Home › About ›

Accreditation

in

Honolulu CC is a member of the American Association of Community Colleges and the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, and has been continuously and fully accredited since 1970 by Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges.

Accreditation FAQS

ACCJC Recommendations

View Full Report [4 MB PDF] | Accreditation Frequently Asked Questions [PDF]

  • College Recommendation 1:

    To fully meet the standard, the team recommends that the college extend its use of program review to ensure that all administrative units complete a cycle of evaluation that examines their impact on institutional processes that affect student learning. (Standards I.B.1, I.B.2, I.B.3, I.B.4, I.B.6, I.B.7)

  • College Recommendation 2:

    As was recommended by the 2006 evaluation team, "in order to meet the standards, focus on ensuring student success and the quality of programs and services, the team recommends the college... develop and refine its program review process and to identify student learning outcomes at the course, program, and institutional levels. The college should also systematically assess these student learning outcomes and use the results of these assessments for the improvement of institutional effectiveness." In addition, the college should ensure that assessment of program quality occurs for all student support, academic and administrative programs. (2006 Recommendation 2, Eligibility Requirement 10, Standards I.B.l, I.B.4, I.B.7, II.A, II.A.l.b, II.A.l.c, II.A.2.a, II.A.2.b, II.A.2.e, II.A.2.f, II.A.2.g, II.A.2.h, II.A.2.i, II.A.3, II.A.6, II.A.6.a, II.B.1, II.B.4, II.C.l.a, II.C.2, III.A, III.A.6, IV.A.1, IV.A.2.b, IV.A.5, IV.B.l.b)

    With regard to Recommendation 2 above, the Commission notes the College has taken significant steps to address the recommendations from the 2006 evaluation team. There remain, however, some portions of the 2006 recommendations that need to be addressed in order to fully meet the Eligibility Requirements and Accreditation Standards.

  • College Recommendation 3:

    As was recommended by the 2006 evaluation team, in order to meet the Standards, the college must "develop a formal assessment process to evaluate the effectiveness of its Distance Education program in meeting the institutional mission. The process should include a systematic evaluation, analysis, communication, and improvement of the program, including assessment of how well each online course is satisfying its student learning outcomes, support for staff development, and technical assistance for faculty." This review must include a formal evaluation of student support services and learning resources including its design and delivery. The college should compare the instructional quality of face-to-face and distance education courses and develop a strategic plan for distance education. (Standards II.A.2.e, II.A.2.f, II.B, II.C.l.c, III.A.5.a)

  • College Recommendation 4:

    To meet Eligibility Requirement 11, the college must finalize its discussion regarding General Education and ensure General Education courses that are consistent with levels of quality and rigor appropriate to higher education be made part of all programs. (Eligibility Requirement 11, Standard II.A.3.a-c)

    With regard to Recommendation 4, please note that degree credit for the general education component of a program must be consistent with levels of quality and rigor appropriate to higher education. A deficiency in this area implicates the College's compliance with both Eligibility Requirements and Accreditation Standards.

  • College Recommendation 5:

    To fully meet the standards, the team recommends that the college review personnel procedures for all hiring to ensure consistency, transparency, and confidentiality. (Standards III.A.1.a, III.A.3.a, III.A.3.b.)

  • College Recommendation 6:

    To fully meet the standard, the team recommends that the college reviews its evaluation process for all positions and ensure all staff and faculty (including post-tenure faculty) are evaluated in all operational units on a regular basis. (Standard III.A.1.b)

    The Commission notes that issues related to Recommendations from 2006 continue forward in College Recommendations 2 and 3 above. Significant progress has been made in addressing the issues in Recommendation 2 related to SLO assessment. However, the deficiencies noted in Recommendation 3 pertaining to developing a formal assessment process to evaluate the effectiveness of the distance education program have not been addressed.

Accreditation 2012 Visiting Team

Bios and photos

2012 Self Evaluation Report

All links in PDF format:


Certificate of Accreditation