Transcript WASC Accreditation Process

WASC Accreditation Process
DUE Managers Meeting
December 2, 2009
Sharon Salinger and Judy Shoemaker
Accreditation
• Mandated by the Federal government
• Required for receipt of student Federal
financial aid funds
• Regional accreditation agencies
• WASC = Western Association of Schools and
Colleges (California and Hawaii)
– Senior commission: All UC’s, CSU’s and
Independents
• 10-year review cycle
What’s new?
• Expanded timeline
– 2007 through 2012
• Three stages of review
–
–
–
–
Institutional proposal , submitted Nov 1, 2009
Capacity and Preparatory Review, site visit in 2011
Educational Effectiveness Review, site visit in 2012
Ensure linkages among the three stages
• Primary focus is demonstrating educational
effectiveness
– institution establishes its own educational objectives and
methods for assessing attainment of those objectives
Why assessment?
• Accountability
– Demonstrating the value of higher education to the
public
• Paradigm shift in educational practices
– From teaching to learning
– Based on research in the cognitive sciences
– Assessment promotes learning
• Institutional improvement, not just resources
• Federal requirements for accreditation agencies
– Standards must address success with respect to
student achievement in relation to its mission
WASC Institutional Proposal
•
•
•
•
•
•
Response to the most recent WASC review
Self-review under the WASC Standards*
Themes selected for the review*
Work plan through 2012
Required data exhibits*
Steering Committee – co leaders: Michael
Clark and Sharon Salinger
Review Under the Standards
• Standard 1: Institutional Mission and Values
• Standard 2: Educational Objectives
• Standard 3: Resources and Organizational
Structures
• Standard 4: Learning Organization
• Reviewed by:
– Leadership Academy
– Academic Senate, Student Affairs, Libraries
– Staff Assembly, ASUCI, AGS, Alumni Association
Educational Objectives:
Criteria for Review
• Educational objectives are clearly recognized
throughout the institution and are consistent
with stated purposes. The institution develops
indicators for the achievement of its purposes
and educational objectives at the institutional,
program and course levels. The institution has a
system of measuring student achievement, in
terms of retention, completion and student
learning. The institution makes public data on
student achievement at the institutional and
degree level, in a manner determined by the
institution. (CFR 1.1)
CFR’s continued
• All degrees – undergraduate and graduate – awarded
by the institution are clearly defined in terms of entrylevel requirements and levels of student achievement
necessary for graduation that represent more than
simply an accumulation of courses or credits. (CFR 2.2)
• The institution’s expectations for learning and student
attainment are developed and widely shared among its
members, including faculty, students, staff, and where
appropriate, external stakeholders. The institution’s
faculty takes collective responsibility for establishing,
reviewing, fostering, and demonstrating the
attainment of these expectations. (CFR 2.3)
More CFR’s
• All programs offered by the institution are
subject to systematic program review. The
program review process includes analyses of
the achievement of the program’s learning
objectives and outcomes, program retention
and completion… (CFR 2.7)
• Consistent with its purposes, the institution
develops and assesses its co-curricular
programs. (CFR 2.11)
Themes for the Review
•
•
•
•
•
Selected by UCI
Theme 1: Student Learning in the Major
Theme 2: General Education
Theme 3: Academic Program Review
All themes related to educational objectives
and assessment
Student Learning in the Major
• Goal: To create and sustain a campus culture of
assessment in which faculty are engaged in
identifying important learning outcomes for
undergraduate majors, assessing the degree to
which student achieve those outcomes, and using
the results to improve the program
• Outcomes:
– Establish needed infrastructure (University
Assessment Committee, assessment grants, online
assessment management system)
– Demonstrate that assessment lead to program
improvements and better student learning
General Education
• Goal: To complete implementation of revised
GE requirements and to incorporate student
learning outcomes and evidence of student
learning into the review process
• Outcomes:
– Insure alignment between GE learning outcomes
and course learning outcomes
– Reinstate regular review of GE categories using
assessment of student learning outcomes
(example: UD and LD Writing Assessment)
Academic Program Review
• Goal: To revise criteria used in program
review to include evidence on the degree to
which student achieve stated learning
outcomes for each major being reviewed
• Outcomes:
– Academic Senate will adopt new policies and
procedures for academic program review process
– Develop a formal method for determining the
effectiveness of the Academic Program Review
process
Required Data Exhibits
• Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators
• For program outcomes at three levels: institutional,
general education and degrees
• Information required
– Have formal learning outcomes been developed?
– Where will these learning outcomes be published?
– Other than GPA, what evidence is used to determine that
graduates have achieved stated outcomes for the degree?
– Who interprets the evidence? What is the process?
– How have the findings been used?
– Date of last program review for this degree program.
How are we evaluated by WASC?
• WASC Rubrics
– Student learning outcomes and assessment plans
for every program, and demonstrated use of the
results for the improvement of programs
– Portfolios for assessing student learning outcomes
– Capstones for assessing student learning
outcomes
– Program Review process
External Reviews
• Sharon’s experiences as an external reviewer
• Scoring rubric for reviewers
– Rubric for Evaluating Institutional Proposals
Costs for WASC Accreditation
Category
Cost
Annual fees (based on enrollment)
$30, 406
Institutional Proposal Review
Proposal Resubmission Fee
$3,000
$500
Capacity and Preparatory Review
$3,000
Educational Effectiveness Review
$3,000
Site Visits
Institution is responsible for all expenses
including travel and hotel expenses for all
reviewers
Additional Information
WASC Website
http://www.wascsenior.org/
UCI’s Accreditation Website
http:// www.accreditation.uci.edu/
UCI’s Assessment Website
http://www.assessment.uci.edu/