Skip to main content

MCC Daily Tribune Archive

President's Wednesday Message


This past week, the attention of many within higher education has been captured by the announcement that the City College of San Francisco (CCSF) has been denied reaccreditation by its regional accrediting agency, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC). CCSF had been on warning for some time and had been under special watch and interim leadership over the past year as it sought to address the 14 recommendations identified by ACCJC. CCSF will appeal the decision, and a very public struggle among accreditors, state, city, faculty, staff, administrators and trustees for the future of CCSF. (The Chronicle of Higher Education has collated all of its stories on CCSF over the past couple years on one site, making a compelling but ultimately sad read.)

Accreditation is a difficult process. Simply put, almost no one wants to be assessed or evaluated: even when we suspect we’re doing great things, being graded makes us nervous (as our students remind us frequently). Beyond that, though, the arduous process seems unnecessary. We see positive learning outcomes every day in our students and can trace the effectiveness of our college throughout our community. Recent grad Elizabeth Kennedy makes the quality of MCC clear in her recent essay in the Democrat and Chronicle.Our recent economic impact analysis provides ample evidence of the transformative power of MCC for our entire region. It may be tempting, then, to take one look at the Middle States Commission on Higher Education’s “Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education” and think, “No problem. We got this.” As we begin gearing up for our accreditation review, though, I’d ask that we not yield to that temptation.

While ACCJC’s decision on CCSF is an extreme example, all regional accrediting agencies have been shifting focus in the past decade, increasing requirements and demanding greater documentation in support of compliance. Within MSCHE, our colleagues are receiving more follow-up visits, more monitoring reports, and more warnings. In most cases, it is not that the colleges themselves have changed, not that their quality has taken a turn for the worse or their finances have fallen into the red. Rather, what have changed are the standards themselves and the expectations now in place for evidence. Where once colleges could craft a narrative, the commission now expects data; where in the past we might have highlighted our strongest programs as examples of institutional quality, the commission now looks for a body of evidence that demonstrates college-wide measures of institutional effectiveness and continual improvement based on self-assessment.

If your eyes glazed over in reading that last sentence, I would completely understand. The MSCHE standards document is not going to make any bestseller list, but your willingness both to slog through it and participate in the upcoming process will be fundamental to our successful accreditation reaffirmation.

At MCC, we know that excellence is not the bar we aim for, it is the line we start from. That is why, when the summer is over, fall should find us engaged in and maybe even excited about the world of evidence and documentation. This process will allow us to show exactly why it was our college, Monroe Community College, that forever changed Elizabeth Kennedy’s mind about two year schools.

What are your thoughts on the topic? Share them on the blog.

Anne M. Kress
President's Office
07/10/2013