comply with
federal or state accountability policy or accreditation agency’s requirements. However, after the
report is submitted, the evaluation team has left, and the accreditation is confirmed, there are few
incentives to act on the findings for further improvement. The root causes of deficiencies
identified are rarely followed up and real solutions are never sought (Ewell, 2005; Wolff, 2005).
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 42
Another concern pointed out by Ewell (2005) is that accreditation agencies tend to
emphasize the process, rather than the outcomes, once the assessment infrastructure is
established. The accreditors are satisfied with a formal statement and goals of learning outcomes,
but do not query further about how, the appropriateness of, and to what degree these learning
goals are applied in the teaching and learning process. As a result, the process tends to be single-
loop learning where changes reside at a surface level, instead of double-loop learning where
changes are incorporated in the practices, beliefs, and norms (Bensimon, 2005).
Lack of Faculty Buy-In
Lack of faculty’s buy-in and participation is another hurdle in the adoption of assessment
practice (Kuh & Ewell, 2010). In a 2009 survey by the National Institute for Learning Outcomes
Assessment, two-thirds of all 2,809 surveyed schools noted that more faculty involvement in
learning assessment would be helpful (Kuh & Ikenberry, 2009). According to Ewell (1993, 2002,
2005) there are several reasons faculty is inclined to be directly involved in the assessment
process. First, faculty view teaching and curriculum development as their domain. Assessing
their teaching performance and SLOs by external groups can be viewed as an intrusion into their
professional authority and academic freedom. Second, the extra efforts and time required for
engaging in outcome assessment and the unconvincing added value perceived by faculty can be
another deterrent. Furthermore, external bodies impose the compliance-oriented assessment
requirements and most faculty members participate in the process indirectly. They tend to show a
lukewarm attitude and leave the assessment work to administrative staff. In addition, faculty
might have a different view on the definitions and measures of “quality” than that of institution
or accreditors (Perrault, Gregory, & Carey, 2002, p. 273). Finally, the assessment process incurs
a tremendous amount of work and resources. To cut costs, the majority of the work is done by
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 43
administration at the institution. Faculty consequently perceives assessment as an exercise
performed by administration for external audiences, instead of embracing the process.
Lack of Institutional Investment
Shortage of resources and institutional support is another challenge in the implementation
of assessment practice. As commented by Beno (2004), “[d]eciding on the most effective
strategies for teaching and for assessing learning will require experimentation, careful research,
analyses, and time” (p. 67). With continuously dwindling federal and state funding in the last two
decades, higher education, particularly at the public institutions, is stripped of resources to
support such an endeavor. A case in point is the recession in early 1990s. Budget cuts forced
many states to abandon the state assessment mandates originated in mid-1980s and to switch to
process-based performance indicators as a way to gain efficiency in large public institutions
(Ewell, 2005). The 2009 National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment survey shows that
the majority of the surveyed institutions undercapitalized resources, tools, and expertise for
assessment work. Twenty percent of respondents indicated they had no assessment staff and 65%
had two or less (Kuh & Ewell, 2010; Kuh & Ikenberry, 2009). The resource issue is further
described by Beno (2004) in the following statement:
A challenge for community colleges is to develop the capacity to discuss what the results
of learning assessment mean, to identify ways of improving student learning, and to make
institutional commitments to that improvement by planning, allocating needed resources,
and implementing strategies for improvement. (p. 67)

PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 44
Difficulty with Integration into Local Practice
Integrating the value and institutionalizing the practice of assessment into daily
operations can be another tall order in many institutions. In addition to redirecting resources,
leadership’s involvement and commitment, faculty’s participation, and adequate assessment
personnel contribute to the success of cultivating a sustainable assessment culture and framework
on campus (Banta, 1993; Kuh & Ewell, 2010; Lind & McDonald, 2003; Maki, 2010).
Furthermore, assessment activities, imposed by external authorities, tend to be implemented as
an addition to, rather than an integral part of, an institutional practice (Ewell, 2002). Assessment,
like accreditation, is viewed as a special process with its own funding and committee, instead of
being part of regular business operations. Finally, the work of assessment, program reviews, self-
study, and external accreditation at institutional and academic program levels tends to be handled
by various offices on campus, and coordinating the work can be another challenge (Perrault,
Gregory, & Carey, 2002).
Colleges also tend to adopt the institutional isomorphic approach by modeling themselves
after peers who are more legitimate or successful in dealing with similar situations, and this
practice is widely used to gain acceptance (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). As reported by Ewell
(1993), institutions are prone to “second-guess” and adopt the type of assessment practice
acceptable by external agencies as a safe approach instead of adopting or customizing the one
appropriate to the local needs and situation (Ewell, 1993). Institutional isomorphism offers a
safer and more predictable route for institutions to deal with uncertainty and competition, to
confirm to government mandates or accreditation requirements, or to abide by professional
practices (Bloland, 2001). However, the strategy of following the crowd might hinder in-depth
inquiry of a unique local situation as well as the opportunity for innovation and creativity.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 45
Furthermore, decision makers may be unintentionally trapped in a culture of doing what
everyone is doing without carefully examining unique local situations, the logic, the
appropriateness, and the limitations behind the common practice (Miles, 2012).
Lack of assessment standards and clear terminology presents another challenge in
assessment and accreditation practice (Ewell, 2001). With no consensus on vocabulary, methods,
and instrument, assessment practice and outcomes can have limited value. As reported by Ewell
(2005), the absence of outcome metrics makes it difficult for state authorities to aggregate
performance across multiple institutions and to communicate the outcomes to the public. The
exercise of benchmarking is also impossible. Beesciani (2006) stressed the importance of
developing a conceptual definition, framework, and common language at institutional level.
Outcome Equity
Outcome assessment that focuses on students’ academic performance while overlooking
the equity and disparity of diverse student population, as well as the student engagement and
campus climate issues, is another area of concern. In discussing local financing of community
colleges, Dowd and Grant (2006) stressed the importance of including “outcome equity” in
addition to performance-based budget allocation. Outcome equity pays special attention to the
equal outcomes of educational attainment among populations of different social, economic, and
racial groups (Dowd, 2003).
Tension Between Improvement and Accountability
The tension between the twin goals of outcomes assessment, quality improvement and
external accountability can be another factor affecting outcome assessment practice. According
to Ewell (2009, 2008), assessment practice evolved over the years into two contrasting
paradigms. The first paradigm, assessment for improvement, emphasizes constant evaluating and
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 46
enhancing the process or outcomes, while the other paradigm, assessment for accountability,
demands conformity to a set of established standards mandated by the state or accrediting
agencies. The strategies, the instrumentation, the methods of gathering evidences, the reference
points, and the way results are utilized of these two paradigms tend to be at the opposite end of
the spectrum (Ewell, 2009, 2008). For example, in the improvement paradigm, assessment is
mainly used internally to address deficiencies and enhance teaching and learning. It requires
periodic evaluation and formative assessment to track progress over time. On the other hand, the
accountability paradigm assessment is designed to demonstrate institutional effectiveness and
performance to external constituencies and to comply with pre-defined standards or expectations.
The process tends to be performed on set schedules as a summative assessment. The nature of
these two constraints can create tension and conflict within an institution. Consequently, an
institution’s assessment program is unlikely to achieve both objectives. Ewell (2009) further
pointed out that, “When institutions are presented with an intervention that is claimed to embody
both accountability and improvement, accountability wins” (p. 8).
Transparency Challenges
Finally, for outcome assessment to be meaningful and accountable, the process and
information need to be shared and open to the public (Ewell, 2005). Accreditation has long been
criticized as mysterious or secretive with little information to share with stakeholders (Ewell,
2010). In a 2006 survey, CHEA reported that only 18% of the 66 accreditors surveyed provide
information about the results of individual reviews publicly; less than 17% of accreditors provide
a summary on student academic achievement or program performance; and just over 33% of
accreditors offer a descriptive summary about the characteristics of accredited institutions or
programs (CHEA, 2006). In the 2014 Inside Higher Education survey, only 9% of 846 college
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 47
presidents indicate that it is very easy to find student outcomes data on the institution’s website,
and only half of the respondents agree that it is appropriate for federal government to collect and
publish data on outcomes of college graduates (Jaschik & Ledgerman, 2014). With the public
disclosure requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, there is an impetus for higher
education and accreditation agencies to be more open to public and policy makers. It is expected
that further openness will contribute to more effective and accountable business practices as well
as to the improvement of educational quality.
Conclusion of the Effects of Accreditation
In the three decades since the birth of the assessment movement in US higher education,
a reasonable amount of progress was made (Ewell, 2005). Systematic assessment of SLOs is now
a common practice at most institutions, as reported by two nationwide surveys. The 2009
National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment shows that more than 75% of surveyed
institutions adopted common learning outcomes for all undergraduate students, and most
institutions conduct assessments at both the instructional and program level (Kuh & Ikenberry,
2009). The 2008 survey performed by the Association of American Colleges and Universities
also reported that 78% of the 433 surveyed institutions have a common set of learning outcomes
for all their undergraduate students and 68% of the institutions also assess learning outcomes at
the departmental level (Hart Research Associates, 2009).
As the public concern about the performance and quality of American colleges and
universities continues to grow, it is more imperative than ever to embed assessment in the
everyday work of teaching and using assessment outcomes to further improve practice, to inform
decision makers, to communicate effectively with the public, and to be accountable for preparing
the national learners in the knowledge economy. With effort, transparency, continuous
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 48
improvement and responsiveness to society’s demands, higher education institutions will be able
to regain the public’s trust.
Costs of Accreditation
Gaston (2014) discusses the various costs associated with accreditation. Institutions are
required to pay annual fees to the accrediting body. If an institution is applying for initial
accreditation, they are required to pay an application fee as well as to pay additional fees as it
progresses through the process. The institution seeking accreditation also pays for any on-site
reviews. In addition to these “external” costs, there are internal costs that must be calculated as
well. These internal costs can include faculty and administrative time invested in the assessment
and self-study, volunteer service in accreditation activities, preparation of annual or periodic
filings, and attendance at mandatory accreditation meetings (p. 9).
Costs of initial accreditation can vary greatly from region to region; however, regardless
of the region, the costs are substantial. It can cost an institution $23,500 to pursue initial
accreditation through the HLC, regardless of whether the pursuit is successful or not. This does
not include the costs associated with the three required on-site visits nor the dues that must be
paid during the application and candidacy period. For example, the applicant and candidacy fees
for the SACS are $12,500 (HLC Initial, 2012)
Shibley and Volkwein (2002) claim there is limited research on the costs of accreditation
within the literature. Calculating the cost can be very complex, as institutions must evaluate both
monetary and non-monetary costs of going through the accreditation process. One of the most
complex and difficult items to evaluate is time. Reidlinger and Prager (1993) state there are two
reasons thorough cost-based analyses of accreditation were not pursued. First, there is a belief
that voluntary accreditation is preferable to governmental control and that it is worth the cost,
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 49
despite the price. Second, it is difficult to relate perceived benefits of accreditation to an actual
dollar amount (p. 39).
CHEA began publishing an almanac in 1997 and continues to release a revised version
every two years. This almanac looks at accreditation practices across the United States on the
macro-level. Data analyzed includes number of volunteers, number of employees, and unit
operating budgets of the regional accrediting organizations. Little, if any, information is provided
on costs incurred by individual institutions as they go through the accreditation process.
In 1998, the NCA completed a self-study which examined the perception of accreditation
costs among the institutions within that region (Lee & Crow, 1998). The study revealed some
significant findings, which included the variance of responses among institutional type. Research
and doctoral institutions were less apt to claim that benefits outweighed costs while also
responding less positively than other types of institutions regarding the effectiveness and benefits
of accreditation. The study suggested that well-established research and doctoral institutions
might already have internal processes in place that serve the traditional function of the
accreditation process. In such a case, a traditional audit system could serve as an appropriate
alternative to the formal process by the regional accreditation organization. In looking at the
results of all institutional types, the self-study found that 53% of respondents considered that the
benefits of accreditation outweighed the costs. Approximately 33% of respondents considered
benefits of accreditation to be equal to the costs. The remaining 13% believed that the costs of
accreditation outweighed the benefits. Similar case studies were conducted by Warner (1977) on
WASC and by Pigge (1979) on the Committee on Postsecondary Accreditation. In both studies,
cost was labeled as a significant concern of the accreditation process. Budget allocations were
also affected by accreditation results. Warner (1977) found that approximately one third of
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 50
responding institutions changed budget allocations based on accreditation results; however, there
was no further exploration. The majority of respondents in the Warner (1977) and Pigge (1979)
studies believed that, despite the costs of accreditation, the benefits outweighed the costs.
Institutions go through three stages when preparing for accreditation. Wood (2006)
developed the model, which includes the release time required for the various coordinators of the
accreditation review, the monetary costs of training, staff support, materials, and the site visit of
the accreditation team. Each of these stages triggers cost to the institution. Willis (1994) also
examined these costs but differentiated between direct and indirect costs. Direct costs include
items such as accreditation fees, operating expenses (specific to the accreditation process), direct
payments to individuals who participate in the process, self-study costs, travel costs, and site
visit costs. Indirect costs measure things such as time. Willis (1994) identified indirect costs as
“probably many times greater than the direct costs due mainly to the personnel time required at
the institution” (p. 40). He suggests that caution is exercised when evaluating these costs, and
that they should not be underestimated. He states that, many times, the normal tasks that cannot
be completed by individuals with accreditation responsibilities are distributed to other
individuals who are not identified as a participants in the accreditation process.
Kennedy, Moore, and Thibadoux (1985) attempted to establish a methodology for how
costs are determined, with particular interest given to monetizing time spent on the accreditation
process. They looked at a time frame of approximately 15 months, from initial planning of the
self-study through the presentation of the study. They used time logs to gather data on time spent
by faculty and administrative staff. There was a high return rate for the time logs (79% were
fully completed, with a 93% return rate overall). They discovered that the time spent by faculty
and administrative staff accounted for 94% of the total cost of the accreditation review, over two-
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 51
thirds of which as attributed to administrative staff. These figures demonstrate the fact that the
time required by both faculty and administrative staff is the most significant cost involved in the
accreditation process. It was concluded that this cost was not excessive, as there is a seven-year
span between each self-study review process.
Kells and Kirkwood (1979) conducted a study in the middle states region to look at the
direct costs of participating in a self-study. Almost 50% of the respondents reportedly spent
under $5,000 on the self-study, which was not defined as excessive. It was also determined that
there was a maximum number of between 100 and 125 people directly involved in the self-study.
The majority of participants were faculty (41-50%), followed by staff (21-30%), and very few
students. The size of the institution was believed to have had the greatest impact on the
composition of the self-study committee (number of faculty versus staff) as well as the cost of
the self-study itself.
Doerr (1983) used a case study to explore the direct costs of accreditation and to examine
the benefits received from accreditation when university executives wish to pursue additional
programmatic accreditations. Both financial costs and opportunity costs of institutional
accreditation granted by SACS and four programmatic accreditations cultivated by the
University of West Florida during the 1981-1982 term were examined. Doerr assigned an
average wage per hour to faculty and administrative staff while also adding in the cost of
material supplies. It was estimated that the total direct costs of accreditation for these reviews
totaled $50,030.71. It was also projected that there would be additional costs in the following
years, particularly membership costs for the accrediting organizations and those costs associated
with preparing for additional programmatic reviews. He concluded by looking at the opportunity
costs while examining alternative ways this money might have been spent.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 52
Shibley and Volkwein (2002) evaluated the benefits of a joint accreditation by
conducting a case study of a public institution in the middle states region. This institution has
multiple accrediting relationships, including both institutional and programmatic reviews. They
confirmed what Willis (1994) suggested: “the true sense of burden arose from the time
contributed to completing the self-study process rather than from finding the financial resources
to support self-study needs” (Shibley & Volkwein, 2002, p.8). They found that the separate
accreditation processes had more benefits for individuals than did the joint effort; however, the
joint process was less costly and the sense of burden for participants was reduced.
There are several studies on the expense of accreditation and its value to institutions. Britt
and Aaron (2008) distributed surveys to radiology programs without specialized accreditation.
These institutions reported expense was the primary factor in not pursuing accreditation. A
secondary consideration was the time required to go through the process. Many respondents
indicated that a decrease in the expense would allow them to consider pursuing accreditation in
the future. Bitter, Stryker, and Jens (1999) and Kren, Tatum, and Phillips (1993) looked at
specialized accreditation for accounting. Both studies found that non-accredited programs
believed that accreditation costs outweighed the benefits. Many programs claim they follow
accreditation standards; however, there is no empirical evidence to prove that this is true. Since
the programs do not go through the accreditation process, there is no way to verify if they
actually meet the established accreditation standards.
Cost is frequently used as a factor as to why institutions have not pursued accreditation.
In addition to direct costs of accreditation, factors such as resources, time, energy and energy
spent are also included. The Florida State Postsecondary Planning Commission (1995) defined
costs in a variety of ways and only sometimes included indirect costs as part of the definition.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 53
Benefits potentially affect up to three groups: students, departments, and the institution. The
commission recommended that institutions seeking accreditation balance the direct and indirect
costs with the potential benefits to each group before making a decision.
As a result of the concerns of the higher education community and the research on the
costs associated with accreditation, both NACIQI and the American Council on Education
(ACE) published reports in 2012. These reports call for a cost-benefit analysis of the
accreditation process in an attempt to reduce excessive and unnecessary costs. NACIQI
recommends that data gathering be responsive to standardized expectations and that it would
only seek out information that is useful and that cannot be found elsewhere (NACIQI Final,
2012, p. 7). The ACE task force calls for an evaluation of required protocols such as the self-
study, the extent and frequency of on-site visits, expanded opportunities for the use of
technology, greater reliance on existing data, and the evaluation of potential duplication of
requirements imposed by different agencies and the federal government (ACE, 2012, pp. 26-27).
The cost of accreditation can be defined in many ways, including both time and money.
Schermerhorn, Reisch, and Griffith (1980) indicated that the time commitment required by
institutions to prepare for accreditation was one of the most significant barriers of the entire
process.
Due to the limited amount of research in the area on the cost-benefit analysis of the
accreditation process, Woolston (2012) conducted a study entitled, “The costs of institution
accreditation: A study of direct and indirect costs.” This study consisted of distributing a survey
to all regionally accredited institutions of higher education in the United States who grant
baccalaureate degrees. The survey was sent via email to the primary regional Accreditation
Liaison Officer (ALO) for each institution. It targeted four primary areas: demographic
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 54
information, direct costs, indirect costs, and an open-ended section allowing for possible
explanation for the costs. Results showed that one of the most complicated tasks is to determine
the monetary value of the time associated with going through the accreditation process. Through
analysis of the open-ended response questions, ALOs indicated that two of the principal benefits
of going through accreditation were self-evaluation and university improvement. Other themes
emerged: campus unity, outside review, ability to offer federal financial aid, reputation, sharing
best practices, celebration, and fear associated with not being accredited. While it was agreed
that costs are significant and excessive, many ALOs believe the costs are justified and the
benefits of accreditation outweigh both direct and indirect costs.
Critical Assessment of Accreditation
Accreditation, it seems, evolved from simpler days of semi-informal peer assessment into
a burgeoning industry of detailed analysis, SLO assessment, quality and performance review,
financial analysis, public attention, and all-around institutional scrutiny (Bloland, 2001; Burke &
Minassians, 2002; McLendon, Hearn, & Deaton, 2006; Zis, Boeke, & Ewell, 2010). Public
scrutiny of institutions to establish their worth, their contribution to student learning, and a
progressively regulated demand for institutional proof of success shown by evidence and
assessment changed accreditation and created a vacuum of knowledge about how it truly works
in practice (Commission on the Future of Higher Education, 2006; Dougherty, Hare, & Natow,
2009; Leef & Burris, 2002). WASC-ACCJC’s recent history demonstrated profound changes in
practices (e.g., updated standards for accreditation and a rising rate of institutional sanctions) and
the need for more information concerning the relationship of accreditation to institutional data
(Baker, 2002). Initial data collection found that 55% of all California community colleges were
sanctioned once since 2002 (Moltz, 2010).
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 55
Measures of inputs, outputs, local control versus governmental review, performance
funding versus institutional choice, rising demands, and institutional costs make difficult the task
of understanding trends and movement of regional accreditation in the United States, but,
nevertheless, have a great influence upon actual implementation of accreditation standards to
real-world institutions (Leef & Burris, 2002). There are calls for increased public transparency of
accreditation findings and actions, including full publication of reports by the commission and by
the institutions in question. For example, some institutions are sanctioned for deficiencies and
may be given a detailed list of reporting deadlines to show compliance and ongoing quality
review for those areas noted to be lacking. Some correspondence between accreditation
commissions and the institutions are public whereas others are private. Therefore, this semi-
public nature to accreditation is a point of contention in the literature on accountability and
assessment (Eaton, 2010; Ikenberry, 2009; Kuh, 2010).
WASC-ACCJC has been “at the center of controversies” during the past ten years due to
its enlarged emphasis on SLO compliance (WASC, 2002; WASC-ACCJC, 2011). There is much
debate on whether SLOs are the best measure and appropriate to education, whether they violate
the purview of faculty members, or are truly in the best interest of students, best practices and
learning (Eaton, 2010).
Accreditation evoked emotional opposition since its inception and much was expressed in
very colorful language. Accreditation is accused of “[benefiting] the small, weak, and uncertain”
(Barzun, 1993, p. 60). It is a “pseudo-evaluative process, set up to give the appearance of self-
regulation without having to suffer the inconvenience” (Scriven, 2000, p. 272). It is a “grossly
unprofessional evaluation” (p. 271), and “it is scarcely surprising that in large areas of
accreditation, the track record on enforcement is a farce” (p. 272). Accreditors “[make] the
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 56
accreditation process a high-wire act for schools” (American Council of Trustees and Alumni,
2007, p. 12). The system of accreditation is “structured in such a way as to subordinate the
welfare of the educational institution as an entity and of the general public to the interest of
groups representing limited institutional or professional concerns” (American Medical
Association, 1971, F-3). It was stated that “accreditation standards have already fallen to the
lowest common denominator” (American Council of Trustees and Alumni, 2007, p. 16), and that
accreditation is responsible for the “homogenization of education” and the “perseverance in the
status quo” (Finkin, 1973, p. 369). “It is an impossible game with artificial counters” which
ignores the student (Learned & Wood, 1938, p. 69). It is “a crazy-quilt of activities, processes
and structures that is fragmented, arcane, more historical than logical, and has outlived its
usefulness” (Dickeson, 2006, p. 1). It “seeks not only to compare apples with grapes, but both
with camels and cods” (Wriston, 1960, p. 329). “As a mechanism for the assurance of quality,
the private voluntary accreditation agencies are a failure” (Gruson, Levine, & Lustberg, 1979, p.
6). It is “to be tolerated only as a necessary evil” (Blauch, 1959, p. 23). “While failing to protect
the taxpayer and the consumer from being ripped off by irresponsible institutions, it has also
quashed educational diversity and reform” (Finn, 1975, p. 26). At the same time (and according
to the same author) it constitutes a system of “sturdy walls and deep moats around... academic
city-states” (Carey, 2009, para. 28), and it is a “tissue-thin layer of regulation” (Carey, 2010, p.
166). “The word ‘accreditation’ is so misunderstood and so abused that it should be abandoned,”
(Kells, 1976). According to Gillen, Bennett, and Vedder (2010), “the inmates are running the
asylum” (p. i).
The renewal of the HEA in 1992 came during a time of heightened government concern
over increasing defaults in student loans. Again concerned about the lack of accountability
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 57
demonstrated by accreditation, this legislation established a new institution: the State
Postsecondary Review Entity (Ewell, 2008). The creation of these agencies was intended to shift
the review of institutions for federal aid eligibility purposes from regional accreditors to state
governments. This direct threat to accreditation led to the dissolution of COPA and the proactive
involvement of the higher education community resulting in the creation of CHEA. It was the
issue of cost that ultimately led to the abandonment of the SPREs when legislation failed to
provide funding for the initiative (Ewell, 2008). The governmental concern did not dissipate,
however, and, in 2006, the USDE released a report known as the Spellings Commission which
criticized accreditation for being both ineffective and a barrier to innovation (Eaton, 2012b;
Ewell, 2008).
Other concerns are evident. It is problematic when accreditation is considered a chore to
be accomplished as quickly and painlessly as possible rather than as an opportunity for genuine
self-reflection for improvement, and institutional self-assessment is ineffectual when there is
faculty resistance and a lack of administrative incentive (Bardo, 2009; Commission on Regional
Accrediting Commissions, n.d.; Driscoll & De Norriega, 2006; Rhodes, 2012; Smith & Finney,
2008; Wergin, 2012). One of the greatest stresses on accreditation is the tension between
assessment for the purpose of improvement and assessment for the purpose of accountability,
two concepts that operate in irresolvable conflict with each other (American Association for
Higher Education, 1997; Burke & Associates, 2005; Chernay, 1990; Ewell, 1984; Ewell, 2008;
Harvey, 2004; NACIQI, 2012; Provezis, 2010; Uehling, 1987b), although some argue that the
two can be effectively coordinated for significant positive results (Brittingham, 2012; El-
Khawas, 2001; Jackson, Davis, & Jackson, 2010; Walker, 2010; Westerheijden, Stensaker, &
Rosa, 2007; Wolff, 1990). Another concern involves the way that being held to external
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 58
standards undermines institutional autonomy, which is a primary source of strength in the
American higher education system (Ewell, 1984).
The Spellings Commission’s report detailed a new interest from the USDE in critiquing
the status quo of regional accreditation commissions (Commission on the Future of Higher
Education, 2006). Ewell (2008) describes the report as a scathing rebuke of inability of regional
accreditors to innovate and a hindrance to quality improvement. Others have called for an
outright “end…. to the accreditation monopoly” (Neal, 2008). There were increasing calls within
the last several years, even since the Spellings report of 2006, to reform or altogether replace
accreditation as it is currently known (American Council of Trustees and Alumni, 2007; Gillen et
al., 2010; Neal, 2008). ACE (2012) recently convened a task force comprised of national leaders
in accreditation to explore the adequacy of the current practice of institutional accreditation.
They recognized the difficulty of reaching a consensus on many issues but, nevertheless,
recommended strengthening and reinforcing the role of self-regulation in improving academic
excellence. The Spellings Commission’s report signaled federal interest in setting the stage for
new accountability measures of higher education, raising the worst fears of some defenders of a
more autonomous, peer-regulated industry (Eaton, 2003). Accreditation’s emphasis on value and
the enhancement of individual institutions with regional standards was pressed to achieve
accountability roles for the entire sector of US higher education (Brittingham, 2008).
Alternatives
As the role of accreditation is thrust into the public spotlight within the United States, it is
important to review the alternatives to the current system that were proposed in previous years.
Generally speaking, the alternatives to accreditation proposed by scholars or administrators in the
past revolved around the common theme of increased government involvement (either at the state
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 59
or federal level). To illustrate this notion, Orlans (1975) described the development (at the
national level) of a Committee for Identifying Useful Postsecondary Schools that would
ultimately allow for accrediting agencies to focus on a wider range of schools. This committee
was part of Orlan’s greater overall idea that there be an increase in the amount of competition
amongst accrediting agencies in order to further the advancement of education (Orlans, 1975).
Trivett (1976) demonstrated there is a triangular relationship between accrediting agencies, state
governments, and federal governments:
In its ideal form, the states establish minimum legal and fiscal standards, compliance with
which signifies that the institutions can enable a student to accomplish his objectives
because the institution has the means to accomplish what it claims it will do. Federal
regulations are primarily administrative in nature. Accrediting agencies provide depth to
the evaluation process in a manner not present in either the state or federal government’s
evaluation of an institution by certifying academic standards. (pg. 7).
Trivett’s statement speaks to the ever-present relationship between accreditation agencies, state
governments, and federal governments.
Harcleroad (1976, 1980) identified six different methods for accreditation in his writings;
three vouched for an expansion of responsibility for state agencies, one called for an expansion of
federal government responsibility, and the remaining two asked for a modification of the present
system (by increasing staff members or auditors) or keeping the present system in place.
Harcleroad (1976, 1980) wrote that:
A combination of the second (present system with modifications) and third options
(increased state agency responsibility without regional and national associations) seems
the most likely plan for the near future. This possibility will become even more viable if
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 60
both regional and national associations continue refinements in their process and increase
the objectivity of an admittedly subjective activity. (pg. 46)
These methods proposed by Harcleroad clearly demonstrate a preference for increased state
government involvement within the accreditation process. Harcleroad also spoke about the use of
educational auditing and accountability as an internal review to increase both external
accountability and internal quality. This concept is modeled after the auditing system developed
by the Securities and Exchange Commission that was used to accredit financial organizations
(Harcleroad, 1976).
Another example of internal and external audits was demonstrated by the proposals in the
essay produced by three scholars (Graham, Lyman, & Trow, 1995). The essay (also known as the
Mellon report) was the result of a grant funding the study of accountability of higher education
institutions to their three major constituencies: students, government, and the public (Bloland,
2001). This essay emphasized the notion that accountability had both an internal and external
aspect, and the authors suggested that institutions conduct internal reviews (primarily within their
teaching and research units) every 5 to 10 years (Bloland, 2001). Once this internal review was
completed, an external review would then be conducted in the form of an audit on the procedures
of the internal review (Bloland, 2001). Specifically, this external audit would be conducted by
regional accrediting agencies while institutional accrediting agencies were encouraged to pay
close attention to the internal processes in order to determine if the institution can learn and
address its weaknesses (Bloland, 2001). These concepts surrounding auditing were later explored
by other authors and, most recently, were linked to discussions regarding the future of higher
education accreditation (Bernhard, 2011; Burke & Associates, 2005; Dill, Massy, Williams, &
Cook, 1996; Ewell, 2012; Ikenberry, 2009; WASC, 1998; Wolff, 2005).
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 61
In examining alternatives to accreditation, it is important to note the programs established
by regional accreditors as enhancements to current accreditation processes. For example,
NCACS-HLC established in 2000 an alternative assessment for already accredited institutions:
the Academic Quality Improvement Program. According to Spangehl (2012), this process
instilled the notion of continuous quality improvement through the processes that would
ultimately provide evidence for accreditation. An example of AQIP offering continuous
improvement for higher educational institutions would be its encouragement of institutions to use
various categories (i.e. the Helping Students Learn category allows for institutions to
continuously monitor their ongoing program and curricular design) to stimulate organizational
improvement (Spangehl, 2012).
Another alternative is the use of the Quality Enhancement Plan by SACS (Jackson et
al., 2010; SACS, 2007). QEP was adopted in 2001 and defined as an additional accreditation
requirement that would help guide institutions to produce measurable improvement in the
areas of student learning (Jackson et al., 2010). Three themes of student learning utilized by
institutions (through the use of QEP) are student engagement, critical thinking, and promoting
international tolerance (Jackson et al., 2010).
This section offered the alternatives to accreditation proposed and implemented in the
past. It is important to note that, while accreditation is criticized, the general thought is that
accreditation is a critical piece of academia and vital to accomplishing the goal of institutional
quality assurance and accountability (Bloland, 2001).
Current and Future
Accreditation in higher education is at a crossroads. Since the Spellings Report called for
more government oversight of accreditation to ensure public accountability, the government and
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 62
critics began scrutinizing a system that had been nongovernmental and autonomous for several
decades (Eaton, 2012). The US Congress is currently in the process of reauthorizing the HEA,
and is expected to address accreditation head-on. All the while, CHEA and other accreditation
supporters attempt to convince Congress, the academy, and the public at-large of the current and
future relevance of accreditation in quality higher education.
In anticipation of the HEA’s reauthorization, NACIQI was charged with providing the
US Secretary of Education with recommendations on recognition, accreditation, and student aid
eligibility (NACIQI, 2012). The committee advised that accrediting bodies should continue their
gatekeeping role for student aid eligibility, but also recommended some changes to the
accreditation process. These changes included more communication and collaboration among
accreditors, states, and the federal government to avoid overlapping responsibilities; moving
away from regional accreditation and toward sector- or mission-focused accreditation, creating
an expedited review process and developing more gradations in accreditation decisions;
developing more cost-effective data collection and consistent definitions and metrics; and
making accreditation reports publically available (NACIQI, 2012).
However, two members of the committee did not agree with the recommendations and
submitted a motion to include the Alternative to the NACIQI Draft Final Report, which
suggested eliminating accreditors’ gatekeeping role; creating a simple, cost-effective system of
quality assurance that would revoke financial aid to campuses not financially secure; eliminating
the current accreditation process altogether as a means of reducing institutional expenditures;
breaking the regional accreditation monopoly; and developing a user-friendly, expedited
alternative for the re-accreditation process (NACIQI, 2012). The motion failed to pass, and the
alternative view was not included in NACIQI’s final report. As a result, Hank Brown, former US
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 63
Senator from Colorado and founding member of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni,
drafted a report seeking accreditation reform and reiterating the alternatives suggested above,
because accreditation had “failed to protect consumers and taxpayers” (Brown, 2013, p. 1).
The same year the final NACIQI report was released, the American Council of
Education’s (ACE) Task Force on Accreditation released its own report identifying challenges
and potential solutions for accreditation (ACE, 2012). The task force made six recommendations:
increase transparency and communication, increase the focus on student success and institutional
quality, take immediate and noticeable action against failing institutions, adopt a more expedited
process for institutions with a history of good performance, create common definitions and a
more collaborative process between accreditors, and increase cost-effectiveness (ACE, 2012).
They also suggested that higher education “address perceived deficiencies decisively and
effectively, not defensively or reluctantly (ACE, 2012, p. 8).
President Obama also recently spoke out regarding accountability and accreditation in
higher education. In his 2013 State of the Union address, Obama asked Congress to “change the
HEA, so that affordability and value are included in determining which colleges receive certain
types of federal aid” (Obama, 2013a, para 39). The address was followed by “The President’s
Plan for a Strong Middle Class and a Strong America,” which suggested achieving the above
change to the HEA “either by incorporating measures of value and affordability into the existing
accreditation system; or by establishing a new, alternative system of accreditation that would
provide pathways for higher education models and colleges to receive federal student aid based
on performance and results” (Obama, 2013b, p. 5). Furthermore, in August 2013, President
Obama called for a performance-based rating system that would connect institutional
performance with financial aid distributions (Obama, 2013c). Though accreditation was not
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 64
specifically mentioned in his plan, it is not clear if the intention is to replace accreditation with
this new rating system or utilize both systems simultaneously (Eaton, 2013b).
The president’s actions over the last year have CHEA and other supporters of
nongovernmental accreditation concerned. Calling it the “most fundamental challenge that
accreditation has confronted to date,” Eaton (2012) has expressed concern over the standardized
and increasingly regulatory nature of the federal government’s influence on accreditation. Astin
(2014) also stated that if the US government creates its own process for quality control, the US
higher education system is “in for big trouble” (para. 9), like the government-controlled, Chinese
higher education system.
Though many agree there will be an inevitable increase in federal oversight after the
reauthorization of the HEA, supporters of the accreditation process offered recommendations for
minimizing the effect. Gaston (2014) provides six categories of suggestions, which include
stages for implementation: consensus and alignment, credibility, efficiency, agility and
creativity, decisiveness and transparency, and a shared vision. The categories maintain the
aspects of accreditation that worked well and that are strived for around the world –
nongovernmental, peer review – as well as addressing the areas receiving the most criticism.
Eaton (2013a) adds that accreditors and institutions must push for streamlining of the federal
review of accreditors as a means to reduce federal oversight, better communicate the
accomplishments of accreditation and how quality peer-review benefits students, and anticipate
any further actions the federal government may take.
More recently, in January 2015, the California Community College Board of Governors
deleted language from Title 5 regulations that gave the ACCJC sole authority over accreditation
of the state’s community colleges (Glass, 2015). This regulatory change was recommended last
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 65
year by State Auditor Elaine M. Howle, who said that, “…inconsistent application of the
accreditation process and a lack of transparency in that process are weakening the accreditation
of California’s community colleges.” In addition to the Title 5 regulation change, the Faculty
Association of California Community Colleges (FACCC) sponsored Assembly Bill 404 (Chiu)
which would improve feedback on accreditation (FACCC, 2015). Specifically, the bill would
add to the duties of the board of governors by requiring it to conduct a survey of the community
colleges, including both faculty and classified personnel, to develop a report to be transmitted to
the USDE and NACIQI that reflects a system-wide evaluation of the accrediting agency based on
the criteria used to determine an accreditor’s status. Such feedback is important to know
regarding the accrediting agency and to be able to be submitted by those who work directly in
the community colleges.
While the HEA undergoes the process of reauthorization, the future of accreditation
remains uncertain. There are many reports and opinion pieces on how accreditation should
change and/or remain the same, much of them with overlapping themes. Only time will tell if the
accreditors, states, and the federal government reach an acceptable and functional common
ground that ensures the quality of US higher education into the future.
California Community Colleges
The California community college system is the largest system of higher education in the
United States of America. In 2008-2009, California community colleges educated almost 2.9
million students with the lowest per-student funding rate in all of California’s public education
systems (Community College League of California [CCLC], 2010). There are 2.1 million
students in the community college system comprised of 72 districts with 112 individual colleges
throughout the state (CCCCO, 2014). Furthermore, California’s higher education success is built
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 66
on the California community colleges, as 55% of the California State University’s and 28% of
the University of California’s graduates started with a community college education (CCLC,
2010). The community college system is essential to the success of higher education in
California.
The benefits of higher education are widely known as allowing higher earnings and social
benefits (McMahon, 2009). McMahon (2009) describes the benefits of higher education and
indicates that male and female associate’s degree holders earn one-third more than high school
graduates and have access to better health care, have increased personal time, and create better
communities. The social benefits of higher education attainment include lower incarceration
rates, an increased tax base, and an educated workforce (McMahon, 2009). Given these benefits,
California community colleges are vital to a trained workforce, job creation and providing access
for educational attainment, as they provide educational access and make transfer possible to
those who need educational remediation. These colleges also provide technical education and
career development in the areas of homeland security, nursing, and education of the public and
private workforce. Therefore, community colleges are essential to the social and economic
system of California. With such a broad mission’, maintaining a community college’s
accreditation is crucial to ensuring these benefits are continuously offered.
Sanctions
Through recent accreditation reviews received by California community colleges, more
sanctions were imposed on community colleges in recent years than on other colleges across the
United States. Both ASCCJC revisions of standards included a focus on SLOs. Unlike other
regional agencies, a marked increase in sanctions and recommendations by ACCJC was noted
after the revisions in 2002. A report issued in 2008 revealed 40 California community colleges
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 67
received a sanction between 2004 and 2008 (Karandjeff, 2011). As of January 2011, 21
institutions received sanctions (Beno, 2011). In January 2014, only 14 colleges were on any
sanction, totaling 13% of California community colleges (Karpp, 2014). Since 2009, ACCJC has
included an article on deficiencies contributing to sanction in each spring edition of its
newsletter, ACCJC News, distributed three times annually. As of July 1, 2010, new federal
regulations “require accrediting commissions to publish brief statements summarizing the
reasons for the commissions’ decision to place an institution on Probation or Show Cause or to
deny, withdraw, suspend, revoke or terminate accreditation or initial accreditation” (Beno, 2011,
p.8). The 2014 spring issue of ACCJC News reports the top four reasons for the 16 colleges
currently receiving sanctions are planning using assessment results (87.5%); SLO
implementation (75%); employee evaluation (62.5%); and financial management or stability
(50%). This research provides valuable knowledge to assist college leaders in meeting the
eligibility standards of ACCJC and demonstrate how a community college attempts to meet
those standards and, nevertheless, falls short.
Leadership and Governance in Education
Leadership in education is an extremely well-studied topic. While the literature on
educational leadership is massive and includes numerous prominent and respected authorities,
this study focuses on the perspectives of leadership and the governance structure that may have
contributed to the impending loss of accreditation by UCC. This section generally reviews
leadership and then specifically reviews leadership in education. Further, the evolution of the
role of governance in education is examined.
To begin the discussion of leadership, a review of Reframing Organizations: Artistry,
Choice, and Leadership is critical in that Bolman and Deal (2003) outline a theoretical
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 68
framework created to assist leaders to comprehend and make sense of organizations. These
theoretical frameworks are the structural, human resources, political, and symbolic frames.
The structural frame assumes organizations exist to achieve established goals and
objectives and that organizations increase efficiency and enhance performance through
specialization and a clear division of labor. The structural frame also assumes organizations work
optimally when rationality prevails over personal preferences and extraneous pressures. It is also
believed that, if problems and performance gaps arise from structural deficiencies, they can be
remedied through analysis and restructuring.
The human resource frame is built on core assumptions that organizations exist to serve
human needs rather than the reverse and that people and organizations need each other, as in a
symbiotic relationship. Specifically, Bolman and Deal (2003) explain that “organizations need
ideas, energy, and talent; people need careers, salaries, and opportunities” (p. 115). Another core
assumption of the human resource frame is that a good fit benefits both individuals, who find
meaningful work, and organizations, who get the talent and energy they need to succeed.
The political frame views organizations as living, screaming political arenas that host a
complex web of individual and group interests, as described by Bolman and Deal (2003). The
political frame assumes organizations are coalitions of diverse individuals and interest groups.
Further, there are differences among coalition members in values, beliefs, information, interests,
and perceptions of reality. In this frame, most important decisions involve allocating scarce
resources, and scarce resources and differences make conflict central to organizational dynamics
and underline power as the most important asset. Bargaining, negotiating, and jockeying for
position are among the ways goals and decisions emerge, according to Bolman and Deal.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 69
Assumptions of the symbolic frame, as described by Bolman and Deal (2003), indicate
that what is most important is not what happens but what it means. Activity and meaning are
loosely coupled; events have multiple meanings because people interpret experience differently.
Further, another assumption of the symbolic frame is that in the face of uncertainty and
ambiguity, people create symbols to resolve confusion, increase predictability, find direction,
and anchor hope and faith. Culture, Bolman and Deal go on to say, is the glue that holds an
organization together and unites people around shared values and beliefs.
In “Leadership in Higher Education,” Amey (2006) suggests that today’s leaders in
postsecondary education have to think about their work differently than did their predecessors.
Additionally, she purports today’s leaders must guide their organizations into the future while
delivering realistic insights that arise from critical reflections about and a deep understanding of
organizational culture and values. Researchers Kezar, Carducci, and Contreras-McGovern (2006)
note that the traditional studies of leadership, with a focus on power and influence, trait, and
behavioral characteristics, and the omnipotence of positions such as university presidents, gave
way to thinking about leaders within faculties, student associations, research administration, and
other nonpresidential settings. The authors acknowledge the difficulty in defining what makes a
good leader and suggest that, “leadership is multidimensional” and an “evolving concept that has
changed over time as social mores and beliefs have changed” (Kezar et al., 2006, p. 176).
Further, Kezar et al. (2006) provide suggestions on how university administrators and
researchers might support the development of more appropriate forms of leadership that will
ultimately enhance the ability of collaborative groups to adapt to a changing environment. Some
of these ideas are listed below:
1. Align leadership development with campus culture;
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 70
2. Manage ambiguity and complexity on an ongoing basis and realize that this management
is part of the process;
3. Take the time to understand the history, traditions, and values of the group;
4. Ensure that leaders emerge from various racial, gender, and disciplinary backgrounds;
5. Foster ongoing visioning by both administrators and faculty members;
6. Foster collaborative groups through ongoing communication, trust, a willingness to take
chances, a lack of hierarchy, and limited politics;
7. Review and break down traditional structures that inhibit collaborative groups;
8. Empower all team members to take on leadership roles based on their skills and the needs
of the collaborative group over time;
9. Realize that leadership development is an ongoing process, is context laden, and socially
constructed by individuals; and
10. Realize and celebrate leadership skill acquisition as legitimate and involving a focus on
the interactions between the university, the collaborative group members, and funding
agency personnel. (Kezar et al., 2006, pp. 130-135)
The term “governance” in a community college setting often refers to the structure and
process of decision making a college uses to address internal and external issues. According to
the CCLC (2008), community colleges are unique among higher education institutions in
California, responding to local community needs both quickly and effectively while serving
broader state interests. The fact that locally elected boards – working with their chief executive
officers, faculty, staff, and students – govern them is an important element in that success.
According to Escover (2008), the political and social storms of the 1960s opened the way
for the reform of many business, governmental and educational organizations and practices. “The
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 71
mendacities of Vietnam and Watergate helped enforce the need to mistrust individual and/or
small collectives of decision-making authority. These experiences helped in the development of
new leadership principles based on the time honored democratic principles of quality and shared
responsibilities” (Escover, 2008, p. 2).
Collins (2002) noted that revolutionary leadership principles were eventually
memorialized for the California community college system with the adoption of Assembly Bill
1725 (Vasconcellos, 1988). According to a joint publication by the Academic Senate for
California community colleges and the CCLC (1998), the intent of AB1725 called on the board
of governors to enact regulation to ensure faculty, staff, and students the right to participate
effectively in district and college governance and, further, to ensure the right of academic senates
to assume primary responsibility for making recommendations in the areas of curriculum and
academic standards.
The language in this bill mandated a process of shared decision making that made it
necessary for leaders to shift from traditional top-down leadership styles to ones that were more
inclusive and considered the decision making process as one that should be shared and
collaborative. When AB1725 was signed into law, The Joint Committee for Review of the
Master Plan (1989) offered a definition of successful governance that explained that successful
governance would be judged by the capacity to use the existing structure shrewdly and to craft
new innovations—not by merely designing new organizational charts. In particular, the
committee explained that the boards of trustees and the faculties with whom they share authority
over the substantive direction of education, were finally answerable to the communities they
serve and that their legitimacy and authority rests ultimately in how faithfully and well they
served those communities. This was an example that educational leadership was changing and
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 72
new terms such as “collegial consultation,” “effective participation” and “shared governance”
were introduced into the literature (Escover, 2008).
It is important to note the intent of AB1725 was “to authorize more responsibility for
faculty members in duties that are incidental to their primary professional duties” and to assure
that “increased faculty involvement in institutional governance and decision making” does not
conflict with faculty rights in collective bargaining (ASCCC/CCLC, 1998). Collective
bargaining generally concerns labor relations for faculty and includes negotiations with the
college district on matters such as salary and benefits. Additionally, AB1725 (1998) speaks
specifically of college academic senates as the focal point for shared governance of a college
versus the faculty labor union.
According to Collins (2002), although the advent of AB1725 in 1988, and its
augmentation in 1998, was welcomed by many faculty and administrators, many were
unprepared for this shift in governance. She notes management fads were visited upon
community colleges, such as management by objective, total quality management, continuous
quality improvement, and business process re-engineering. Since the time of Collins’ writing,
there has not been a proliferation of research on community colleges and shared governance.
However, Kater and Levin (2004) show community college faculty are engaged in shared
governance in both the traditional academic areas such as faculty evaluation, curriculum,
sabbatical, and tenure recommendations, and in the nontraditional areas such as budget and
retrenchment decisions. This study embarks upon the perceptions of shared governance and its
impact on UCC’s impending loss of accreditation along with perceptions of its leadership.

PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 73
Impact of Faculty on Accreditation
“Faculty members are essential to every part of institutional accreditation, both within
their own institutions and outside them,” according to Morse and Santiago (2014) in an article
about faculty and administrators working together for the goal of meeting a school’s
accreditation. The authors go on to say faculty’s role in accreditation will become even more
important as institutional accreditors intensify their focus on outcomes such as student learning.
This is due, in part, to legislatures, taxpayers, employers, and others who want results regarding
higher education to be gauged by student performance. Accrediting commissions do not impose
specific approaches to colleges and universities, but they do expect each institution to maintain
realistic and well-supported plans for defining goals, measuring success, and using the results of
assessment to improve (Morse and Santiago, 2014).
Morse and Santiago (2014) encourage the creation of a campus culture that embraces
outcomes assessments. Because of the faculty’s role in developing the curriculum and teaching,
they purport faculty leadership as important to any institutional outcomes-assessment plan.
However, a top-down process or one driven by the administration without faculty buy-in will
have difficulty. Thus, it is important to have faculty leaders knowledgeable about outcomes
assessments take the lead in educating peers about assessment and creating institutional
structures that guide assessment initiatives toward institutional change. With faculty taking the
lead in accreditation that includes the process of assessing SLOs, there can be a positive impact
on accreditation by the faculty.
For a group of family and consumer sciences professionals, the process of accreditation
gave them a sense of validation with their instructional work, according to a study by Garrison,
Herring and Hinton (2013). The faculty felt the accreditation standards were identified as the
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 74
foundation for quality and ethical practice; the process helped them to see the “grand scheme;”
and to reflect upon the systemic nature of the department. Lastly, it triggered changes in
language throughout the curriculum and some minor changes to assignments. Thus, when faculty
members see the benefit of accreditation and work together to ensure it is maintained, there can
be many people working together to accomplish a goal for all. The challenge for faculty, then, is
to communicate what is needed, plan ahead, work together, and commit to the process.
Community Colleges with Sanctions
ACCJC collected data since 2009 on colleges receiving sanctions and includes a list of
the colleges and their sanctions in their summer newsletter. According to the ACCJC (2014), the
main deficiencies for sanction are related to program review, planning, internal governance,
board roles, and financial stability or management. Common sanctions new to 2014 were related
to SLO Implementation and employee evaluation. From January 2010 to January 2013, the
number of colleges receiving sanction did not decrease significantly. In 2014, however, ACCJC
reports a significant reduction in sanctions. The total in 2014 is 16 colleges receiving sanctions,
down from a high of 28 colleges in 2012. Therefore, the percentage of California community
colleges receiving sanctions dropped from a high of 24% in 2012 to 14% in 2014.
The ACCJC summer 2014 newsletter goes on to report:
1. There has been a significant drop in colleges that have difficulty with governing board
roles and responsibilities that led to sanction, now down to 37.5% and 6 institutions;
2. A large proportion of institutions on sanction – 87.5%, 14 of the 16 – still have not been
able to demonstrate that they are integrating their institutional evaluation efforts such as
program review to institutional actions such as resource allocation, planning and
implementation of needed changes;
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 75
3. Three quarters of those institutions on sanction have not implemented the ACCJC ’s
standards on student learning outcomes; and
4. About half of the institutions on sanction have not been able to demonstrate sound fiscal
management or stability – but the overall number, 8, is lower than previous years.
When the accreditation standards were revised in 2002, there was a significant increase in
the number of colleges put on sanctions, resulting in the high of 24% in 2012. It will be
interesting to see the next round of accreditation review outcomes with the new 2014 standards
now adopted by the ACCJC. These new standards will affect those colleges in the 2016 round of
site visits and evaluations (ACCJC, 2014).
Summary
With the trend toward learning assessment, along with challenges to SLOs and
organizational learning challenges, the lack of faculty buy-in and lack of institutional investment,
and the tension between improvement and accountability, there is much to be concerned about
regarding accreditation. Adding to the tension is the increase in sanctions to California
community colleges, specifically to one which lost accreditation, Urban Community College,
and one scheduled to lose its accreditation, Urban City College. Colleges across the state are
concerned about their next accreditation cycle and how they will weather the event. In addition,
there is a culture of rising public interest in the accountability of higher education, and this study
is timely to exploring the contours of important, but poorly understood, developments in the
scrutiny and sanction of California community colleges. A synthesis of the literature shows that
the combination of historical developments in accreditation, along with the evolution of
accountability and assessment movements, raises questions and concerns at the rate of sanctions
by WASC-ACCJC.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 76
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter addresses the implementation of a qualitative case study method for the
identification and evaluation of UCC and how the college finds itself in the midst of losing its
accreditation, scheduled for July 2014. This study reviews the perceptions of the accrediting
agency, leadership, faculty, and shared governance ’s impact on UCC ’s current situation. The
research question is given along with sub-questions, a description of the method of study is
shown, and a description of the sample and population to be studied is given, noting information
about the instrumentation used. Lastly, methods for data collection and analysis are provided.
The purpose of this study is to find the many perceptions of those involved (board
members, administrators, faculty, students, members of ACCJC, and interested community
members) and what led to UCC ’s position where it is in jeopardy of losing its accreditation. As
noted in Corbin and Strauss (2008) regarding qualitative research, qualitative analysis is a
process of examining and interpreting data in order to elicit meaning, gain understanding, and
develop empirical knowledge. The overall purpose of this study, then, was to gain a broader
understanding and knowledge of UCC and what led to its possible termination.
Research Question
This study was guided by the following overarching research question: What is the
perception of how UCC reached the point of being set to lose its accreditation? There were five
sub-questions:
1. What specific documents and processes were used in the years leading up to the
impending loss of accreditation for UCC being on the verge of losing their accreditation?
2. What processes did the campus follow in responding to the sanctions and the notice of
losing accreditation?
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 77
3. What is the perceived impact of leadership by administrators, faculty, staff, and students
in the process of losing accreditation?
4. What is the perceived impact of faculty by administrators, faculty, staff, and students in
the process of losing accreditation?
5. What is the perceived impact of shared governance ’s impact to UCC ’s impending loss of
accreditation?
Method of Study
A social constructivist worldview theory and a pragmatist worldview are both utilized for
optimum understanding of this study. These serve as the study’s conceptual framework to aid the
researcher to better understand what occurred with the issues, settings, or people under study, as
noted in Maxwell (2013). This study used a qualitative approach and a case study strategy.
According to Creswell (2009), a social constructivist worldview and a pragmatist worldview
allow the researcher to understand meaning, look for the complexity of views, and rely on the
participants’ views of the subject being studied. As described in Creswell (2009), a case study is
a strategy of inquiry through which the researcher investigates in depth a program, event,
activity, process, or one or more individuals. In this case study, the participants (board members,
administrators, faculty, students, and community members) related to UCC, and members of
ACCJC are still maneuvering through the possibility of UCC losing their accreditation with
emotions running high on both sides. The members of Urban Community College have perhaps
moved on in the grieving process and have had some time to reflect on the situation of their
school’s loss of accreditation in 2006 (Hoffman & Wallach, 2008). It will be important to see
UCC’s journey to possibly losing their accreditation. The findings may be helpful to colleges in
similar situations and may allow them to be better prepared for the accreditation process.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 78
This study is an emergent qualitative case study. Merriam (2009) describes this type of
study as emergent and flexible wherein the researcher is responsive to changing conditions as the
study progresses. The sample is purposeful (individuals were specifically chosen), not random as
in quantitative studies, and where the researcher spends time in the field, or the natural setting of
the participants. Merriam further notes the design of qualitative studies includes rich descriptions
and seeks to understand why things are the way they are. In qualitative studies, the researcher is
the primary instrument, conducting interviews, reviewing documents, and making observations.
Triangulation, using various sources of information to gather data, is advised by Creswell (2009)
and Maxwell (2013) and adds validity to the study. Specifically, triangulation allows a better
assessment of the generality of the explanations that one develops. With this study, new
information is continuously uncovered and adds to the richness of the study. Lastly, Merriam
states the qualitative process is inductive and the focus is on understanding, meaning making,
and having a rich description to characterize the end product.
Sample and Population
UCC was chosen to study because it received a sanction, Show Cause, which is the
severest sanction given by the ACCJC, and, at the time of this study, was in jeopardy of losing
its accreditation. Many schools receive sanctions, but few reach Show Cause, which can lead to
termination (ACCJC, 2014). In addition, this urban college is among the oldest and largest
community colleges in California, enrolling roughly 95,000 students each year before the Show
Cause sanction was given in 2012 (ARCC, 2012).
The college’s programmatic breadth and variety, combined with its image and
prominence in the city’s ethnic neighborhoods and the downtown business district, result in the
highest market penetration of any community college in the country. Furthermore, UCC provides
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 79
educational access to an extremely diverse population of students across the city, including large
immigrant and Asian populations as well as Latinos and older residents (ARCC, 2012). Tables 1,
2, and 3 present the ethnicity, gender, and age of UCC students the year prior to the Show Cause
notice.
Table 1
Ethnicity of Urban City College Students 2010-2011
African American .9%
American Indian/Alaskan Native .3%
Asian 28.9%
Filipino 6.4%
Hispanic 19.4%
Pacific Islander .8%
Two or more races 2.8%
Unknown/Non-Respondent 5.3%
White Non-Hispanic 27.1%

Table 2
Gender of Urban City College Students 2010-2011
Female 52.2%
Male 46.1%
Unknown 1.7%

Table 3
Age of Urban City College Students 2010-2011
19 or less 14.2%
20 – 24 29.5%
25 – 49 46.4%
Over 49 9.9%
Unknown 0.0%

PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 80
The sample population included members of UCC in many capacities. Board members,
administrators, faculty, staff, and students were utilized along with an interested community
member, and this population is also diverse (Tables 4 and 5).
ACCJC accredits community colleges and other associate’s degree granting institutions
in the western region of the United States. Members of the ACCJC who were asked to participate
in an interview are the president of the organization, the vice president for policy and research,
and the vice president of team operations and communication.
The virtue of data collection in qualitative research is that several sources of data may be
used (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). For example, interviews, observations, videos, documents,
newspapers, biographies, historical documents, autobiographies, and other sources may be used
individually or together, depending upon the problem to be investigated. Thus, there is a large
volume of data available from public documents, to shed light on the college and its accreditation
situation. Specifically, there are collegiate journals, newspapers, faculty organization websites,
the ACCJC’s website as well as UCC’s website to share a historical background of what
occurred up to and since the Show Cause rendering. It was important to interview participants
who witnessed the individual occurrences at the college at the time of the accreditation reviews
to examine and analyze the findings.
Instrumentation
With this emergent qualitative case study, an interview script was created with structured
questions, as described by Creswell (2009). This strategy allows for follow-up or probing
questions that may not be answered with the original or structured question and allows for more
in-depth information to be obtained. There were 12 structured questions on the interview script
(Appendix C). Many questions were open-ended or asked for descriptions of an event or time
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 81
period or asked how or why questions to aid in the emergent quality of the study. In addition, as
Creswell (2009) recommends, there was an ice-breaker-type of question to help get the interview
started at the beginning of the interview.
Data Collection
The participants for the interviews made up a purposeful population, specifically chosen
because they were directly connected to the college, to the ACCJC, or was a community member
who has an interest in accreditation, and all were over 18 years of age. Merriam (2009) notes that
purposeful sampling can include snowball, chain, or network sampling, because one key person
may lead to others to interview, although they may not be readily identified at the onset of the
initial interviews. In this study, several individuals who were interviewed referred other persons
to interview, which added to the richness of the findings. The majority of interviews were
conducted in person on the college campus in participant’s offices or nearby in a coffee shop, but
a few were interviewed over the telephone.
Information sheets were given to participants to explain the purpose of the study, giving
contact information for the researchers (primary investigator and faculty advisor) as well as
providing how the study was confidential and that the participant may opt out at any time during
the interview (Appendices E and F). The interviews were expected to last from 30 to 90 minutes.
Individual names and contact information were saved for possible follow-up questioning and/or
clarification of statements made and were destroyed after the study was completed. The sample
size was determined from desiring to interview college faculty, administrators, board members,
students, and representatives from the ACCJC, with one to three persons in each category.
Data was labeled with a code linked to personal identifying information. These direct
identifiers and codes were destroyed upon completion of the research. In addition, individuals
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 82
were audio taped with permission. Those who did not want to be audio taped were still
interviewed while the researcher took hand-written notes. The information sheet indicated there
were no consequences or penalties if a participant chose not to be audio taped or opted out of the
interview. In this study, some who were invited to interview chose not to be interviewed and no
one stopped in the middle of an interview and opted out. Once the audiotapes were transcribed,
the participants were asked to review and/or edit them. The transcribed data was destroyed upon
completion of the study. Lastly, participants were offered $50 gift certificates as a token of
appreciation for their participation in this study. Many accepted the gift certificates, and some
indicated they would donate them to a good cause.
Data Analysis
When conducting qualitative research, Creswell (2009), Maxwell (2013), and Merriam
(2009) advise that data analysis begins with the first interview or data collection and continues
simultaneously throughout the data collection process. They admonish the researcher to write
notes to him/herself to describe the settings and observations during and immediately after
interviews or interactions. Additional advice to the researcher is to read and re-read transcribed
interviews and listen to audio taped conversations as a way of beginning to analyze the data and
begin to find themes and categories of the data. The researcher followed the advice of Creswell
(2009), Maxwell (2013), and Merriam (2009) and made many memos and observations of the
data from the interviews in order to analyze the findings.
Coding in qualitative analysis is a common way to analyze data. Due to the small number
of interviews, 13, the researcher chose to code the data manually, group the data into common
themes, and analyzed them accordingly. Thus, the common themes were the impact of
accreditation and the accrediting agency, and the impact of leadership, governance, and faculty
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 83
on the impending loss of accreditation. As Merriam (2009) mentions, there is always one more
interview to be conducted, one more observation that can be made, and one more piece of
literature to be reviewed. However, the stopping point can be when a saturation point is reached
and no new information or only tiny increments of new information are found compared to the
lager effort expended. This saturation point occurred after the 13 interviews were conducted.
The researcher had all the recorded interviews transcribed by a professional transcriber
and personally transcribed the notes of the interviews where participants did not agree to be
audio taped. The analysis unfolded by preparing charts of all those interviewed and adding
specific quotes in the charts relevant to the themes. Next, the researcher grouped the categories
on another chart under similar themes to be able to use the quotes in the chapter on results.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 84
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
This study is an emergent qualitative case study about UCC, which, at the time of the
study, was in jeopardy of losing its accreditation. The college was placed on Show Cause by the
regional accrediting commission in 2012 and informed it would close as of July 31, 2014. A
lawsuit was filed by the city attorney’s office in August 2013, and this action effectively stalled
UCC’s closure to date (City Door, 2013). This chapter discusses the results of the study. To
begin the discussion, a review of the preparation for conducting the study is provided and
includes a review of the process to identify participants and conduct interviews. There is a
section on public documents, since some of the information provided in the results relies on
some of those documents. Lastly, a review of the background of Urban City regarding its politics
and people is given, and the results are discussed in detail along the lines of the themes covered
in the study: impact of accreditation and the accrediting agency, leadership, governance, and
faculty on the impending loss of accreditation.
Preparation for the Study
The request to conduct the study was made in August 2014 and approved in early
September 2014 as an Exempt Review by the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB). Documents reviewed included the information sheet (Appendix E) and
interview script (Appendix C). Additionally, some participants requested the researcher obtain
IRB approval from UCC IRB, and it was obtained later in 2014. The researcher made slight
changes to the Information Sheet and titled it, “UCC’s Information Sheet/Consent Form” at the
request of UCC’s IRB office (Appendix F). One of the changes to the information sheet was a
statement that said, “The investigator is an independent researcher and this research project is in
no way affiliated with nor represents the official views of Urban City College.” The other change
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 85
to the information sheet was to add signatures of consent by the researcher and participant. Thus,
when interviewing participants, they were asked to review the information sheet and both the
participant and the researcher signed the consent area of the form. Both the participant and the
researcher retained copies of the form.
Participants
A total of 13 persons were interviewed for this study: included board members,
administrators, faculty, students, and an interested community member. Table 4 presents the
demographic summary of the participants and Table 5 provides their classification. The
researcher initially reviewed UCC’s website in August 2014 to find participants to interview and
created a table to capture possible participants. Soon after, it became clear the researcher would
need help in gathering participants, since the researcher did not know anyone at the college and
felt it would not be fruitful to send out invitations to participate to anyone who was not known to
the researcher. The researcher reached out to the college president and vice presidents of her
employer, a community college in a large urban setting in California. The researcher was then
referred to many individuals to contact for participation in the study. The researcher contacted
most participants via email by indicating the individual was referred by someone they knew, and
the researcher followed up with a recruitment letter (Appendix D). One UCC administrator was
referred by a fellow student of the researcher’s and contacted via email, and the community
member was contacted via email. Once the participants agreed to be interviewed, then dates,
times, and locations were agreed upon.
The researcher reached out to and invited three members of the accrediting agency to
participate in an interview for the study: the president, the vice president for policy and research,
and the vice president of team operations and communication. The members were sent letters
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 86
through the US Postal System and invited via email. The president of the organization
telephoned the researcher in fall 2014 and indicated that, due to the ongoing litigation, she was
not able to participate in an interview. The president of the involved accrediting agency also
cautioned the researcher with these words, “Be careful who you interview, as it may have an
impact on the validity of your study.” The vice president for policy and research responded via
email and declined to interview, stating,
As a general matter, the relationship between the accrediting agency and any of its
member institutions is such that the accrediting agency would not engage in a case study
of the institution’s accreditation status or perceptions on accreditation for external
researchers. Moreover, the accrediting agency is currently involved in litigation and
related matters concerning UCC, and thus participation would be inappropriate even with
the written consent of the institution.
The vice president of team operations and communication of the accrediting agency did
not respond to the researcher’s request to interview. Prior to the formal invitation to participate in
an interview, the researcher met this individual at an accrediting agency sponsored event at the
researcher’s college early in 2014. The researcher indicated she would reach out to him for a
possible interview for the study, and the vice president seemed interested. In the meantime, the
vice president requested the researcher submit an application to be a member of a site visit
evaluation team for the accrediting agency. The researcher completed the application, received a
recommendation from her college’s president, and submitted the paperwork. By the conclusion
of this study, the researcher had not received any communication on this matter.
The following tables show the demographics (Table 4) and classifications (Table 5) of
the participants interviewed for this study.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 87
Table 4
Demographics of Participants
Males Females White Asian Black Latino
10 3 7 2 3 1

Table 5
Classification of Participants
Administrators* Board
Members
Faculty Students Classified Community
Member**
5 2 1 2 2 1
*Two administrators were faculty prior to their roles as administrators
**The community member had been observing the accrediting agency for many years

On three separate occasions in the fall of 2014, the researcher traveled by air to interview
the majority of participants and attend the first day of the trial in Urban City. The timeline for
interviewing and gathering data was as follows. In the middle of fall 2014, the researcher
interviewed the first set of participants at or around UCC, in individual’s offices or a coffee shop.
The initial group of persons interviewed agreed to be interviewed although IRB approval had not
been obtained from UCC’s IRB. The participants were comfortable that the study was IRB
approved by the researcher’s university. A few weeks later, the researcher attended the first day
of the trial involving the UCC and the accrediting commission to gather information for the
study and meet possible interviewees. Unfortunately, the researcher could not attend the
remainder of the one-week trial due to prior commitments. However, the researcher met a faculty
member at the trial who agreed to be interviewed. Once the IRB approval was given by UCC, the
researcher interviewed the next set of participants later in 2014 in and around UCC. In early
2015, the researcher interviewed two more individuals over the phone to complete the
interviews. The majority of participants allowed tape recording of the interviews, and the
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 88
transcripts were completed by a transcription service. Once transcribed, the transcript was sent to
the participants via email for any editing they wanted to include, as was described on the
information sheet. Only one participant returned the transcript with minor edits for clarification
of the interview.
Public Documents
There was a much and varied public coverage of the accrediting agency’s notice of
termination of UCC in 2012 and of follow-up to early 2015. These writings come from
newspapers, scholastic journals, the UCC website, the accrediting agency’s website, the faculty
organizations and their websites, and other communiqué regarding the accreditation situation
with UCC. In addition to interviewing individuals, a vast amount of public information was
reviewed for this study, including the transcripts of the trial.
The Urban City Attorney in 2013 filed a lawsuit against the accrediting agency regarding
how the accrediting agency came to the conclusion to give the college a Show Cause finding
(City Door, 2013). Specifically, the lawsuit sought to find if the accreditor gave the college due
process in its decision to close the college. In layman’s terms, the question was whether the
accrediting agency was fair in giving the Show Cause action or if the accrediting agency violates
its laws and policies. The lawsuit went to court in the fall of 2014, and the transcripts of the trial
are public records, which were reviewed in order to better analyze the case. In early 2015, final
arguments were heard in court. The judge gave a final ruling in February 2015 and is expected to
allow appeals in the future.
Results
The results of this emergent qualitative case study unfold around the themes generated by
the research and interview questions and the subsequent answers. Specifically, discussion is
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 89
centered on the impact of accreditation and the accrediting agency, leadership, governance, and
faculty on UCC’s notification of termination and occurrences since this notification. It is
interesting to note that, although five administrators were interviewed out of 13 participants, two
of them held faculty positions prior to their administrative positions, which has an impact on
their perspective. In other words, they seemed to still be wearing their faculty hats with regard to
their attitudes and opinions about the accreditation situation. In addition, these same two
administrators have each been employed with the college about 20 years or more. Not all
participants agreed on a single theme; however, all agreed that the UCC board members,
administrators, and faculty came together to put the college back on the right track with regard to
accreditation in order to keep the college open and accredited.
Background of Urban City
To better understand the findings and comments from those interviewed, it is helpful to
review the background of Urban City, its politics and people. One author describes the city as a
“large, densely populated, multiclass, ethnically diverse, economically complex city” (DeLeon,
1992, p. 556).” The same author quotes one of the national legislators of the area who
characterizes the city as the “capital of the progressive movement in this country” (p. 556).
Another writer, Hartman (2002), describes the city this way:
[The city’s] aberrations, idiosyncrasies, and cutting-edge social policies are legendary,
often the subject of national news stories, many front-pagers: legitimizing domestic
partnership arrangements; limiting high-rise development; enacting numerous official
boycotts and making other municipal foreign-policy forays; instituting the country’s
toughest pesticide ban; setting safety standards for video display terminals; permitting
cannabis buyers’ clubs for medicinal use of marijuana; banning workplace drug tests;
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 90
forbidding pizza and other food deliverers from “redlining” neighborhoods; placing far-
out propositions on City ballots, such as whether a police officer can walk his beat with a
ventriloquist dummy and whether cab drivers can wear striped shirts… (p. 1
The same author, Hartman (2002), further clarifies the character of the city:
The city has always had a rambunctious quality to it, an unmistakable spirit, a sense that
people truly care about their city. Residents are conscious of being at once part of a
neighborhood and of a world community. There is a real awareness of the city’s past and
its architectural heritage. And for the most part, there is an astonishing toleration of
diversity and experimentalism living side by side with great traditionalism and
conservatism. (p. 2)
As the results are reviewed, consider these descriptions of the city, along with the fact
that UCC has ten locations, which are spread across the city in addition to its main campus. The
college’s website describes itself as having “evolved into a multicultural, multi-campus
community college that is one of the largest in the country.” Questions come to the researcher’s
mind as to how the administrators, faculty, and staff communicate and maintain the operation of
the college with so many locations. In addition, one could analyze that, if the city is described as
“rambunctious,” where “aberrations, idiosyncrasies, and cutting-edge social policies are
legendary,” then some of that ideology has transferred or is part of the makeup of UCC. This
perspective, then, can aid in the understanding of some of the comments revealed in the findings.
The researcher made other observations during the several visits to Urban City and UCC.
The most obvious is that the city is a large, bustling city with many freeways and a large transit
operation. When the researcher commented on the size of the city and how busy it was, many
cab drivers agreed, but said Urban City was not as busy or the traffic as bad as Southern
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 91
California, where the researcher lives. Unfortunately, the researcher only visited one campus of
UCC and noted that it seemed to be an aging campus in need some attention. For example, one
person interviewed asked if the toilets were working in one of the older buildings because they
had not been working in a while. Another observation the researcher made concerned about the
passion of those interviewed. Most of the participants were very forthcoming about the
accreditation situation and wanted the college to survive the current situation. This was not
surprising and was refreshing to observe.
A brief background on the interested community member is necessary to be aware of how
he fits into the research. The interested community member has been a community college
faculty member in Southern California for many years and has been involved in the faculty union
and the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) over the years. He was president of CFT, has
also been on the State Academic Senate Board, and has been a local Academic Senate president
as well. In addition, he manages a website that describes what is occurring with the accrediting
commission, particularly as it relates to UCC. Thus, he is a self-proclaimed watchdog of the
accrediting commission.
With a bit of Urban City background in mind, following are the research questions and
findings related to them and the themes of the study, which are the impacts of accreditation,
leadership, faculty, and governance on the accreditation situation at UCC.
Research Question 1 - What specific documents and processes were used in the years
leading up to UCC being on the verge of losing their accreditation?
Prior to the notice of Show Cause in 2012, UCC had been complying with and
responding to reviews, recommendations, and visits by the accrediting agency (ACCJC, 2014).
For example, UCC was given a warning in 1988, and the warning was removed in 1990.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 92
Through subsequent years, UCC participated in self-studies and the occasional finding, which
triggered mid-term reports and responses to the ACCJC. Two of the ACCJC recommendations
regarded SLOs and financial planning and stability in 2010. Participants from UCC also attended
self-study evaluation training in 2010 in preparation for their 2012 site visit. Throughout the
years, the college remained accredited. One administrator responded to accreditation findings in
2006,
And I think that’s… one of the mushy things where they’ve said, “Oh you didn’t address
them.” Well, we did—we did what I understood to be addressing them. If they now mean
that addressing means you’ve totally resolved it, well, that’s a different meaning of the
word “address.”
Another administrator commented, “I was there in ‘06, I never got the—once, the
impression that we had to fix those—you know, immediately [referring to recommendations
received in 2006].” These statements may imply the accrediting agency has double standards.
Later in the study are testaments of double standards perceived by many regarding the
accrediting agency.
Research Question 2 - What processes did UCC follow in responding to the sanctions and
the notice of losing accreditation?
A brief review of the findings by the accrediting commission against UCC is needed to
relate to and understand some of the comments regarding the commission and the accreditation
situation at UCC. The accrediting commission took action to place UCC on Show Cause in June
2012 for substantial noncompliance with standards. The specific areas of noncompliance
centered on eligibility requirements, accreditation standards, and commission policies. The
commission also stated the college failed to implement the recommendations of the 2006
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 93
evaluation team (ACCJC, 2014). The commission further acted to terminate accreditation in July
2013 with an effective date of July 2014.
To say the UCC community was in shock after receiving notice of Show Cause is an
understatement. However, the notice allowed many to reflect on the accrediting commission
along with leadership and governance at the college. Many observations were made and reflect
how they were feeling during the process of responding to the notification. One administrator
thought the process was an evolving one:
Well, it evolved—you know, it was really an evolving process and…I guess I was
thinking that, in my experience, a college has been placed on Show Cause and, with hard
work, they got off show cause…and there was resistance to the commission’s findings.
And that’s somewhat unusual. Usually, colleges—although they’re very unhappy they
don’t want to fight with the Commission. They kind of accept their unfortunate fate
and—and work on fixing it. Here, that was not necessarily the case. There was
more…fighting and…resisting the Commission than is normal. And obviously if you’re
doing—if you’re expending your energy on that, you’re going to make less progress.
This administrator’s comments reflect on the politics of the Urban City, mentioned
earlier, referring to the way the college fought back, “more…resisting the Commission than is
normal.” Since the notice of Show Cause, many activities took place in and around the college
and the state of California, and UCC responded to the accrediting commission with various
reports in order to maintain its accreditation. One major event occurred in August 2013, and that
was the filing of a lawsuit against the accrediting commission by the Urban City Attorney (City
Door, 2013). A reporter for the faculty union’s newsletter (AFT, 2014) noted near the beginning
of the October 2014 trial,
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 94
If the black box decision-making of the Commission had taken place in public, everyone
would have known the accrediting commission was overruling its own team’s unanimous
recommendation for the lesser sanction, and it would have proven far more difficult for
the agency to have forced its closure order on the college.
UCC responded in many ways to the accrediting commission since the Show Cause
notice. The accrediting commission, via an Action Letter dated July 2, 2012, required that the
college complete a Show Cause Report by March 15, 2013. The commission required the report
be followed by a visit of commission representatives. UCC was required to prepare a Closure
Report by March 15, 2013, to be submitted with the institution’s Show Cause Report. The
commission also required the college to develop an overall plan to address the mission,
institutional assessments, planning and budgeting issues identified in several of the 2012
evaluation team’s recommendations and submit a Special Report describing the plan by October
15, 2012. Further, UCC was ordered show cause regarding why its accreditation should not be
withdrawn at the June 2013 commission meeting, scheduled to occur on or about June 10, by
demonstrating that it had corrected the deficiencies noted and was in compliance with the
Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies (ACCJC, 2014).
On October 15, 2012, UCC submitted to the commission a Special Report and plan for
coming into compliance with Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and
Commission policies. On March 15, 2013, the preliminary closure report was submitted by UCC.
It was not accepted, according to the commission, as there were insufficient plans to ensure the
needs of students were met, among other issues. Also on March 15, 2013, the Show Cause
Report of UCC was submitted, along with the closure report (ACCJC, 2014). On May 29, 2013,
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 95
the UCC Chancellor provided supplemental information for review and notified the commission
of intent to appear to offer oral testimony.
Continuing with background and history of UCC, on June 7, 2013, the commission took
adverse action to terminate the accreditation of UCC. The effective date was July 31, 2013, to
allow for due process stages and orderly closure. On July 3, 2013, the commission sent an action
letter to UCC:
After careful consideration, the Commission acted to terminate accreditation effective
July 31, 2014. This date was chosen to provide the college with one year to deal with all
of the possible ramifications of the Commissioners’ action, including time to arrange for
teach out agreements that may be necessary so that students will be able to complete their
certificates and degrees. The Commission may extend this date at its sole discretion if it
determines that conditions warrant such action. (ACCJC, 2014)
On October 4, 2013, the Revised Closure Report was submitted by UCC, including letters
of intent from approximately 20 Urban City and area colleges and universities to issue
memoranda of understanding for the teach-out of programs to meet the needs of students. On
January 10, 2014, the commission reaffirmed its decision to terminate and ratified approval of
the closure report. In May 2014, UCC appealed the commission’s action. By July 21, 2014, the
appeal was concluded, and the commission remained firm in its decision to close the college.
The college was reminded of the July 31, 2014 deadline for exercising the administrative remedy
of seeking restoration status.
As evidenced by the above actions, the college attempted to comply with the commission
to remain open and accredited since the first notification in 2012. In the meantime, Urban City’s
lawsuit effectively stalled the commission’s closure actions until after the lawsuit was resolved,
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 96
which was scheduled for October 2014. Since the commission’s action letter notified UCC of its
impending closure, the commission revealed a restoration status that UCC could apply to in
order to remain open. Ultimately, the college applied and received permission to seek restoration
status. Specifically, on October 14, 2014, the UCC Chancellor submitted a self-evaluation report
for restoration status.
Research Question 3 - What is the perceived impact of leadership by administrators,
faculty, staff, and students in the process of losing accreditation?
It is important to note that, when UCC received the notice of Show Cause in July 2012, a
long-time chancellor had become ill and stepped down right after the evaluation team’s visit in
the spring of 2012. Then, an interim chancellor was appointed by the Chancellor’s Office. Some
of the evaluation team’s findings were that the college’s administrators were not stable, the
college had too many interim positions, and too much change occurring. One administrator
commented about the accreditation situation and leadership at UCC:
So, as I’m sure you’ve already heard from people at Urban City College, there were sort
of two things that were happening simultaneously. One was accreditation, and the other
was Chancellor Girard’s [pseudonym] leaving Urban City College. He was—he’d been
here a lot longer than I had. He’d been an instructor here. A counselor here. Everything.
An administrator and he was the chancellor. He had health issues…and I became aware
in fall of 2011 that he wasn’t well and became aware in December of 2011 that his illness
was affecting his judgment.
Another administrator felt this way:
The college was operating in an insular manner by not being accountable…not ready for
an outside leader… There was a takeover by a special trustee… People were doing their
own thing. There was distrust between the administration and faculty. Still exists today.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 97
We are a better institution now - improved communication/technology/staff. There have
been major improvements – there are still silos when viewed campus wide.
Another administrator spoke specifically about accreditation and leadership at UCC:
Leaders always make a difference. I think it probably took a decade, maybe two…When
you go back and you look at how this college sort of slid off the beaten path. Um…they
became very isolated. No matter what the situation is. If leadership is not leading, then —
you know, it’s the consequences of whatever the outcome is really befalls the individual
or individuals who are leading the institution. And I don’t have any evidence that says
one person did this or one person did that. All I do know is that it doesn’t matter what
institution you look at or what association or company, when there are challenges within
that company, at the root cause of those challenges is a lack of leadership.
A student commented about leadership and accreditation:
Seeing what the best practices are of other colleges - and what Urban City College did
instead is the college kind of just said, “Well, we know what we’re doing best and we
have great outcomes and our students tend to do well,” and we kind of siloed ourselves
from the rest of the group.
A student and board member mirrors almost the exact same sentiment about leadership at
UCC. First, the board member’s comments:
It’s the … governance structure…at some point, it was clear to me that the institution lost
sight of the students. An over-riding objective. In the course of the last two years, the
accreditor also did the same thing. So, things were inverted. Our governance structure
was inverted. Basically, what I was finding … is that, by 2012, what was clear to me was
that we weren’t making policy based on students. We were making policy based on
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 98
people that work at the college. To me, everything’s about governance. Everything that
the college, what it was facing, flowed from that.
A student responds to leadership in a surprisingly similar manner:
Darrell Girard [pseudonym] came on who was the chancellor—the last permanent
chancellor prior to Abel Thompson [pseudonym]. And—you know, Darrell Girard came
up through the ranks, was a faculty member, became Vice President of Student Services,
and… he never really went anywhere else, like I find that most administrators leave.
Come back. Go get some applied knowledge. But—you know, he was a favorite and so
he got the position and that kind of attributed to how the college was administered
because a lot of people find that if you have that history with the college, it’s really
difficult for you to be fair. Often, decisions were made not with students in mind but just
keeping different people happy at the college.
To discuss leadership, a review of Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and
Leadership is important in that Bolman and Deal (2003) outline a theoretical framework created
to assist leaders to comprehend and make sense of organizations. These theoretical frameworks
are the structural, human resources, political, and symbolic frames. With the above comments
from administrators and a student, it seems the perception was that UCC had siloed itself and
became insular in its operations prior to the Show Cause notice. In addition, one may deduce
there were specific political agendas being minded within the administration of the college,
especially the statements regarding decisions not being made with the students in mind versus
people. While only the people involved in the situation know what was actually in their hearts
and minds, these comments serve to show what people’s perceptions were at the time.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 99
Another board member summed up his feelings about accreditation and leadership at the
college this way:
So, I think I probably believed that it was a combination of those historic animosities on
the board, the animosities between various board members and various members of the
college community, and the lack of resources that were some of the problems…I didn’t
know Chancellor Girard [pseudonym] and I don’t know whether he was a brilliant leader
in a difficult time or not up to the job or—you know, but I think that there clearly were—
there were issues at Urban City College that didn’t get addressed prior to the
accreditation and some of that has to be laid at the Chancellor…You know, a lot of it—
both the non-addressing of those—of those critical issues and then kind of the—kind of
the destructive fighting at Urban City College has to be laid at the feet of the board…You
know, there was a structure of weak administration. And a dysfunctional board
governance. I think that was—you know, those were the two biggest things I think.
These comments do not bode well for the college leading up to the Show Cause notice,
and this kind of situation did not help after the notice was given. From these comments, it seems
the politics of the organization did not contribute to a smooth-running operation, and specifically
points to and questions the college’s leadership at the time. Additionally, interim administrators
may have had a large effect on how the campus was managed, as was observed by the
accrediting commission.
Research Question 4 - What is the perceived impact of faculty by administrators, faculty,
staff, and students in the process of losing accreditation?
Through the interviews, many participants reported that, when the visiting accreditation
team came to the college, the administration told everyone to tell the truth. However, some felt
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 100
that too much was told to the visiting team and the information was used against the college. For
example, one classified employee thought, “The visiting team got more truth than they needed –
it felt like what was said was used against them.” Another classified employee commented,
Regarding the visiting team, everyone has a different view, their own political agenda,
and the campus was told to “tell the truth,” but truth is relative, and it was taken to an
extreme – many factions went on a soap box.
One faculty member commented, “I think everybody was been between a rock and a hard
place here.” The researcher’s sense of this time period was that emotions ran high, people were
scared of losing their jobs, some people were bailing early to save themselves, and some were
overzealous with their feelings about the college. Faculty and administrators were sometimes at
odds with one another. One administrator stated, “Faculty leaders; senate/unions fought against
accrediting commission’s process, etc. We leaders came in to bring the college up to standards.”
Responding to the question about the impact of faculty, a faculty member who was very
animated in the interview, told the following story:
So, we started doing research and it was—you know, most people didn’t even know we
were doing that research…and that led to a 300-page complaint that we filed in April of
2013…On behalf of AFT…and the California Federation of Teachers…I mean there
were people making noise and raising questions but for us—for the union, that was first
thing that we did that was really sort of pushing back on the accrediting commission.
That complaint … had thousands of pages of documentation. We did a bunch of
research—tried to figure out, okay, if there’s a problem, where would that problem go?
Okay, so it’s supposed to go to the Commission, which isn’t—you know, fabulously
encouraging, but, of course, we said that’s what we’re going to do. Um, so we waited —
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 101
and it had to be done on a certain number of days before they met to consider or
something about the college, so, you know, we wanted to make sure it was as complete
and as accurate as possible and tried to pull all this stuff together.
And then I went with two others and we had — you know, it was like this big,
plus there was all this documentation, so we had, like, two huge file boxes. And we went
and brought them to Novato and knocked on the door and tried to get the commission
secretary—the administrative assistants—to sign something to confirm that they had
gotten it, which they promptly refused to do. They started calling people, and they didn’t
know what to do and they came out. So, we just put it on their desk, and they were clearly
stunned that this was happening…and they did not know how to respond. Um, and we
just said, look, we’re just—you know, we did not have baseball bats with us, you know,
like [laughs]…we had paper with us so…So, they wouldn’t take it, but we left it on the
desk and we took pictures of it there on their desk, and we kept asking to speak with their
manager or whoever was there. I’m not quite sure who came out and said, “Oh no,
nobody’s here—I don’t know.” And somehow — and then they started threatening to call
security and we were like, “Look, we’re just trying to get you to — you know, like, sign
this …that we’re giving you.
The faculty member went with the story:
It’s a legal document. We want to make sure to cross our Ts. Dot our Is. So then they —
so we finally agreed to step outside while they called — tried to bring in somebody. And,
as soon as we stepped outside, they locked the door and closed the blinds. And we were
just like…Did they just do that? And then down — and then down the hall, suddenly, we
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 102
heard more doors lock like there was some — there was some other — they were afraid.
We didn’t even know that it was part of their offices. So, that was a little bit crazy.
The faculty member continued with the story, telling what happened after they left their
complaint with the accrediting commission and how the USDE reacted:
But, but what the DOE did was very strange: instead of tasking the commission with
responding to us, the DOE tasked the commission with responding to them. It was very
strange because they said we’re going to sort of collapse it with your recognition, right?
With the commission’s re-recognition through the DOE. So, we did not — we were not
able to get a copy of the — of the response to our complaint, right? So, very strange
things happening. But the DOE very clearly said you can’t ignore this. These are real
complaints and we have to, you know, you have to address them. So, we never got a
response from the commission, but the DOE responded and then, you know, in August
2013, the DOE responded to what they had sent, right? So, our complaint caused them to
need to respond. They responded to the DOE and that’s when the DOE, in August 2013,
sent a letter to the Commission, copied to us, that basically said you did all these things
wrong. You know?
In addition, this faculty member felt the faculty complaint against the commission was
the basis for the city attorney’s lawsuit against the commission in August 2013, and got the “ball
rolling.” The faculty’s pushing back to the accrediting commission demonstrates the people of
Urban City College behaving as the city is described earlier: rambunctious with an unmistakable
spirit.
The involvement of the USDE and the accrediting commission reveals the interweaving
of a larger situation unfolding with the accrediting situation at UCC. A board member has a
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 103
different perspective of what the faculty did on another occasion and its impact on the
accreditation situation:
Alright, so if you — if you say on paper and you sign on paper, this is our self-study and
then the Academic Senate — I don’t think it got the authority of the academic senate, but
the academic senate officers decide to hand the accreditors a letter saying this is what’s
really—this is what’s really going on. There’s a problem with who’s saying what’s true,
number one. But, number two, is like, well, why wasn’t this in the self-study? Okay. I
think everything I just said, I think, in my opinion — you may not be surprised by this —
but I think the letter—the Academic Senate letter…if there’s any doubt, it didn’t help us.
I don’t think it helped because it really — it undermined the entire self-study.
This action of the academic senate of sending a separate letter to the commission upholds
the assertion that the people, or faculty, of Urban City care about their college and act upon that
feeling.
Research Question 5 - What is the perception of shared governance ’s impact to
UCC ’s impending loss of accreditation?
Shared governance is a term that indicates that not only administrators, but also faculty,
staff, and students have a say in governing a California community college. The term
“governance” in a community college setting often refers to the structure and process of decision
making a college uses to address internal and external issues. As mentioned earlier, according to
the CCLC (2008), community colleges are unique among higher education institutions in
California, responding to local community needs both quickly and effectively while serving
broader state interests. The fact that locally elected boards - working with their chief executive
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 104
officers, faculty, staff, and students - govern them is an important element in that success. One
student described the governance process in this way:
It’s a beautiful name, huh? Participatory…Governance Council. And that’s where you
got a lot of people there: classified, faculty, students, and they all sit down and pow-
wow…and look at all different types of issues of the school and then within that — that
council has different committees. And then you have your enrollment committee. Then
you have your planning committee. Then you have your diversity committee. And you
have your accreditation committee. And you say, wow, that’s a lot of committees here.
With all of the participatory governance occurring, the student also responded:
[T]hat needs to be still transparent because the problem is that sometimes, although
administrators think that they’re doing a good job in informing students, what’s really
happening, there hasn’t been for me—and I’ve been using this word a lot this school year
— is forums.
Another student commented on shared governance, “And shared governance, in my
opinion, at the college has always been cumbersome. You know, it was always hard to get
students to participate.”
An administrator remembered an interim chancellor describing shared governance in this
way:
Paulette Franklin [pseudonym] told us “shared governance” is a bad word. You mustn’t
call it shared governance. We went through a whole thing to change everything so we
never — you no longer call it shared governance…We say “participatory governance.”

PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 105
The administrator went on to clarify her feelings about participatory governance:
But what they actually — the unspoken agenda — but if you look at the way they’ve
applied it to City College, and I suspect it will be exactly the same for how they judge us
on the restoration. They want it to be top down. They actually — they’re —the model of
participation that isn’t what they say, but it’s what they actually like, is a model that —
actually that our second interim [chancellor] really tried to impose — was to have a
meeting. It was called the participatory governance council, and the way she ran the
meetings is that information would be presented at the meeting, not in advance, but at the
meeting, and we would have an opportunity to ask questions. And that was it. So, for
instance, the budget, a 14-page document full of spreadsheets was brought to the meeting.
The Vice Chancellor of Finance did a presentation of about — oh, maybe 20 minutes of
showing, projecting things and pointing to this line…and pointing to that line and that
was it. Well, we’re supposed to, you know, rubber-stamp it, right?
A faculty member spoke her feelings about the governance process:
Well, I do think we had a sort of byzan… I mean I will admit that we had a sort of
byzantine governance process that had a lot a lot a lot of meetings but we’re also a really
large college…but those — there were a lot of meetings. So, you know, I think there
were things to look at and do there I just think the problem is they weren’t looked at or
done in any real transparent way and basically democracy is gone now. So, rather than
having it be, you know, more productive or more efficient, we just don’t have it anymore.
This faculty person went on to say:
I mean democracy is messy. You know, I think our board of governors — or our board of
trustees, rather. You know, I’ve sat in meetings until 2am…they were miserable. And
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 106
some of those meetings were just terrible and depressive and horrifyingly bad…and I
wouldn’t wish them on anybody and yet I, I went to them.
An administrator spoke of board meetings, “There had been some—the Board of Trustees
had some very active members who were involved in things at—you know, a level that seemed
to be beyond what boards should be doing.” One board member commented about the board:
There — as you are probably learning — City College was and is kind of like a
Rorschach test. And various people would look at it and see different things. The
members of the board, you know, the two factions on the board loathed each other. And
each was convinced that the other was driving the college into ruin. And that dynamic
existed for a number of years.
One of the classified employees weighed in on the shared governance process, “Some of
the board members were ‘Rogue Trustees.’ They were a democratically elected board and they
were politicians – no better behaved than any other politicians.”
Notable Findings
The focus of this study was to find out how UCC got to the point of being in jeopardy of
losing their accreditation. In this section are findings that do not directly relate to the research
questions, but, nevertheless contribute to the study. A look at how the college arrived at Show
Cause, house metaphors and double standards of the accrediting agency are reviewed along with
the concept of a perfect storm, and Urban City values/style.
Getting to Possibly Losing Accreditation
There are a variety of opinions on how UCC got to Show Cause. One administrator said,
“The group that’s contributed the most—why we got put on show cause was the commission.”
Another administrator thought,
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 107
I think all parties had something to do with it. You know, it wasn’t just the board. It
wasn’t just the unions. It wasn’t just the Senate—or Senates. It wasn’t the faculty by
themselves. It wasn’t the administration by itself. It was a combination—and it wasn’t
just the chancellors. Well, I always give more responsibility to leadership than I do
anything else.
One of the participants interviewed is best described as an interested community member
and has been a long-time follower of the accrediting commission and was aware of the increase
in actions they took in the last ten years towards California community colleges. He compared
the commission to the Vichy Regime:
I sort of see it as the Vichy regime. In France, you know, where the Germans came in.
They set up their own government. And that was the Vichy Republic. And they did the
work of the Germans. That’s the way I see it [accrediting agency]. I mean that’s what’s
so maddening about it…That the people that should be helping you are hurting you. I
think the accrediting agency is terrified that their things they do in private will become
public.
Other comments from the community member regarding the president of the accrediting
commission: “It’s her way or the highway. And the Commission is supposed to reflect the
educational consensus, not make their own way.” The community member went on to say:
The accrediting agency did not make clear what was a sanction or what was a
recommendation to improve. You know, that’s a big thing. Everything there is a
secret…it’s very difficult to get the views of the visiting team’s say because they’re
sworn to secrecy. But even so, we knew…that when the visiting teams that went to Urban
City…they…did not recommend show cause.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 108
It is true that the visiting team recommended probation and the commission moved the
finding to Show Cause, and this was documented in the court records and referred to by a
reporter for the faculty union’s newsletter (AFT, 2014).
A student’s perspective was,
I think that a lot of the recommendations were valid characterizations of…some of the —
the problems at the college. I don’t think that the timeline to resolve those issues was ever
realistic. I think many would argue it’s still not realistic because of what needs to change
at the college is cultural.
A faculty member proposed this summary:
They have these underground standards that they use and what is it — and there are
colleges around the state where they have literally come in and told them that their salary
scale is out of whack or that they need to change things, like literally interfering
directly…with collective bargaining. Well, I mean, I think the problems come from, you
know, they come from problems with the accreditation system and this accreditor in
particular. But it’s systemic. It’s not a couple of bad cops. It’s not a couple of bad
administrators or a couple of bad board members or something, you know, like it’s a
much bigger, the way this is all built…and it’s not. It’s supposed to be protecting our
citizens, not, you know, not doing damage… So I think working at re-understanding what
the sets of possibilities are about what the problems are…
An administrator talks about the president of the accrediting agency, and the accreditation
standards at the recent trial:
The — on the first day [of the trial], I’m told, the CEO of the Chancellor’s Office
testified to the fact that City College has high rates of student success. And (attorneys for)
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 109
the accrediting agency said, “Well, what does that have to do with accreditation
standards?” And the commission’s president said it has nothing to do with accreditation
standards. …and I’m like, but wait a minute, I was at an accreditation institute where the
agency was talking about how important the success metrics are. Let me go see if I can
find this stuff and what I found was a PowerPoint that had been presented at that
conference by somebody else. But the PowerPoint was written by the president of the
accrediting agency. She had presented it at a conference a few months before saying there
is a close connection between these particular success metrics and — achievement
metrics — and accreditation standards. So I… …emailed that to somebody who emailed
that to somebody and I, again, I wasn’t there the next day, but I heard the next day when
the president was cross-examined, they asked her again about this and she said, “No,
there’s no relationship.” And then they pulled out the PowerPoint slide and asked her if
she recognized this. And she said it had been closely connected and I’m told that her
response was, “I have to amend my earlier answer.” So, so that was one little piece of
something that I did but many faculty have done a lot…to bring out the truth of the
situation…
This administrator went on to say,
Faculty are encouraged to, you know, put your head down and hope that the beating will
stop soon, but it’s not. Maybe it works for some people in the short run. In the long run,
you really need to get out there and ask for a better system.
House Metaphors
Assumptions of the symbolic frame, as described by Bolman and Deal (2003), indicate
that what is most important is not what happens but what it means. Activity and meaning are
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 110
loosely coupled; events have multiple meanings because people interpret experience differently.
Further, another assumption of the symbolic frame is that, in the face of uncertainty and
ambiguity, people create symbols to resolve confusion, increase predictability, find direction,
and anchor hope and faith. Culture, Bolman and Deal (2003) go on to say, is the glue that holds
an organization together and unites people around shared values and beliefs. Several of the
participants made references and metaphors about the college and its accreditation situation and
referred to it as being similar to a house. One administrator replied:
It’s kind of like—you know, when I was a kid, parents and grandparents would say you
have to clean your room every day. Not just when someone, visitors, are coming. You
have to wash the dishes every day. Not just when company is coming.
A board member commented with a reference to UCC as a house:
But, when you get to a college and you look at the house — yeah, it’s a beautiful house.
You walk in and, like, everything’s rundown. My analogy is I could have just walked
away and said, “Thank you very much. I really appreciate this experience. I want to try
something else.” Or I start pulling bodies out of the fire and in my — in my calculation
from 2009 to 2012, it was about pulling bodies out of the fire.
Another administrator noted:
But it’s like when you got everything [that] has to be fixed — it’s literally — it’s kind of
like — I guess the analogy would be like, okay, we have a problem in the house. It’s just
okay, the sinks are stopped up. Okay, we’ll focus on that. Everything else we’re just okay
with, but it’s like if the whole house is a fixer upper…
The many references to the situation at UCC compared to a house is indicative of a
deeper relationship that people have with UCC. If employees think of their work place as their
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 111
second home, then the stakes are much higher with regards to what is happening at the work
place, especially if that work place is at risk for losing it accreditation.
Double Standards Processes of the Accrediting Agency
Many persons mentioned the accrediting agency had double standards. One administrator
noted:
And one of the things I’ve noticed about the accrediting agency, and I saw this in the
court hearing a week ago on, on Tuesday of last week, was that they have amazing
double standards in terms of, for instance, on the one hand, saying to Urban City College,
“Well, you should have known in 2006. We didn’t come right out and say it, but, from
what we did say, you should have figured out you were in deep trouble and done
something about it then.” That’s on the one hand. On the other hand, the letters that
they’ve gotten from the Department of Education, they say, “Well, we know it says
you’re not doing this properly, but they don’t really mean it and besides, it was not a final
letter, and besides, we’ve appealed it so it really doesn’t count.” On the one hand, they
say to all the colleges, “You need to be upfront about the mistakes you’ve made and work
to improve and not be defensive and say, ‘No, it’s not true’ when we tell you you have
problems. You need to just believe it when we tell you you have problems and work to
fix it,” on the one side. And on the other hand, they’re saying to the court, the public, and
everybody else, “Oh no! We’ve done everything perfectly correct. No, no, nothing we
have done has been incorrect. We have not made any mistakes.”
A board member commented on the accrediting commission’s double standards without
directly calling them double standards:
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 112
So, they’ve taken on this sort of incredibly serious role with incredibly serious
consequences for public institutions, and they haven’t actually ensured that their own
processes are adequate to that kind of a public responsibility. Every time something
comes down, though…Every time their own failures are pointed out to them, they are in a
mode of denial or minimization. And when the Department of Education says they’re out
of compliance, you know, they appeal it, they fight it, they deny it. And they do that all
— they do that with everything.
Some classified employees commented on the commission’s double standards as well,
stating:
The rules applied to them [accrediting agency], but not to us. It was not a level playing
field. The accrediting agency rules and regs said we must have collegial relations, and
they gave direction that we should be following this approach, and our administration
said ok, but it did not seem the commission adhered to the same rules and that seemed
peculiar.
Thus far in the results, much of what the data shows was somewhat expected, such as
individuals pointing fingers at the commission, at the administration, faculty, and board
members. Overall, as much as that occurred, the observation is that the college came together to
help make the accreditation situation right, or at least maintain accreditation and keep the college
open. With the back and forth between the commission and UCC, a trial against the commission
which found for the people, the commission created a policy whereby UCC can be restored.
There are many views about that scenario, and it remains to be seen how the situation of
accreditation will unfold, but there is much hope. The stakeholders, who at times seemed to be at
odds with one another, also seem to be working together (Figure 1).
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 113

Figure 1. Stakeholder Relationships
Perfect Storm
An unexpected outcome was the metaphor of the situation at UCC being referred to as a
perfect storm. After conducting the interviews and hearing the phrase repeated, it seemed to be a
possibility that, indeed, this was a situation where an event was described, “…where a rare
combination of circumstances will aggravate a situation drastically (Stern, 2008).”
Many persons interviewed felt the notice of termination of UCC was a perfect storm of events
happening, alluding that much of it was not controllable with just one faction alone, such as
leadership, governance, faculty or board members. One administrator stated:
The finance one [finding]. I kind of thought it was in the middle zone of severity. I was
kind of thinking, well, it’s kind of getting up there but you know, at that time, you know,
everybody — it was in the middle of the budget — it was — the economy had
tanked…everyone’s budget, so I said, “Well, maybe, you know, it’s not like, you know,
we’re doing anything that’s anything worse than any other school. All the other schools
•Board •Faculty and Staff
•Accrediting
Commission
•Administrators
Keep the
open college
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 114
are facing those issues and… it was kind of a combinational storm effect where, you
know, if it had just only been that, we probably wouldn’t have gotten it, but, you know
between the budget and the SLO and then the accreditation.
A faculty member also spoke of the situation being likened to a perfect storm:
[A]nd think about all the ways in which it’s a perfect storm. We’d just been through
multiple years of major cuts…we’ve had the worst budget year yet, right? That year,
2011-12, was the worst budget year yet. A lot of things went wrong that year. A lot of
things went wrong. We had very unhappy people all throughout the campus. We had —
we had various folks at the college and a board that was putting some pressures that were
not — that were making for a lot of unhappy people and there was a lot of
dissension…among the ranks in the college…and among board members and it wasn’t —
you know, like, it wouldn’t have been a nice Thanksgiving dinner that you’d come home
from. It would have been like…various people storming off and slamming doors. And
that’s right when they [accreditors] came in. So yeah, definitely a perfect storm.
Urban City Values/Style
An administrator talks about the way UCC and the association with accreditation, saying,
I hear from other schools. Like oh, that’s normal. We can bend it and they will follow.
But it’s like, not in Urban City, no. We bend a little bit. There’s a lot of resistance or
opposition about things and we really need to have a discussion.
A classified employee spoke of the college’s style this way, “In the end we all pulled
together…we towed the company line in Urban City style and the accrediting agency was not
used to this.” One of the classified employees continued, saying:
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 115
The president of the accrediting agency was not used to everyone having a voice like at
UCC. Diverse voices here in Urban City is common – many viewpoints can be
entertained. The commission wanted one voice. When we get down to 10 or 15 voices,
that is pretty good for us! There was a culture clash in CC. Diversity in viewpoints
usually means a healthy dialogue. For us, one voice includes minority opinions and the
commission was not used to hearing this.
Further, a board member describes UCC’s style, by saying:
Because you have interests on various sides that aren’t necessarily aligned with
cooperation. You know—it’s like —various sides are reinforcing each other’s negative
caricatures…So that critique invites—because it invokes kind of an unwillingness to
change, invokes from the accreditor’s side—provokes the accreditor’s side more of a
sense of hyper-aggressive stances…towards those who—those factions of the college by
default. So you know, it’s—like I said—in many ways it’s a political problem that takes
leadership to resolve.
Once again, we can see the unmistakable spirit of the city coming through with regard to
UCC and the accrediting agency. The people of Urban City speak up about causes, which
interest them, and they are not afraid to do so.
Summary
Perspective is defined as “a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; a
point of view,” per the Apple MacBookAir computer dictionary’s definition. Another definition
is, “a way of regarding situations or topics, etc…” (iPhone). The many comments from the
stakeholders of UCC, the board members, the administrators, the faculty and staff, as well as the
interested community member, and even the lack of comment from any member of the ACCJC is
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 116
part of the makeup of this unfolding phenomenon. When venturing into this study, it appeared
there was sufficient responsibility to share in the situation of UCC being in jeopardy of losing its
accreditation.
In reviewing the comments and findings, there were significant areas that, taken
individually, would not be alarming in general. However, when the perfect storm analogy was
raised, that was a concept worth considering. Of course, the perfect storm analogy does not
excuse the individual occurrences. When thinking of leadership, for example, a chancellor who
has come up through the ranks of the organization may not be making the best decisions for a
couple of reasons. First, he was not in good health and, second, he may have been giving
preferential treatment to individuals and not seeing the students as a priority in his decision
making. Other observations are the comments regarding the accrediting commission. For them to
be accused of having double standards is not necessarily unusual, but for board members,
faculty, and administrators to agree on this issue, makes it worth noting. In addition, many
comments were about the confusion of the commission’s recommendations and how to respond
to them. During the time period of this study, the accreditors revised their standards once again.
Unfortunately, that does not ensure equal understanding of them, or specifically, understanding
of the meaning of the word recommendation. A recommendation, to most individuals, does not
mean a requirement, which is the way the ACCJC appeared to view them.
Another area of concern by the accreditors is having interim administrators. To use the
house analogy, and having been in a college where an interim president was instituted, it feels
like one of the parents is moving out and the house is being taken over by someone else whom
no one knows. This is not such a happy feeling in a real family, and it seemed to contribute to the
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 117
perfect storm analogy of things occurring at the same time as other incidents at UCC in a
negative way.
When one administrator says the college “resisted the commission’s findings,” this is a
polite way of saying the college fought back. On the one hand, it appears the faculty were the
most vocal of all constituencies, in one example, by sending a 300-page document to the
accrediting commission which allowed the USDE to become involved in some of the events at
UCC. On the other hand, it seems the board was also very vocal, especially when described as
having “loathsome” attitudes toward each other. Further, having comments about the way the
board may have been participating in unethical activities, along with holding “horrible” meetings
until 2 a.m., does not relieve the board from having some of the responsibility of the situation.
As mentioned earlier, the suspicion that there was more than enough responsibility to
share in the Show Cause finding for UCC is more evident after the data has been revealed. The
accrediting commission can share some responsibility along with UCC’s leadership, faculty, and
the governance system at UCC.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 118
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
In an emergent qualitative case study, the results are unique to the particular study as well
as the revelations that ultimately emerge from the study. In particular, Creswell (2009) states the
researcher analyzes results with topics the reader would expect to find, topics that are surprising
and not anticipated, and topics that are unusual. In this case study about UCC and its impending
loss of accreditation, there were major themes reviewed. Specifically, the major themes were the
impact of accreditation and the accrediting agency on UCC and the impact of leadership, faculty,
and governance on the college’s situation. The researcher found data in all areas of analysis
relating to UCC and its impending loss of accreditation and data that is notable, but tangentially
related. In this case study of perspectives, the researcher did not attempt to find whom to blame
regarding the situation in which UCC finds itself, but, rather, what the stakeholders were
thinking and feeling as the situation unfolded.
Research Questions
This study was guided by the following overarching research question: What is the
perception of how UCC reached the point of being set to lose its accreditation? There were five
sub-questions:
1. What specific documents and processes were used in the years leading up to the
impending loss of accreditation for UCC being on the verge of losing their accreditation?
2. What processes did the campus follow in responding to the sanctions and the notice of
losing accreditation?
3. What is the perceived impact of leadership by administrators, faculty, staff, and students
in the process of losing accreditation?
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 119
4. What is the perceived impact of faculty by administrators, faculty, staff, and students in
the process of losing accreditation?
5. What is the perceived impact of shared governance ’s impact to UCC ’s impending loss of
accreditation?
Findings
As expected in the study, there is sufficient sharing of responsibility for UCC to be
handed a Show Cause notice and for the community to respond accordingly, especially by not
appreciating the work of the accrediting commission. The chancellor had been ill for quite a
while at the time of the site visit in 2012, and he resigned soon after the visit occurred. For about
a year prior to his resignation, his decision-making and leadership was questionable. Governance
at the college was not particularly viewed in a positive light, especially with interim chancellors
and the impact of the accrediting commission and its many requests to bring the college into
compliance. In addition, the board members had their own issues with each other and the college
community. Although the literature indicates that sometimes faculty does not buy in to the
accreditation process, specifically as it relates to assessment (Kuh & Ewell, 2010), this is not the
case with the faculty at UCC. They were very much involved in trying to keep the college open
and accredited and participated in many events to do so.
Regarding the documents and processes leading up to Show Cause in July 2012, the
college had not received any serious sanctions and had complied with all of the commission’s
requests for focused Mid-Term Reports and the Commission had accepted all of UCC’s reports
from 1988 to 2012. When the college received the notice of Show Cause, UCC followed the
Commission’s direction and prepared reports in response to the commission. A year later, in
2013, the city attorney filed the lawsuit against the commission, which stalled the closure of
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 120
UCC that was scheduled for 2014. When the college received the Show Cause notice, many at
the college were shocked and other community colleges around the state of California began
keeping watch on UCC. The interested community member began a closer watch on the
accrediting commission. In addition, there were many protests and activities related to the
accreditation situation in and around UCC, and these included local as well as national public
figures. In the meantime, attitudes of the accrediting commission were strained, with many
stating outright that the president of the commission should be fired. This was not only because
of the UCC accreditation situation, but because of the large number of sanctions given to
community colleges since 2002. It must also be remembered that the state of California had been
in a budget crisis over several years, which also had an impact on the findings of the commission
in 2012 for UCC.
To summarize the impact of leadership on the accreditation situation at UCC, the
leadership of the college was not viewed in a positive way. Some comments were that the
college had siloed itself in its operation, the chancellor was ill and not making good decisions,
and was not making decisions in the best interest of the students. Regarding the faculty of UCC
and its impact on accreditation, the faculty members were very outspoken, attacking both the
leadership of the college and the accrediting commission for the situation. Not only were the
faculty outspoken verbally, but they also filed a lawsuit against the commission at one point and
the academic senate sent a separate letter to the commission regarding the college’s self-study.
The lawsuit allowed the USDE to get involved and reprimand the commission, however, the
separate letter to the commission might not have boded well for the college. Lastly, the
governance of the college was questionable due to the opposing factions on the board of trustees
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 121
and the differences of opinion about shared governance by interim chancellors. Indeed, it was a
perfect storm of a rare set of combinations, which were aggravated greatly.
There are many factors that contributed to UCC’s notice of Show Cause from the
accrediting commission and many factors that will have an impact on accreditation in the future.
Some of the factors to consider are the:
1. Impact of updated accreditation standards, 2002 and 2012;
2. Legislative actions coming forth with possible changes to how accreditation is handled –
Title 5 and AB404;
3. HEA reauthorization;
4. Attitudes about accrediting commission;
5. Transparency of accreditation commission;
6. Leadership and Governance in higher education.
To begin this discussion, the updated accreditation standards from 2002 spurred a larger
than usual number of community colleges which received sanctions. In 2012, the standards were
again updated. It remains to be seen how the new standards will be received by colleges and how
the commission will judge colleges in the near future. This is especially true with new legislation
coming forth regarding accreditation and with many watching the commission and its actions.
Specifically, according to Glass (2015), the California Community Colleges Board of Governors
deleted language from Title 5 regulations that gave the accrediting commission sole authority
over accreditation of the state’s community colleges. Although some embrace this new language
in Title 5, it may take years for another accrediting commission to be created or determine how
other commissions may begin to oversee California community colleges. In addition, the
FACCC sponsored Assembly Bill 404 (Chiu). The bill would improve feedback on the
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 122
accrediting commission via a survey by those who work directly in community colleges. The
findings would be sent to the USDE and NACIQI. The next legislation that might have an impact
on accreditation is the reauthorization of the HEA of 1965. It has been reauthorized nine times in
the last 50 years, most recently in 2008 (WCET, 2015). It is the major law that authorizes the
federal programs that support colleges and universities and their students, most significantly the
federal student loan and grant programs. The HEA has had bi-partisan support over the years and
reauthorization is expected to occur in late 2015. However, the details of the reauthorization are
unclear at this writing.
With the situation at UCC, the reverberations from the college community, and the recent
increase in sanctions, the accrediting commission is headed to a point where its actions may be
reviewed more stringently versus having little oversight, as what seems to have happened in
recent years. The Secretary of Education and NACIQI recommended more communication and
collaboration between accreditors, state, and the federal government to avoid overlapping
responsibilities and making accreditation reports publically available (NACIQI, 2012). Having
reports be publicly available point to transparency of the accrediting commission, which is a
large concern from the college community about accreditation. Furthermore, President Obama
mentioned accountability and accreditation in higher education in recent years, asking Congress
to “change the Higher Education Act, so that affordability and value are included in determining
which colleges receive certain types of federal aid” (Obama, 2013a, para 39). These actions
show an interest in accreditation and how it may be under more scrutiny in the coming years.
Leadership and governance in higher education have been evolving. There is less focus
on power and influence, and leadership is more multi-dimensional and has changed over time as
social mores and beliefs changed (Kezar et al., 2006, p. 176). The higher education leaders of
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 123
today must consider faculty, student associations, research administration, and other
nonpresidential settings. Governance in higher education allows for all stakeholders to
participate in governing the college, which includes boards of trustees, administrators, faculty,
staff, and students. When AB1725 was signed into law, it made it necessary for leaders to shift
from traditional “top down” leadership styles to ones that were more inclusive and considered
the decision making process as one that should be shared and collaborative. Thus, new terms
such as “collegial consultation,” “effective participation” and “shared governance” were
introduced into the literature (Escover, 2008). While leadership and governance were criticized
at UCC, there is always room for improvement. However, it seems to be challenging, at best, to
manage and have effective governance with ten campuses.
In sum, many factors contributed to the Show Cause and UCC being in jeopardy of
losing its accreditation. Negative attitudes and criticisms about the accrediting commission are
not lacking, particularly in terms of an increase in sanctions, lack of transparency and concrete
messages, and changing standards. In addition, the leadership and governance of the college was
questionable. Lastly, the impact of faculty who are passionate about their college to the point of
sending an addendum to the self-study of the college surely contributed to the Show Cause. The
perfect storm hit, and the college is still recovering, although UCC did not lose accreditation
throughout the storm. The lawsuit brought to light many areas, but only found that the
accrediting commission needed to give UCC more time to respond to the sanctions. The college
is currently under a Restoration Status to allow time to meet the standards to be fully accredited.
Thus, the college is in a better situation having gone through the storm, prepared for closure, and
still maintained accreditation. The accrediting commission may still have the upper hand, but has
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 124
certainly been under scrutiny after putting this particular college on Show Cause and will
continue to be viewed critically.
Limitations
In this emergent qualitative study, the limitations were the perspectives of the group of
participants involved and the ongoing nature of the situation. The trigger for the study occurred
in the late spring of 2012 (the notice of Show Cause to UCC) and has been evolving ever since,
with many events and written material to be observed for the coverage. The study may end due
to the nature of stopping the research, but the phenomenon of the story continues. Many lives
were, and still are, affected due to the accreditation situation. The college did not lose its
accreditation, but is still under the scrutiny of the accrediting commission, and until there are
changes with the current accreditor, the college will continue to be under its scrutiny.
More participants could have been interviewed for this study to gather more findings.
There were many people involved throughout the college, and only 13 persons were interviewed.
A quantitative study of many more individuals may reveal other pertinent information on topics
covered by this study.
Implications for Future Practice and Advice to Colleges
The study revealed a plethora of information that indirectly related to UCC being given a
Show Cause notice by the accrediting commission. Some examples were a student felt that the
college was not able to be all things to all people as a community college, and there were
suspicions of the accrediting commission changing it to a community college where people come
and get two-year degrees and transfer versus having a high school equivalency program or ESL
for immigrants. Another example, reported by a faculty member, was the event of changing out
administrators in the student services area, writing new job descriptions, and people having to
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 125
apply for those positions and possibly not being rehired. This changing of the administrators was
reported as a response to the accrediting commission. Another example of what might have
affected the accreditation situation is one of the former chancellors was indicted on
embezzlement charges several years prior to Show Cause, and one may question how that
affected the operation of the college. In addition, a Local Parcel Tax was passed and Prop 30
passed in the state of CA in fall of 2013. These occurrences may have had an impact on the
accreditation situation at UCC, but are not specifically included in this study.
One of the last questions in the interview script asked the study participants what advice
they would give to other colleges regarding accreditation. Here are a few responses and from
whom:
Administrator - Follow processes – integrated processes – cycles; you will not run into
problems if that is where you come from every day.
Interested Community Member – So, I would hope that the college leadership at each of
the colleges picks some people to run who can change the whole uh…way that ACCJC
sees itself. In other words, have the people run who are going to stand up and change the
whole environment of ACCJC and eventually vote out the president.
Administrator – To be very responsive to the — to the commission’s directions and to
pay attention to the standards on an ongoing basis. Not just every six years. But it’s a —
it’s a permanent process…
Student - One day, you say, today we’re having a — once a semester Appreciative
Student Day.
Administrator - One is adhering to the standards. And the other is taking action about
having an accrediting commission that isn’t serving its purpose. The — the advice that
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 126
was given to us by other colleges — you should just sit down and be quiet — I don’t
think that would have worked here.
Board member - I would just — you know, encourage everyone to avoid getting scared
by the ACCJC. Someone said to me that, you know, they’re like the IRS. Once they’re in
your business, it’s very hard to get them out.
Classified member - Good to get clarity from ACCJC on new standards – things they are
asking for needs better clarification.
Board member - My recommendation is to keep focus on students — on the students that
you serve.
Future
Although the judge in the trial between the People of the State of California and the
accrediting agency gave a final statement/ruling in February 2015 finding in favor of the People,
the appeal process can carry into the future and beyond the scope of this study. The finding, on
the one hand, gave UCC a feeling of winning the battle because there was one relatively small
finding that was big to UCC. On the other hand, the commission members feel they won some of
the battle because of the one small finding and not being found guilty of other accusations.
Specifically, the finding, called an Injunction and Judgment (People v. ACCJC, 2015), required
the accrediting agency to notify UCC within 15 days of the ruling to opt in or out of the
Injunction Process. UCC would then have 15 days to opt in or out of the injunction process. If
UCC opts in, which it did, then the accrediting agency has 40 days to send a report to UCC that
clearly identifies any deficiencies in UCC’s compliance with accreditation standards as of June
2013 (Written Report). UCC would respond to the Written Report within 80 days. There is more
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 127
back and forth between the commission and UCC; however, the bottom line is that UCC has an
opportunity to be declared accredited after the injunction process is carried out.
In February 2015, the FACCC sponsored AB404 and introduced it in the Legislature.
This bill would improve feedback from faculty, staff, administrators and other college
stakeholders on the performance of the agency that accredits California community colleges
(FACCC, 2015). The information would be sent to NACIQI. NACIQI advises the US Secretary
of Education on postsecondary accreditation. Under this proposal, college officials could provide
their input to the Chancellor’s Office anonymously, without fear of retaliation. While the
commission is currently the accrediting agency for California community colleges, the California
Code of Regulations is being redrafted by the California Community Colleges Board of
Governors to allow for the selection of an alternative accreditor (FACCC, 2015). At this writing,
AB404 is slowly making its way through the legislature. It will be interesting to see if this bill
passes and how accreditation is affected if it is passed into law.
President Barack Obama, in his 2015 State of the Union Address, proposed free college
tuition for community college students who met certain criteria such as keeping a 3.0 GPA, and
meeting financial criteria (The New York Times, 2015). There has been much discussion about
this proposal, whether it could be accomplished, who would pay for it, whether it is a good
approach to solving our educational problems for preparing our young people for the future, and
many others. Another question could be how free tuition will affect accreditation and
maintenance of it.
An area brought up in the findings was the impact of long-time leadership at the college,
leadership coming up from the ranks, and being employed by the college over a long period of
time. A future study could focus on the impact of leading and managing with this kind of
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 128
background and whether favoritism is an issue, whether individuals actually lose sight of the
students and manage around the desires of individuals, as was asserted in the findings.
With a large number of findings about community college boards of trustees and
governing bodies (Beno, 2009), another study could look at how the boards function, and,
specifically, if they are described as having “horrific animosities” as was referred to in one
interview. What is their impact on the government of the college, especially over time?
Furthermore, a study may look into whether the board members work together or have animosity
toward each other and how that affects governance, and, ultimately, accreditation.
Finally, this study is conducted in the hope that it will be useful to those in the field of
community college education and those who work with accrediting agencies, administrators,
board members, faculty, staff, students, and the community who make up the community in
community colleges.

PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 129
References
ACE. (2012). Assuring academic quality in the 21
st
century. Self-regulation in a new era.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Retrieved from
https://alaska.edu/files/shapingalaskasfuture/Accreditation-TaskForce-revised-
070512.pdf
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges and the Community College League of
California. (1998). Participating effectively in district and college governance. Retrieved
August 31, 2014, from:
http://www.asccc.org/sites/default/files/publications/FinalGuidelines_0.pdf
Accountability Reporting for the Community Colleges (ARCC). (2012). California Community
Colleges Chancellor’s Office. Accrediting Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges. Retrieved from: www.accjc.org.
Adelman, C., & Silver, H. (1990). Accreditation: The American experience. London, England:
Council for National Academic Awards.
Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Hoxby, C. M., Mas-Colell, A., & Sapir, A. (2008). Higher
aspirations: An agenda for reforming European universities. Retrieved from
http://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/newsletter/BPJULY2008University.pdf
Amador, S. & Kinsella, S. (2014). “Candidacy” could give S.F. City College a fresh start.
Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Candidacy-could-give-S-F-City-
College-a-fresh-5396187.php
American Accounting Association, Committee on Consequences of Accreditation. (1977).
Report of the Committee on Consequences of Accreditation, 52, 165, 167- 177.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 130
American Association for Higher Education. (1992). 9 principles of good practice for assessing
student learning. North Kansas City, MO: Author.
American Association for Higher Education. (1997). Assessing impact: Evidence and action.
Washington, DC: Author.
American Council on Education. (2012). Assuring academic quality in the 21st century: Self-
regulation in a new era: A report of the ACE National Task Force on institutional
accreditation Retrieved from
http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Government_Relations_and_Public_
Policy&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=45275
American Council of Trustees and Alumni. (2007). Why accreditation doesn’t work and what
policymakers can do about it. Retrieved from
https://www.goacta.org/publications/downloads/Accreditation2007Final.pdf
American Federation of Teachers. (2013). Standing up for real accreditation. Perspective 45(1),
4-5.
American Medical Association. (1971). Accreditation of health educational programs. Part I:
Staff working papers. Washington, DC: American Medical Association.
Amey, M. J. (2006). Leadership in higher education. Change, 38(6), 55-58. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vchn20
Asimov, N. (2014). CCSF supporters press for extension to fix problems. Retrieved from
http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/CCSF-supporters-press-for-extension-to-fix-
5479134.php.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global
century. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/GlobalCentury_final.pdf
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 131
Astin, A. W. (2014). Accreditation and autonomy. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/02/18/accreditation-helps-limit-government-
intrusion-us-higher-education-essay
Baker, R. L. (2002). Evaluating quality and effectiveness: Regional accreditation principles and
practices. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28, 3-7. doi: 10.1016/s0099-
1333(01)00279-88
Banta, T. W. (1993). Summary and conclusion: Are we making a difference? In T. W. Banta
(Ed.), Making a difference: Outcomes of a decade of assessment in higher education (pp.
357-376). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bardo, J. W. (2009). The impact of the changing climate for accreditation on the individual
college or university: Five trends and their implications. New Directions for Higher
Education, 145, 47-58. doi: 10.1002/he.334
Barzun, J. (1993). The American university: How it runs, where it is going. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Baum, S., Payea, K., & College Board Advocacy & Policy Center. (2011). Trends in student aid,
2011. New York, NY: College Board.
Beno, B. A. (2004). The role of student learning outcomes in accreditation quality review. New
Directions for Community College, 126, 65-72. doi: 10.1002/cc.155
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 131, 99-111. doi:
10.1002/he.190
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 132
Bernhard, A. (2011). Quality assurance in an international higher education area: A case study
approach and comparative analysis. Tertiary Education and Management, 18, 153-169.
doi: 10.1080/13583883.2012.654504
Bitter, M. E., Stryker, J. P, & Jens, W. G. (1999). A preliminary investigation of the choice to
obtain AACSB accounting accreditation. Accounting Educators’ Journal, 11, 1-15.
Retrieved from http://www.aejournal.com/ojs/index.php/aej
Blauch, L. E. (1959). Accreditation in higher education. Washington, DC: United States
Government Printing Office.
Bloland, H. G. (2001). Creating the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA).
Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
(3
rd
ed.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bresciani, M. J. (2006). Outcomes-based academic and co-curricular program review: A
compilation of institutional good practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Britt, B., & Aaron, L. (2008). Nonprogrammatic accreditation: Programs and attitudes.
Radiologic Technology, 80, 123-129. Retrieved from
http://www.radiologictechnology.org
Brittingham, B. (2008,). An uneasy partnership: Accreditation and the federal government.
Change, 40, 32-39. doi: 10.3200/CHNG.40.5.32-39
Brittingham, B. (2009). Accreditation in the United States: How did we get to where we are?
New Directions for Higher Education, 145, 7-27. doi: 10.1002/he.331

PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 133
Brittingham, B. (2012). Higher education, accreditation, and change, change, change: What’s
teacher education to do? In M. LaCelle-Peterson & D. Rigden (Eds.), Inquiry, evidence,
and excellence: The promise and practice of quality assurance (59-75). Washington, DC:
Teacher Education Accreditation Council. Retrieved from http://www.teac.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/03/Festschrift-Book.pdf
Brown, H. (2013, September). Protecting Students and Taxpayers: The Federal Government’s
Failed Regulatory Approach and Steps for Reform. American Enterprise Institute, Center
on Higher Education Reform. Retrieved from http://www.aei.org/files/2013/09/27/-
protecting-students-and-taxpayers_164758132385.pdf
Burke, J. C., & Associates. (2005). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing
public, academic, and market demands. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
Burke, J. C. & Minassians, H. P. (2002). The new accountability: From regulation to results.
New Directions for Institutional Research, 116, 5-19. doi: 10.1002/ir.57
Cabrera, A. F., Colbeck, C. L., & Terenzini, P. T. (2001). Developing performance indicators for
assessing classroom teaching practices and student learning: The case of engineering.
Research in Higher Education, 42, 327-352. doi: 10.1023/A:1018874023323
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2014). Home Page. Retrieved from
www.cccco.edu.
Carey, K. (2009). College for $99 a month. Washington Monthly. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com
Carey, K. (2010). Death of a university. In K. Carey & M. Schneider (Eds.), Accountability in
American higher education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 134
Chambers, C. M. (1983). Council on Postsecondary Education. In K. E. Young, C. M.
Chambers, and H. R. Kells (Eds.), Understanding Accreditation (pp. 289-314). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chernay, G. (1990). Accreditation and the role of the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation.
Washington, DC: Council on Postsecondary Accreditation.
Collins, L. (2002). Shared governance in the California community colleges. Academe, 88, 36-
40. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Community College League of California. (2008). About the League. Retrieved from
http://www.ccleague.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3286
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory, 3
rd
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2002). The fundamentals of accreditation: What do
you need to know? Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/pdf/fund_accred_20ques_02.pdf
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2006). CHEA survey of recognized accrediting
organizations: Providing information to the public. Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/pdf/CHEA_OP_Apr06.pdf
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2010). Quality review 2009: CHEA almanac of
external quality review. Washington, DC: Author.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2012). The CHEA initiative final report. Retrieved
from http://www.chea.org/pdf/TheCHEAInitiative_Final_Report8.pdf
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2012). Accreditation and recognition in the United
States. Retrieved from http://chea.org/pdf/AccredRecogUS_2012.pdf
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 135
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2014). 2013-2014 directory of CHEA-recognized
organizations. Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/pdf/20132014_Directory_of_CHEA_Recognized_Organizations.pdf
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2015). Degree mills: An old problem and a new
threat. Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/degreemills/frmPaper.htm
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2015). Directories. Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/Directories/special.asp
Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions. (n.d.). A guide for institutions and evaluators.
Retrieved from
https://www.anokaramsey.edu/resources/pdf/assessment/assessmentguidecrac.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3
rd
ed). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Cremonini, L., Epping, E., Westerheijden, D. F., & Vogelsang, K. (2012). Impact of quality
assurance on cross-border higher education. Retrieved from
http://doc.utwente.nl/84413/1/Cremonini12impact.pdf
Daoust, M. P., Wehmeyer, W., & Eubank, E. (2006). Valuing an MBA: Authentic outcome
measurement made easy. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Academy-Educational-Leadership-
Journal/166823288.html
Davenport, C. A. (2000). Recognition chronology. Retrieved from http://www.aspa-
usa.org/documents/Davenport.pdf
Davis, C. O. (1932). The North central association of colleges and secondary schools: aims,
organization, activities. Retrieved from http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001882107
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 136
Davis, C. O. (1945). A history of the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary
Schools 1895-1945. Retrieved from
https://archive.org/details/historyofthenort009847mbp
DeLeon, R. E. (1992). The urban antiregime: Progressive politics in San Francisco. Urban
Affairs Quarterly, 27, 555-579. doi: 10.1177/004208169202700404
Dewatripont, M., Sapir, A., Van Pottelsberghe, B., & Veugelers, R. (2010). Boosting innovation
in Europe, 2010/06. Retrieved from
http://aei.pitt.edu/14187/1/pc_2010_06_innovation.pdf
Dickeson, R. (2009). Recalibrating the accreditation-federal relationship. Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/pdf/2009_AC_Recalibrating_the_Accreditation-
Federal_Relationship_Dickeson_wp.pdf
Dickeson, R. C. (2006). The need for accreditation reform. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/dickeson.pdf
Dickey, F., & Miller, J. (1972). Federal involvement in nongovernmental accreditation.
Educational Record 53, 139-142.
Dill, D. D., Massy, W. F., Williams, P. R., & Cook, C. M. (1996). Accreditation and academic
quality assurance: Can we get there from here? Change 28, 16-24. Retrieved from
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Dill/publication/261572737_Accreditation__A
cademic_Quality_Assurance_Can_We_Get_There_from_Here/links/54e39f370cf2dbf606
9385c1.pdf
Dill, D. (2007). Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Practices and Issues. Retrieved from
http://www.unc.edu/ppaq/docs/Encyclopedia_Final.pdf
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 137
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-
160. Retrieved from JSTOR database.
Dougherty, K. J., Hare, R., & Natow, R. S. (2009). Performance accountability systems for
community colleges: Lessons for the voluntary framework of accountability for
community colleges. Retrieved from
http://asccc.org/sites/default/files/Performance%20Systems%20Report%20CCRC.pdf
Driscoll, A., & de Noriega, D. C. (2006). Taking ownership of accreditation: Assessment
processes that promote institutional improvement and faculty engagement. Retrieved
from https://cms.bsu.edu/-
/media/WWW/DepartmentalContent/Effectiveness/pdfs/LendingLibrary/TakingAccredita
tion.pdf
Doerr, A. H. (1983). Accreditation: Academic boon or bane. Contemporary Education, 55, 6-8.
Dowd, A. C. (2003). From access to outcome equity: Revitalizing the democratic mission of the
community college. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
586, 92-119. doi: 10.1177/0095399702250214
Dowd, A. C., & Grant, J. L. (2006). Equity and efficiency of community college appropriations:
The role of local financing. The Review of Higher Education, 29, 167-194. Retrieved
from
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=cheri
Eaton, J. S. (2003). Is accreditation accountable? The continuing conversation between
accreditation and the federal government. Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/pdf/CHEAmonograph_Oct03.pdf
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 138
Eaton, J. S. (2009). Accreditation in the United States. New Directions for Higher Education,
145, 79-86. doi:10.1002/he.337
Eaton, J. S. (2010). Accreditation and the federal future of higher education. Academe, 96(5), 21-
24. Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/article/accreditation-and-federal-future-higher-
education#.VX90HkaGPhU
Eaton, J. S. (2012b). What future for accreditation: The challenge and opportunity of the
accreditation – federal government relationship. In M. LaCelle-Peterson & D. Rigden
(Eds.), Inquiry, evidence, and excellence: The promise and practice of quality assurance
(pp. 77-88). Washington, DC: Teacher Education Accreditation Council. Retrieved from
http://www.teac.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/03/Festschrift-Book.pdf
Eaton, J. S. (2012). The future of accreditation: Can the collegial model flourish in the context of
the government’s assertiveness and the impact of nationalization and technology? How?
Society for College and University Planning, 40, 8-15. Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/pdf/The%20Future%20of%20Accreditation_Planning_HE_JE.pdf
Eaton, J. S. (2013a). Accreditation and the next reauthorization of the higher education act.
Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/ia/IA_2013.05.31.html
Eaton, J. S. (2013b). The changing role of accreditation: Should it matter to governing boards?
Retrieved from http://agb.org/trusteeship/2013/11/changing-role-accreditation-should-it-
matter-governing-boards
El-Khawas, E. (2001). Accreditation in the USA: Origins, developments and future prospects.
Paris, France: International Institute for Educational Planning.
Escover, M. (2008). Creating collaborative leadership and shared governance at a California
community college: A case study. Lampeter, England: Edwin Mellen Press.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 139
Ewell, P. T. (1984). The self-regarding institution: Information for excellence. Retrieved from
ERIC database.
Ewell, P. T. (1993). The role of states and accreditors in shaping assessment practice. In T. W.
Banta (Ed.), Making a difference: Outcomes of a decade of assessment in higher
education (pp. 339-356). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ewell, P. T. (2001). Accreditation and student learning outcomes: A proposed point of
departure. Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/award/StudentLearningOutcomes2001.pdf
Ewell, P. T. (2002). An emerging scholarship: A brief history of assessment. In T. W. Banta
(Ed.), Building a scholarship of assessment (pp. 3-25). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ewell, P. T. (2005). Can assessment serve accountability? It depends on the question. In J. C.
Burke (Ed.), Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands (pp. 78-105). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ewell, P. T. (2008). U.S. accreditation and the future of quality assurance: A tenth anniversary
report from the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Washington, DC: Council
for Higher Education Accreditation.
Ewell, P. T. (2008). Assessment and accountability in America today: Background and context.
New Directions for Institutional Research, S1, 7–17. doi: 10.1002/ir.258
Ewell, P. T. (2009). Assessment, accountability, and improvement: Revisiting the tension.
Retrieved from
http://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org/documents/PeterEwell_005.pdf
Ewell, P. T. (2010). Twenty years of quality assurance in higher education: What’s happened
what’s different? Quality in Higher Education, 16(2), 173-175.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 140
Ewell, P. T. (2012). Disciplining peer review: Addressing some deficiencies in U.S.
accreditation practices. In M. LaCelle-Peterson & D. Rigden (Eds.), Inquiry, evidence,
and excellence: The promise and practice of quality assurance (89-105). Retrieved from
http://www.teac.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Festschrift-Book.pdf
Ewell, P. T., Wellman, J. V., & Paulson, K. (1997). Refashioning accountability: Toward a
“coordinated” system of quality assurance for higher education. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED410812.pdf
Faculty Association of California Community Colleges. (February 20, 2015). FACCC-
sponsored AB 404 (Chiu) would improve feedback on accreditation. Retrieved from
https://www.faccc.org/blog/2015/02/19/press-release-faccc-sponsored-ab-404-chiu-
introduced-to-facilitate-improved-state-federal-communication-on-postsecondary-
accreditation/
Finkin, M. W. (1973). Federal reliance on voluntary accreditation: The power to recognize as the
power to regulate. Journal of Law and Education, 2, 339-375.
Finn, C. E. (1975). Washington in academe we trust: Federalism and the universities: The
balance shifts. Change, 7(10), 24-29, 63. Retrieved from JSTOR database.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Team. (2014). FAMAT’s Function. Retrieved from
http://fcmat.org/fcmats-function/
Floden, R. E. (1980). Flexner, accreditation, and evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 2(2), 35-46. doi:10.3102/01623737002002035
Florida State Postsecondary Education Planning Commission. (1995). A review of specialized
accreditation. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State Postsecondary Education Planning
Commission.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 141
Fuller, M. B., & Lugg, E. T. (2012). Legal precedents for higher education accreditation. Journal
of Higher Education Management, 27(1), 47-88. Retrieved from
http://www.aaua.org/images/JHEM_-_Vol_27_Web_Edition_.pdf#page=53
Garrison, S., Herring, A., & Hinton, W.J. (2013). Learning through accreditation: Faculty
reflections on experience of program evaluation. Journal of Family and Consumer
Sciences, 105(2), 8-13. Retrieved from http://www.aafcs.org/Resources/Journal.asp
Gaston, P. L. (2014). Higher Education Accreditation: How it's changing, why it must. Sterling,
VA: Stylus Publishing.
Gillen, A., Bennett, D. L, & Vedder, R. (2010). The inmates running the asylum?: An analysis of
higher education accreditation. Retrieved from
http://www.centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/Accreditation.pdf
Glass, F. (2013). ACCJC: On a mission and off the rails. American Federation of Teachers.
Retrieved from http://www.cft.org/your-work/community-college/news/519-accjc-on-a-
mission-and-off-the-rails.html
Glass, F. (2015). Another setback for the ACCJC. Retrieved from http://cft.org/news-
publications/media-center/news-release/991
Global University Network for Innovation. (2007). Higher education in the world 2007:
Accreditation for quality assurance: What is at stake? New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Graham, P. A., Lyman, R. W., & Trow, M. (1995). Accountability of colleges and universities:
An essay. New York, NY: Columbia University.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 142
Gruson, E. S., Levine, D. O, & Lustberg, L. S. (ND). Issues in accreditation, eligibility and
institutional quality. Cambridge, MA: Sloan Commission on Government and Higher
Education.
Harcleroad, F. F. (1976). Educational auditing and accountability. Washington, DC: Council on
Postsecondary Accreditation.
Harcleroad, F. F. (1980). Accreditation: History, process, and problems. Retrieved from
ERIC database.
Hagerty, B. M. K., & Stark, J. S. (1989). Comparing educational accreditation standards in
selected professional fields. The Journal of Higher Education, 60, 1-20. Retrieved from
http://www.ashe.ws/?page=186
Hart Research Associates. (2009). Learning and assessment: Trends in undergraduate
education. Retrieved from
https://www.aacu.org/membership/documents/2009MemberSurvey_Part1.pdf
Hartman, C. (2002). City for sale: The transformation of San Francisco. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Harvey, L. (2004). The power of accreditation: Views of academics. Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, 26, 207-223. doi: 10.1080/1360080042000218267
Higher Learning Commission Initial. (2012). Seeking accreditation. Retrieved from
http://www.ncahlc.org/Information- for-Institutions/obtaining-accreditation.html
Hoffman, A.J., & Wallach, J. (2008). The demise and resurrection of Compton community
college: How loss of accreditation can lead to a new beginning. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 32, 602-613. doi: 10.1080/10668920701831373
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 143
Ikenberry, S. O. (2009). Where do we take accreditation? Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/pdf/2009_AC_Where_Do_We_Take_Accreditation_Ikenberry.pdf
Jackson, R. S., Davis, J. H., & Jackson, F. R. (2010). Redesigning regional accreditation: The
impact on institutional planning. Planning for Higher Education, 38(4), 9-19.
Jacobs, B. & Van der Ploeg, F. (2006). How to reform higher education in Europe. Economic
Policy, 535-592. Retrieved from http://people.few.eur.nl/bjacobs/ecpolicy.pdf
Jaschik, S., & Ledgerman, D. (2014). The 2014 Inside Higher Ed survey of college & university
presidents. Washington, DC: Inside Higher Ed.
Karpp, E. (2014). Glendale Community College report: Accreditation Status of California
Community Colleges, 2003 – 2014. Unpublished report. Glendale Community College.
Glendale, CA.
Kater, S. & Levin, J. S. (2004). Shared governance in the community college. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 1, 1-23. Retrieved from www4.ncsu.edu
Kells, H. R. (1976) The reform of regional accreditation agencies. Educational Record 57(1), 24-
28.
Kells, H. R., & Kirkwood, R. (1979). Institutional self-evaluation processes. The Educational
Record, 60(1), 25-45.
Kennedy, V. C., Moore, F. I., & Thibadoux, G. M. (1985). Determining the costs of self-study
for accreditation: A method and a rationale. Journal of Allied Health,14(2), 175-182.
Kezar, A. J., Carducci, R., and Contreras-McGovern, M. (2006). Rethinking the “L” word in
higher education: The revolution of research on leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 144
Kren, L., Tatum, K. W., & Phillips, L. C. (1993). Separate accreditation of accounting programs:
An empirical investigation. Issues in Accounting Education, 8(2), 260- 272.
Kuh, G. D. (2010). Risky business: Promises and pitfalls of institutional transparency. Change:
The Magazine of Higher Education, 39(5), 30-35.
Kuh, G. D., & Ewell, P. T. (2010). The state of learning outcomes assessment in the United
States. Higher education management and policy, 22, 1-20. Retrieved from
http://www.units.miamioh.edu/celt/events/docs/CFLING/state%20of%20learning%20out
comes%20assessment%20in%20the%20us.pdf
Kuh, G., & Ikenberry, S. (2009). More than you think, less than we need: Learning outcomes
assessment in American higher education. Retrieved from
http://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org/documents/niloafullreportfinal2.pdf
Learned, W. S., & Wood, B. D. (1938). The student and his knowledge: A report to the Carnegie
Foundation on the results of the high school and college examinations of 1928, 1930, and
1932. New York, NY: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Lee, M. B., & Crow, S. D. (1998). Effective collaboration for the twenty-first century: The
Commission and its stakeholders (Report and Recommendations of the Committee on
Organizational Effectiveness and Future Directions). Chicago, IL: North Central
Association of Colleges and Schools.
Leef, G. C., & Burris, R. D. (2002). Can college accreditation live up to its promise? Retrieved
from
https://www.goacta.org/publications/downloads/CanAccreditationFulfillPromise.pdf
Lind, C. J., & McDonald, M. (2003). Creating and assessment culture: a case study of success
and struggles. In S. E. Van Kollenburg (Ed.), A collection of papers on self-study and
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 145
institutional improvement (Vol. 3, pp. 21-23). Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED476673.pdf#page=22
Maki, P. L. (2010). Assessing for learning: Building a sustainable commitment across the
institution (2
nd
ed.). Sterling, VA: StylusPublishing.
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3
rd
ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Deaton, R. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins
and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 1-24. doi: 10.3102/01623737028001001
Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, J. A. (2012). Jossey-Bass business and management reader: Management and
organization theory. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Middaugh, M. F. (2012). Introduction to themed PHE issue on accreditation in higher education.
Planning for Higher Education, 40(3), 6-7.
Moltz, D. (2010). Redefining community college success. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/06/06/u_s_panel_drafts_and_debates_measur
es_to_gauge_community_college_success.
Morse, J. A., & Santiago, G. (2000). Accreditation and faculty: Working together. Academe,
86(1), 30-34. Doi: 10.2307/40252333
NACIQI Final. (2012). Higher Education Act accreditation policy recommendations By the
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity. Retrieved from
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 146
http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list Naciqi-dir/2012-spring/teleconference-
2013/naciqi-final-report.pdf
Neal, A. D. (2008). Dis-accreditation. Academic Questions, 21, 431-445. Retrieved from
http://www.springer.com/education/higher+education/journal/12129
NY Times (2015). Obama’s 2015 state of the union address. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/21/us/politics/obamas-state-of-the-union-2015-
address.html?_r=0
Perrault, A. H., Gregory, V. L.; & Carey, J. O. (2002). The integration of assessment of student
learning outcomes with teaching effectiveness. Journal of Education for Library and
Information Science, 43, 270-282. Retrieved from
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=si_facpub
Procopio, C. H. (2010). Differing administrator, faculty, and staff perceptions of organizational
culture as related to external accreditation. Academic Leadership Journal, 8(2), 1-15.
Retrieved from http://www.chairacademy.com/membership/journal.html
Obama, B. (2013a). State of the Union Address. The White House. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov
Obama, B. (2013b). The President’s plan for a strong middle class and a strong America. The
White House. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/sotu_2013_blueprint_embargo.pdf
Obama, B. (2013c). Fact sheet on the President’s plan to make college more affordable: A better
bargain for the middle class. The White House. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/22/fact-sheet-president-s-plan-
make-college-more-affordable-better-bargain-
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 147
Orlans, H. O. (1974). Private accreditation and public eligibility: Volumes 1 and 2. Retrieved
from ERIC database.
Orlans, H. O. (1975). Private accreditation and public eligibility. Lexington, MA: D.C. Health
Company.
Pigge, F. L. (1979). Opinions about accreditation and interagency cooperation: The results of a
nationwide survey of COPA institutions. Washington, DC: Committee on Postsecondary
Education.
Provezis, S. J. (2010). Regional accreditation and learning outcomes assessment: Mapping the
territory (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
(Accession Order No. ED523521)
Raessler, K. R. (1970). An analysis of state requirements for college or university accreditation
in music education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 18(3), 223-233.
Ratcliff, J. L. (1996). Assessment, accreditation, and evaluation of higher education in the US.
Quality in Higher Education, 2(1), 5-19.
Reidlinger, C. R., & Prager, C. (1993). Cost-benefit analyses of accreditation. New Directions
for Community Colleges, 83, 39-47.
Rhodes, T. L. (2012). Show me the learning: Value, accreditation, and the quality of the degree.
Planning for Higher Education, 40(3), 36-42.
Schermerhorn, J. W., Reisch, J. S., & Griffith, P. J. (1980). Educator perceptions of
accreditation. Journal of Allied Health 9(3), 176-182.
Scriven, M. (2000). Evaluation ideologies. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan
(Eds.), Evaluation models (250-278). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 148
Shaw, R. (1993). A backward glance: To a time before there was accreditation. North Central
Association Quarterly, 68, 323-335.
Shibley, L. R., & Volkwein, J. F. (2002,). Comparing the costs and benefits of re-accreditation
processes. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Smith, V. B., & Finney, J. E. (2008). Redesigning regional accreditation: An interview with
Ralph A. Wolff. Retrieved from
http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/May-June%202008/full-regional-
accreditation.html
Spangehl, S. D. (2012). AQIP and accreditation: Improving quality and performance. Planning
for Higher Education, 40(3), 6-7.
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. (2007). The Quality Enhancement Plan. Retrieved
from http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/081705/QEP%20Handbook.pdf
Stensaker, B., & Harvey, L. (2006). Old wine in new bottles? A comparison of public and private
accreditation schemes in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 19, 65-85. doi:
10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300110
Stern, A. (2008). Wordsmiths, avoid these words. Retrieved
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/01/us-list-idUSN0160393320080101
Student Aid Alliance. (2015). How big a role does the federal government play in student aid?
Retrieved from http://studentaidalliance.org/category/faqs/
Sursock, A. & Smidt, H. (2010). Trends 2010: A decade of change in European higher
education. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be
Trivett, D. A. (1976). Accreditation and institutional eligibility. Washington, DC: American
Association for Higher Education.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 149
Uehling, B. S. (1987a). Accreditation and the institution. North Central Association Quarterly,
62(2), 350-360.
UNESCO. (2005). Guidelines for quality provision in cross-border higher education. Retrieved
from http://www.unesco.org/education/guidelines_E.indd.pdf
United States Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of US
higher education. A report of the commission appointed by Secretary of Education
Margaret Spellings. Washington, DC: USDE. Accessed from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/-reports/final-report.pdf.
Van Damme, D. (2000). Internationalization and quality assurance: Towards worldwide
accreditation? European Journal for Education Law and Policy, 4, 1-20.
Van der Ploeg, F. and Veugelers, R., (2008). Towards evidence-based reform of European
universities. CESifo Economic Studies, 54(2), 99‒120. doi: 10.1093/cesifo/ifn015
Vasconcellos, J. (1988). Assembly Bill 1725. Retrieved August 31, 2014, from
http://www.faccc.org/advocacy/bills/historical/ab1725.pdf.
Volkwein, J. F., Lattuca, L. R., Harper, B. J., & Domingo, R. J. (2007). Measuring the impact of
professional accreditation on student experiences and learning outcomes. Research in
Higher Education, 48(2), 251-282. doi: 10.1007/s11162-006-9039-y
Walker, J. J. (2010). A contribution to the self-study of the postsecondary accreditation protocol:
A critical reflection to assist the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. Retrieved
from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2028327
Warner, W. K. (1977). Accreditation influences on senior institutions of higher education in the
western accrediting region: An assessment. Oakland, CA: Western Association of
Schools and Colleges.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 150
WCET. (2015). Strong signals for HEA reauthorization in 2015. Retrieved from
https://wcetblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/strongsignalshea/
Weissburg, P. (2008). Shifting alliances in the accreditation of higher education: self-regulatory
organizations (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
(Accession Order No. ED250811630)
Wergin, J. F. (2005). Waking up to the importance of accreditation. Change, 37(3) 35-41.
Wergin, J. F. (2012). Five essential tensions in accreditation. In M. LaCelle-Peterson & D.
Rigden (Eds.), Inquiry, evidence, and excellence: The promise and practice of quality
assurance (pp. 27-38). Washington, DC: Teacher Education Accreditation Council.
Westerheijden, D. F., Stensaker, B., & Rosa, M. J. (2007). Quality assurance in higher
education: Trends in regulation, translation and transformation. Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Springer.
Western Association of Schools and Colleges. (1998). Eight perspectives on how to focus the
accreditation process on educational effectiveness. Oakland, CA: Accrediting commission
for Senior Colleges and Universities WASC.
Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) (2002). Guide to using evidence in the
accreditation process: A resource to support institutions and evaluation teams. Retrieved
from www.wascweb.org/senior/Evidence_Guide.pdf
Western Association of Schools and Colleges’ Accrediting Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges. (2011). Home Page. Retrieved from http://www.accjc.org.
Western Association of Schools and Colleges’ Accrediting Commission of Community and
Junior Colleges. (2007, Spring). January 2007 Commission Actions on Institutions.
Accreditation Notes, 7.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 151
White House. (2013, February 12). The President's plan for a strong middle class and a strong
America. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov
Wiedman, D. (1992). Effects on academic culture of shifts from oral to written traditions: The
case of university accreditation. Human Organization, 51(4), 398-407.
Willis, C. R. (1994). The cost of accreditation to educational institutions. Journal of Allied
Health, 23, 39-41.
Wolff, R. A., & Astin, A. W. (1990). Assessment 1990: Accreditation and renewal. Washington,
DC: AAHE Assessment Forum.
Wolff, R. A. (2005). Accountability and accreditation: Can reforms match increasing demands?
In J. C. Burke (Ed.), Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public,
academic, and market demands (pp. 78-105). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wood, A. L. (2006). Demystifying accreditation: Action plans for a national or regional
accreditation. Innovative Higher Education, 31, 43-62. doi: 10.1007/s10755- 006-
9008-6
Woolston, P. J. (2012). The costs of institutional accreditation: A study of direct and indirect
costs (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
(Accession Order No. ED3542492)
World Bank (2002). Constructing knowledge societies: New challenges for tertiary education.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Wriston, H. M. (1960). The futility of accrediting. The Journal of Higher Education, 31, 327-
329. doi: 10.2307/1977355
Yung-chi Hou, A. (2014). Quality in cross-border higher education and challenges for the
internationalization of national quality assurance agencies in the Asia-Pacific region: the
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 152
Taiwanese experience. Studies in Higher Education, 39. 135-152. doi:
10.1080/03075079.2011.646258
Zis, S., Boeke, M., & Ewell, P. (2010). State policies on the assessment of student learning
outcomes: Results of a fifty-state inventory. Retrieved from
http://www.nchems.org/c2sp/documents/C2SPStateAssessment_Final_6.21.2010.pdf

PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 153
Appendix A
Definitions of Sanctions from ACCJC
Institutions are advised that the U.S. Department of Education requires recognized
accrediting bodies to terminate accreditation when an institution is determined to be out of
compliance with Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies
and fails to come into compliance within a two-year period. Consequently, the Commission will
take action to terminate accreditation if deficiencies are not resolved within this period. Under
extraordinary circumstances, the institution may be granted additional time when the
Commission determines good cause for extension exists.
Issue Warning – When the Commission finds that an institution has pursued a course deviating
from the Commission’s Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, or Commission
policies to an extent that gives concern to the Commission, it may issue a warning to the
institution to correct its deficiencies, refrain from certain activities, or initiate certain activities.
The Commission will specify the time within which the institution must resolve these
deficiencies. During the warning period, the institution will be subject to reports and visits at a
frequency to be determined by the Commission. If warning is issued as a result of the
institution’s educational quality and institutional effectiveness review, reaffirmation is delayed
during the period of warning. The accredited status of the institution continues during the
warning period.
Impose Probation – When an institution deviates significantly from the Commission’s Eligibility
Requirements, Accreditation Standards, or Commission Policies, but not to such an extent as to
warrant a Show Cause order or the termination of accreditation, or fails to respond to conditions
imposed upon it by the Commission, including a warning, the institution may be placed on
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 154
probation. The Commission will specify the time within which the institution must resolve
deficiencies. During the probation period, the institution will be subject to reports and visits at a
frequency to be determined by the Commission. If probation is imposed as a result of the
institution’s educational quality and institutional effectiveness review, reaffirmation is delayed
during the period of warning. The accredited status of the institution continues during the
warning period. The accredited status of the institution continues during the probation period.
Order Show Cause – When the Commission finds an institution to be in substantial non-
compliance with its Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, or Commission Policies,
or when the institution has not responded to the conditions imposed by the Commission, the
Commission will require the institution to Show Cause why its accreditation should not be
withdrawn at the end of a stated period by demonstrating that it has corrected the deficiencies
noted by the Commission and is in compliance with the Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation
Standards, or Commission Policies. In such cases, the burden of proof will rest on the institution
to demonstrate why its accreditation should be continued. The Commission will specify the time
within which the institution must resolve deficiencies. If the loss of accreditation will likely
cause an institution to close, then during the Show Cause period, the institution must make
preparations for closure according to the Commission’s “Policy on Closing an Institution.”
While under a Show Cause order, the institution will be subject to reports and visits at a
frequency to be determined by the Commission. If Show Cause is ordered as a result of the
institution’s educational quality and institutional effectiveness review, reaffirmation is delayed
during the Show Cause order. The accredited status of the institution continues during the
warning period. The accredited status of the institution continues during the period of the Show
Cause order.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 155
Actions that Terminate Accreditation
Terminate Accreditation – If, in the judgment of the Commission, an institution has not
satisfactorily explained or corrected matters of which it has been given notice, or has taken an
action that has taken it significantly out of compliance with Eligibility Requirements,
Accreditation Standards, or Commission Policies, its accreditation may be terminated. The
Commission will give the institution written reasons for its decision. Termination of
accreditation is subject to a request for review and appeal under the applicable policies and
procedures of the Commission. The accredited status of the institution continues pending
completion of any review and appeal process the institution may request. Otherwise, the
institution’s accreditation ends on the date when the time period permitting such a request
expires. In such a case, the institution must complete again the entire accreditation process.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 156
Appendix B
Accrediting Organizations

Regional Accrediting Organizations

Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE)
Elizabeth H. Sibolski, President
3624 Market Street, 2nd Floor Annex Philadelphia, PA 19104
Phone: 267-284-5000 Fax: 215-662-5501
E-mail: info@msche.org Web: www.msche.org
Recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, April 2013

New England Association of Schools and Colleges
Commission on Institutions of Higher Education (NEASC-CIHE)
Barbara E. Brittingham, President / Director of the Commission
3 Burlington Woods #100 Burlington, MA 01803
Phone: 781-425-7747 Fax: 781-425-1001
E-mail: CIHE@neasc.org Web: http://cihe.neasc.org
Recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, September 2013

North Central Association of Colleges and Schools
The Higher Learning Commission (NCA-HLC)
Sylvia Manning, President
230 South LaSalle, Suite 7-500 Chicago, IL 60604-1413
Phone: 312-263-0456 Fax: 312-263-7462
E-mail: info@hlcommission.org Web: http://www.ncahlc.org/
Recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, January 2003

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS)
Commission on Colleges
Belle S. Wheelan, President
1866 Southern Lane Decatur, GA 30033
Phone: 404-679-4500 Fax: 404-679-4528
E-mail: bwheelan@sacscoc.org Web: www.sacscoc.org
Recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, January 2003

Western Association of Schools and Colleges
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC-WASC)
Barbara A. Beno, President
10 Commercial Boulevard, Suite 204 Novato, CA 94949
Phone: 415-506-0234 Fax: 415-506-0238
E-mail: accjc@accjc.org Web: www.accjc.org
Recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, January 2003

PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 157
WASC Senior College and University Commission (WASC-SCUC)
Mary Ellen Petrisko, President
985 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 100 Alameda, CA 94501
Phone: 510-748-9001 ext. 321 Fax: 510-748-9797
E-mail: wasc@wascsenior.org Web: www.wascsenior.org
Recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, January 2003

Faith-Related Accrediting Organizations 2013-2014

Association for Biblical Higher Education (ABHE)
Commission on Accreditation
Formerly the Accrediting Association of Bible Colleges (AABC)
Ralph Enlow, Executive Director
5850 T.G. Lee Boulevard, Suite 130 Orlando, FL 32822
Phone: 407-207-0808 Fax: 407-207-0840
E-mail: info@abhe.org Web: www.abhe.org
Recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, September 2011

Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools (AARTS)
Accreditation Commission
Keith Sharfman, Director
11 Broadway, Suite 405 New York, NY 10004
Phone: 212-363-1991 Fax: 212-533-5335
E-mail: k.sharfman.aarts@gmail.com Web: Contact by phone or fax
Recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, January 2011

The Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (ATS)
Commission on Accrediting
Daniel O. Aleshire, Executive Director
10 Summit Park Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15275
Phone: 412-788-6505 Fax: 412-788-6510
E-mail: ats@ats.edu Web: www.ats.edu
Recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, January 2012

Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS)
Accreditation Commission
Paul Boatner, President
15935 Forest Road Forest, VA 24551
Phone: 434-525-9539 Fax: 434-525-9538
E-mail: info@tracs.org Web: www.tracs.org
Recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, September 2011

National Career-Related Accrediting Organizations 2013-2014

Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS)
Albert Gray, Executive Director and CEO
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 158
750 First Street NE, Suite 980 Washington, DC 20002
Phone: 202-336-6780 Fax: 202-842-2593
E-mail: info@acics.org Web: www.acics.org
Recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, September 2012

Distance Education and Training Council (DETC)
Accrediting Commission
Leah Matthews, Executive Director
1601 Eighteenth Street NW, Suite 2 Washington, DC 20009
Phone: 202-234-5100 Fax: 202-332-1386
E-mail: info@detc.org Web: www.detc.org
Recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, April 2013

Programmatic Accrediting Organizations 2013-2014

Allied Health Education Programs Opticianry
Audiology ASHA Optometric Education
Audiology ACAE Pharmacy
Aviation Physical Therapy
Business AACSB Physician Assistant
Business IACBE Planning
Chiropractic Education Psychology
Clinical Laboratory Sciences Public Affairs and Administration
Computer Sciences Radiology
Construction Education Recreation and Park
Counseling Rehabilitation Education
Culinary Respiratory Care
Engineering Social Work Education
Family and Consumer Sciences Speech-Language-Hearing
Fire Service Teacher Education NCATE
Forensic Science Teacher Education TEAC
Forestry Veterinary Medicine
Funeral Service Education Podiatry
Healthcare Management
Health Informatics
Human Services
Industrial Technology
Interior Design
Journalism and Mass Communications
Landscape Architecture
Library and Information Studies
Marriage and Family Therapy
Nuclear Medicine Technology
Nurse Anesthesia
Nursing
Occupational Therapy
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 159
Appendix C
Interview Script
Title of the Study: Perspectives of Accreditation and Leadership: A Case Study
Date of Interview:
Time of Interview:
Place:
Position of Interviewee:
Code:
Purpose of the Study
To reiterate, the purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of the complex circumstances
that led to Urban City College’s impending loss of accreditation and to present the phenomenon
from various perspectives. To this end, the study will examine the perceptions of leadership,
faculty, and shared governance of the college prior to and since the notice of losing accreditation.
I truly appreciate your willingness to participate in this interview.
Interview Questions
1. What is your position at the College or ACCJC?
2. During which dates have you been affiliated with the school or ACCJC?
3. Do you have a fond memory or a story about the College or ACCJC that you wish to share?
4. In retrospect, when did you first become aware that there were accreditation issues or
problems at the college?
• Date • Semester • Year
5. Please describe the issues or problems as you see them.
6. Did you consider these problems to be serious at the time?
How did you come to know of the problems/issues?
From who did this information come?
What were your initial feelings or reactions?
How did your feeling change over time?
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 160
7. In your opinion, how would you characterize the development of accreditation problems on
the campus?
• State Officials • Chancellor’s Office • Media
• Accrediting Commission (ACCJC) • Governance
• FCMAT • Administration • Faculty
8. In your opinion, how would you characterize the accreditation review process that was
conducted on campus?
9. During this time of scrutiny, how were the various groups on campus affected?
• Students • Faculty • Staff
• Community • Facilities • You Personally
• Reputation • Productivity • Morale
10. From your perspective, what factors in relation to leadership, faculty, and/or governance
contributed to Urban City College’s eventual notice of loss of accreditation?
• Administration/Leadership Problems • Board of Trustees
• Corruption • Mismanagement
• Unfairly Targeted by the Accreditation Commission
• Faculty • Unions
• Not Following the Recommendations of the Accreditation Commission
11. What recommendations would you have for other community colleges that might be facing
similar leadership or accreditation problems?
12. Is there anyone else that you recommend that I should speak to in order to gain insights about
this experience?
As I mentioned, I will contact you to set up a time so that you can review the transcripts for
accuracy. It will be your choice if you wish to review them as an attachment in an email, or if
you would like a hard copy of the transcripts mailed to you.
Please accept one of these gift cards as a token of my appreciation.
I will leave my business card with you in case you have any questions or if there is any other
information or any additional comments that you would like to add.

PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 161
Appendix D
Recruitment Letter
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
Date

Dear Prospective Participant,

You are invited to participate in a research study, Perspectives on Accreditation and Leadership:
A Case Study of an Urban City College in Jeopardy of Losing Accreditation, conducted by
Deborah Hall Kinley, BA, MPA, an EdD candidate, and Robert G. Keim, DDS, EdD, faculty
advisor, at the University of Southern California. Because you are an administrator, faculty, or
staff person employed by the Urban City College; or you are a student of the Urban City College;
or you are a representative of the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges;
or you are an interested community member, your perspective is important to the study. Your
participation is voluntary.

Purpose of the Study
The objective of the study is to learn of the perspectives of leadership, governance, and faculty on
maintaining accreditation in a large urban city college in California.

Study Procedures
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to take part in a one-to-one interview
by the researcher about accreditation, leadership, and governance at the Urban City College. The
interview will be audio recorded with your permission; if you do not want to be audio-recorded,
handwritten notes will be taken. The interview is anticipated to take no more than an hour to
complete and will take place at a time and place convenient to you and the researcher, where
confidentiality shall be maintained. No photographs will be taken.

If you would like to participate or have any questions or concerns about the research, please contact
the Principal Investigator, Deborah Hall Kinley at 626-524-0705 during the day, or via email at
dkinley@usc.edu. To contact the Faculty Sponsor, Robert G. Keim, call 818-943-5014 during the
day or via email at rkeim@usc.edu. To send correspondence to the Principal Investigator or the
Faculty Sponsor, the school address is: University of Southern California, Rossier School of
Education, 3470 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 90089.

Sincerely,
Deborah H. Kinley

Deborah Hall Kinley
Ed.D Candidate

PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 162
Appendix E
Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION SHEET

Perspectives on Accreditation and Leadership: A Case Study of an
Urban City College in Jeopardy of Losing Accreditation

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Deborah Hall Kinley, BA, MPA,
an EdD candidate, and Robert G. Keim, DDS, EdD, faculty advisor, at the University of Southern
California, because you are an administrator, faculty or staff employed by Urban City College; or
you are a student of the Urban City College; or you are a representative of the Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges; or you are an interested community member.
Your participation is voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions about
anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time
as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss participation with your
family or friends. You will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The objective of the study is to learn of the perspectives of leadership, governance, and faculty on
maintaining accreditation in a large urban city college in California.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to take part in a one-to-one interview
by Ms. Kinley about accreditation and leadership at Urban City College. The interview will be
audio recorded with your permission; if you do not want to be audio-recorded, handwritten notes
will be taken. The interview is anticipated to take no more than an hour to complete and will take
place at a time and place convenient to you and the researcher, where confidentiality shall be
maintained.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks, however, some of the questions may make you feel uneasy or
embarrassed. We will use our best efforts to keep the findings in this study as confidential as
possible. Subjects can choose to skip or stop answering any questions that make them
uncomfortable. Data will be coded and identity stored separate from data.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not benefit from your participation in this study. It is hoped that this study will
contribute to knowledge about accreditation in general and community colleges in particular who
participate in the accreditation process.
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 163
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will be compensated with a gift card worth $50.00 at the end of your participation. You do
not have to answer any question(s) you don’t want to.

CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members
of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection
Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect
the rights and welfare of research subjects.

The data will be stored in the principal investigator’s personal laptop, storage devices, and digital
recorder(s). You may review/edit the transcript of your recording.

The research data and personal information shall be coded and stored separately to prevent access
by unauthorized personnel.

Once the audio recordings have been transcribed, and reviewed/edited, the recordings shall be
erased. Once the study has been terminated, all documentation and data shall be destroyed. The
expected termination date is the end of May 2015.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies
because of your participation in this research study. Participation may be terminated at any time
by the principal investigator without regard to the participant’s consent if deemed necessary.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
The alternative to participation is to choose to not participate in this study. Your relationship
with your institution will not be affected, whether or not you participate in this study.

INVESTIGATOR ’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact the Principal
Investigator, Deborah Hall Kinley at 626-524-0705 during the day, or via email at
dkinley@usc.edu. To contact the Faculty Sponsor, Robert G. Keim, call 818-943-5014 during
the day or via email at rkeim@usc.edu. To send correspondence to the Principal Investigator or
the Faculty Sponsor, the school address is: University of Southern California, Rossier School of
Education, 3470 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 90089.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 164
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu

PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 165
Appendix F
Urban City College’s Information Sheet/Consent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

Information Sheet/Consent Form

Perspectives on Accreditation and Leadership: A Case Study of an
Urban City College in Jeopardy of Losing Accreditation

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Deborah Hall Kinley, BA, MPA,
an EdD candidate, and Robert G. Keim, DDS, EdD, faculty advisor, at the University of Southern
California, because you are an administrator, faculty or staff employed by the Urban City College;
or you are a student of the Urban City College; or you are a representative of the Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, or you are an interested community member.
Your participation is voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions about
anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time
as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss participation with your
family or friends. You will be given a copy of this form. The investigator is an independent
researcher and this research project is in no way affiliated with nor represents the official views of
Urban City College.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The objective of the study is to learn of the perspectives of leadership, governance, and faculty on
maintaining accreditation in a large urban city college in California.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to take part in a one-to-one interview
by Ms. Kinley about accreditation and leadership at the Urban City College. The interview will be
audio recorded with your permission; if you do not want to be audio- recorded, handwritten notes
will be taken. The interview is anticipated to take no more than an hour to complete and will take
place at a time and place convenient to you and the researcher, where confidentiality shall be
maintained.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks, however, some of the questions may make you feel uneasy or
embarrassed. We will use our best efforts to keep the findings in this study as confidential as
possible. Subjects can choose to skip or stop answering any questions that make them
uncomfortable. Data will be coded and identity stored separate from data.

PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 166
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not benefit from your participation in this study. It is hoped that this study will contribute
to knowledge about accreditation in general and community colleges in particular who participate
in the accreditation process.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will be compensated with a gift card worth $50.00 at the end of your participation. You do
not have to answer any question(s) you don’t want to.

CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members
of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection
Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect
the rights and welfare of research subjects.

The data will be stored in the principal investigator’s personal laptop, storage devices, and digital
recorder(s). You may review/edit the transcript of your recording.

The research data and personal information shall be coded and stored separately to prevent access
by unauthorized personnel.

Once the audio recordings have been transcribed, and reviewed/edited, the recordings shall be
erased. Once the study has been terminated, all documentation and data shall be destroyed. The
expected termination date is the end of May 2015.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies
because of your participation in this research study. Participation may be terminated at any time
by the principal investigator without regard to the participant’s consent if deemed necessary.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
The alternative to participation is to choose to not participate in this study. Your relationship with
your institution will not be affected, whether or not you participate in this study.

INVESTIGATOR ’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact the Principal
Investigator, Deborah Hall Kinley at 626-524-0705 during the day, or via email at
dkinley@usc.edu. To contact the Faculty Sponsor, Robert G. Keim, call 818-943-5014 during the
day or via email at rkeim@usc.edu. To send correspondence to the Principal Investigator or the
PERSPECTIVES ON ACCREDITATION 167
Faculty Sponsor, the school address is: University of Southern California, Rossier School of
Education, 3470 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 90089.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.

Signature of Research Participant

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

☐ I agree to be audio recorded

☐ I do not want to be audio recorded

____________________________________________________
Printed Name of Participant

____________________________________________________
Signature of Participant Date

Signature of Investigator

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe that
he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to participate.

____________________________________________________
Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent

____________________________________________________
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Accreditation in higher education is a kind of quality assurance instrument: a formal recognition by an external group of the maintenance of a certain minimum standard of education. The acquisition and maintenance of institutional accreditation is a standard expectation and a practical necessity for most colleges and universities operating in the United States (Council for Higher Education Accreditation [CHEA], 2012). This necessity is due to the fact that accreditation is required for access to federal funds such as student aid and other programs. Federal aid funds are available to students only if the institution or program they attend is accredited by a recognized accrediting organization. During the 2010-2011 academic year, the federal government distributed an estimated $169 billion in financial aid to students attending accredited institutions (Baum & Payea, 2011), and state funds to institutions and students are also contingent on accreditation status. ❧ The Accrediting Commission of Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) put Urban City College (UCC) on Show Cause in July 2012 (ACCJC, 2012), and a July 2013 action letter from ACCJC notified UCC it was losing its accreditation in July 2014. This study reviewed the actions leading up to and since the impending loss of accreditation for Urban City College and the many perceptions surrounding the notification. ❧ This study embarked on an emergent qualitative review of public documents covering UCC’s path toward possible loss of accreditation. In addition, interviews were conducted with stakeholders in UCC, and representatives of the ACCJC were approached to learn what they were thinking, feeling, and perceiving while in the midst of the accreditation process leading to a community college’s losing accreditation. The overarching research question asked, “How did ACCJC get to the point of recommending the shutdown of UCC in 2014?

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Impact of accreditation actions: a case study of two colleges within Western Association of Schools and Colleges' Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges

PDF

Assessment, accountability & accreditation: a study of MOOC provider perceptions

PDF

The effects of accreditation on the passing rates of the California bar exam

PDF

An evaluation of nursing program administrator perspectives on national nursing education accreditation

PDF

Priorities and practices: a mixed methods study of journalism accreditation

PDF

An exploratory, quantitative study of accreditation actions taken by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges' Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges Since 2002

PDF

An examination of the direct/indirect measures used in the assessment practices of AACSB-accredited schools

PDF

Learning outcomes assessment at American Library Association accredited master's programs in library and information studies

PDF

The costs of institutional accreditation: a study of direct and indirect costs

PDF

A descriptive analysis focusing on similarities and differences among the U.S. service academies

PDF

Input-adjusted transfer scores as an accountability model for California community colleges

PDF

The efficacy of regional accreditation compared to direct public regulation of post-seconadary institutions in the United States

PDF

Assessment and accreditation of undergraduate study abroad programs

PDF

A study of the pedagogical strategies used in support of students with learning disabilities and attitudes held by engineering faculty

PDF

The benefits and costs of accreditation of undergraduate medical education programs leading to the MD degree in the United States and its territories

PDF

States of motivation: examining perceptions of accreditation through the framework of self-determination

PDF

PowerPoint design based on cognitive load theory and cognitive theory of multimedia learning for introduction to statistics

PDF

The moderating effects of racial identity and cultural mistrust on the relationship between student-faculty interaction and persistence for Black community college students

PDF

The goals of specialized accreditation: A study of perceived benefits and costs of membership with the National Association of Schools of Music

PDF

Assessing and addressing random and systematic measurement error in performance indicators of institutional effectiveness in the community college

Asset Metadata

Creator Kinley, Deborah Hall (author)

Core Title Perspectives on accreditation and leadership: a case study of an urban city college in jeopardy of losing accreditation

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/08/2015

Defense Date 04/28/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag accreditation,accrediting commission,community college,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,sanction

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Keim, Robert G. (committee chair), Tobey, Patricia Elaine (committee member), Woolston, Paul J. (committee member)

Creator Email dkinley@usc.edu,dkinleytrojan@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-588234

Unique identifier UC11298962

Identifier etd-KinleyDebo-3562.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-588234 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KinleyDebo-3562.pdf

Dmrecord 588234

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Kinley, Deborah Hall

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA