WASC “All Hands” Meeting

Overview and UpdateNovember 12, 2007

D. Jonte-Pace

WASC “All Hands” Introductions

Overview of Accreditation Process National context (DoE) Regional context (WASC) SCU’s context & guidelines from WASC

Steering committee and subcommittee roles

Highlights of progress toward CPR & Plans for EER Three Subcommittees

Questions/Discussion

Overview: The National Context for Accreditation Why accreditation?

Title IV eligibility Federal grants Transferability of credit Recognition of degrees

Current shift: Greater focus on accreditation for accountability

Commission on the Future of Higher Education Spellings Commission, Dept. of Ed.

Regulation of accrediting agencies Federal and state legislation

National context: Concern re

Access and affordability Accountability for student

learning Transparency Removing barriers to innovation

[Wide agreement with these issues]

National context… Comparisons of institutions to one another Externally referenced measures and

benchmarks brightline indicators NCLB model

Questioning The value of peer review in accreditation The value of regionally based

accreditation

[Widespread concern about these issues]

Overview: WASC’s perspective on Peer Review

Peer review is lynchpin of accreditation process

Peer review involves site visits to institutions by visiting teams

Visiting team reports form the basis for WASC Commission action and letter: Team report and action letter inform the

work of the institution for years to come Credibility of accreditation process rests

with the visit and team report

Overview: Regional ContextWASC’s Three-Stage Review

1. Proposal: identifies priorities, areas of emphasis, and outcomes; aligns work with institutional plans and needs.

2. Capacity/Preparatory Review: focuses on capacity and readiness for educational effectiveness.

3. Educational Effectiveness: serves as the culmination of the process with focus on results.

Contextualizing WASC’s Three-Stage Review

Previous self studyPrevious visiting team reportPrevious Commission Action Letter

Institutional Proposal Capacity/Preparatory Review Educational Effectiveness Review

Future visiting team report Future Commission Action Letter

WASC’s Two Reviews

Capacity and Preparatory

Capacity as: purposes, integrity, stability, resources, structures, policies, processes

Preparatory as: readiness for the Educational Effectiveness Review

Educational Effectiveness

Demonstrating student learning

Demonstrating institutional learning

Report (35 p.)

Introduction

Reflective essays Educating for CCC Supporting TSM Promoting Inc Ex Program Review &

Assessment Advising Other

Concluding essay

Portfolio of exhibits Basic descriptive

data Stipulated Policies Exhibits and data

displays, chosen by SCU

Appendix Response to previous

Action letter Response to last

team recommendations

Overview: SCU’s contextCPR as Capacity AND Preparatory (looks ahead to EER)Grounded in Standards and CFRs

What will our visiting team look for in evaluating our report?

Has the institution done what it said it would do in its Proposal?

Has the institution addressed Standards and CFRs?

Are conclusions supported by evidence?

Are there serious problems or possible areas of noncompliance?

Has the institution responded to last action letter/team report?

WASC’s Standards and CFRs

Four Standards Provide broad, holistic framework

Forty two Criteria for Review Provide specificity and meaning

Standards and CFRs

Four Standards See binder p. 14 - 31

1. Purpose, Mission, Integrity (9 CFRs)

2. Educational Objectives (14 CFRs) 3. Resources & Structures (11 CFRs)

4. Organizational Learning (8 CFRs)

Example: Standard 2 Educational Objectives

Teaching and Learning CFRs 2.1 - 2.8

2.3 Expectations for student learning

2.4 Expectations developed and shared widely; set by faculty

2.5 Students actively involved in learning

2.6 Graduates achieve SLOs

2.7 Program review; SLOs in PR; external stakeholders

How will visiting teams evaluate this Standard in our CPR & EER Reports?

CPR Are student learning

outcomes set at program and course level; in syllabi, etc?

Have faculty developed assessment plans?

Have faculty set expectations for student achievement and tools to measure?

EER Do results of

assessment show extent to which graduates are meeting expected levels of achievement?

Are results used to improve student learning?

Are results used to improve assessment strategies?

How will Visiting Teams Use Standards and CFRs to evaluate our report?

Team judgments will be linked to specific Standards and CFRs

CFRs will be cited in reports

Standards and CFRs will form the basis for Commission decisions

Standards and CFRs will provide a guide to continuous quality improvement

How does visiting team prepare? Team reads WASC documents

Standards, CFRs, policies

Team reads background documents re institution Proposal, last action letter/team report

Team reads Institutional report (CPR/EER)

Team reviews portfolio, exhibits, appendix

Two kinds of recommendations from Visiting Teams

Confidential team recommendation to the Commission for action

Team recommendations at the end of the team report, delivered at the exit meeting

Possible responses from WASC Commission

After CPR visit Proceed to EER Reschedule EE visit Conduct a special visit or add time before EE

visit Issue a notice of concern Impose a sanction

After EER visit Reaffirm accreditation for 7 to 10 years with or

without a notice of concern Issue a warning or sanction Impose probation Terminate accreditation

WASC Steering and Subcommittees

Subcommittees are working with Vice Provost to gather and analyze materials

Steering Committee will be convened as needed for updates & consultation

Members of Steering Committee will be asked to work on particular projects as needed

Full day retreat planned Fall 2008 for “All Hands”

Request to all: Read WASC Handbook (esp. 14-48)

Highlights of progress: Gathering material for CPR, Looking ahead to EER

Educating for Competence, Conscience & Compassion

Supporting the Teaching Scholar Model

Promoting a Community of Inclusive Excellence

Other

Navigating the TensionsFocusing on Proposal issues(SCU’s three themes)

Applying the Standards and CFRs

Focusing on selected issues

Focusing on the entire institution

Engagement based approach

Compliance based approach

Internal motivation: Understanding & improving the institution

External motivation: Accreditation

Using CPR to see readiness for EE

Leaving evaluation of educational effectiveness until EER

Sources

WASC Handbook 2001

WASC Chair/Evaluator Training Resource Book, 2007

WASC website, www.wascsenior.org

Caveat: WASC documents are under revision. See website for updates.