Transcript CAS Overview and Planning

WNY Assessment Consortium
CAS Across the Divisions
Intended Outcomes
• Explain the purpose of a division wide program
review;
• Map assessment process for a division wide program
review;
• Identify crucial decisions for building a
comprehensive program review model using the CAS
standards; and
• Apply and evaluate the model on participants’
campuses.
Why a Program Review?
Academic Program Reviews are intended to:
• assess the quality and effectiveness of
academic programs, in departments and
schools;
• stimulate program planning and
improvement;
• ensure that current and proposed
programs are consistent with Universitywide strategic priorities;
• promote fairness and efficiency in the
allocation of academic resources in
response to the needs of the entire
Boston College community;
• support the planning and budgeting
processes of the University;
• respond systematically and efficiently to
requirements for self-assessment from
NEASC and other accrediting agencies.
Boston College (2010)
The Academic Program Review is designed to
enhance the educational mission of the
University of California, Berkeley, by
providing opportunities for programs and
departments, and the university as a
whole, to assess and improve its teaching
and scholarship. We consider each review
a rare opportunity for the unit and the
campus to take a comprehensive look at
the unit, to evaluate its opportunities and
challenges, and to assess its future. Such
a review process allows the campus to
pursue exciting new paths of inquiry and
discovery, sustaining excellence while
also in each scholarly area.
University of California at Berkley (2011)
Decision: Do we
need to do a
division wide
program review?
CAS
•
•
•
•
“CAS provides a powerful
framework for us to assess our
efforts and to make changes
based on a national model of
effective programming and
services.“
-Bonita C. Jacobs, Executive
Director , National Institute for
the Study of Transfer Students,
University of North Texas
Founded in 1979
A consortium of 36 professional organizations
Constituency of over 100,000
Member associations send representatives to
the CAS Board of Directors
• Consensus-oriented, collaborative
• Focused on quality programs and services for
students
• Guide practice by student affairs, student
development, and student support service
providers
(Ellis, 2009)
CAS Mission
•
Establish, adopt, and disseminate unified and timely
professional standards to guide student learning and
development programs and services
•
Promote assessment and improvement of higher education
programs and services through self-study
•
Establish, adopt, and disseminate unified and timely
professional preparation standards for the education of student
affairs practitioners, and to promote the assessment and
improvement of graduate preparation programs
•
Advance the use and importance of professional standards
•
Develop and provide materials to support the use of standards
•
Promote and encourage a focus on quality assurance
•
Promote inter-association efforts to address these issues
Uses of the CAS Standards
• Measures of program and service
effectiveness
• Institutional self-studies
• Preparation for accreditation
• Design of new programs and services
• Staff development
• Academic preparation
• Credibility and accountability
Self-Regulation & SelfAssessment
• Self-regulation relies on the
willingness and capacity of the
organization to:
– examine itself meticulously,
faithfully, and reliably
– assemble the pertinent results of
that examination into coherent
reports that constituents can
comprehend and use
CAS Resources
• 42 functional area standards (pub. in 6th edition, 2006)
– Reviewed and revised regularly
– General standards contained within every other set of
standards
•
•
•
•
Contextual statements for each area
CAS Statement of Shared Ethical Principles
CAS Characteristics of Individual Excellence
Self-Assessment Guides, with instructions and training
Decisions:
•Is CAS the right tool for us?
•Should we do a single year
program review or space it over
several years?
CAS Terminology
• SAG
• Functional area
• Standard
o
o
o
o
Represent indispensable requirements of practice
Are achievable by any and all programs of quality
Appear in bold print
Use auxiliary verbs “must” and “shall”
• Guideline
o Clarify and amplify standards
o Guide enhanced practice beyond essential functions
o Appear in regular (non-bold) type
o Use verbs “should” and “may”
CAS Standards Format
The CAS SAG:
A Self-assessment Guide
•
Translates CAS standards into an effective
workbook format
•
Promotes program self-assessment and
development
•
Informs on program strengths and
weaknesses
•
Supports professional staff development
•
Leads to enhanced student learning and
development
Decisions:
•What functional areas
should be included?
•Should each functional
area assess all 14 parts?
14 Component Parts (or
Domains)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Mission
Program
Leadership
Human Resources
Ethics
Legal Responsibilities
Equity and Access
Diversity
Organization and Management
Campus and External Relations
Financial Resources
Technology
Facilities & Equipment
Assessment & evaluation
Knowledge Check
CAS Reveiw Process Basics
• Department Level Self Assessment
–
–
–
–
Determine and know the standards for their functional area
Gather evidence
Send summary review to Self-Study Team
Create action plans (after review is complete)
• Self-Study Review Team
– Reviews summaries & evidence
– Gather additional evidence if necessary
– Writes report
• External Review
– Not an employee
– Broad experience in functional
areas and assessment
Decisions:
•Do we need an external
reviewer?
•Who should be on the
review team?
The Self-Study
• Who completes the self-assessment?
• How will you standardize self-study
assessments?
• How will you train people completing the
self-assessment?
• Should you have a general editor?
Decision: How will
you manage
consistency in
quality?
Types of Evidence
The self-assessment is not complete until relevant data and
related documentation are in place to support the raters’
judgments.
PROGRAM DOCUMENTS:


Mission statements; purpose and philosophy statements
Staff manuals; policies & procedures statements
ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS:
Decision: How
will we share
documents?



Organization charts; staff profiles
Financial resource statements & budgets
Annual reports
STAFF and STUDENT ACTIVITY REPORTS:


Brainstorm:
Where can we
find evidence or
information?


Resumes; professional activity
Service to other programs, departments, or community
Portfolios, developmental transcripts, resumes
Reports of student service
RESEARCH & EVALUATION DATA:


Needs assessments and self-studies
Program evaluations
Establishing a Self-Study Team
• How many members?
– 5-8?
• How select?
Decision:
•Do we need an
chair or co-chairs?
•If so, who and
what will their
duties entail?
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
“experts” or adversaries?
Department reps
Students?
Volunteers, assigned?
Faculty?
Who chairs?
How trained
• What will they do?
Decision: How will
define the rating scale?
–
Establish team ground rules
–
Establish inter-rater reliability
–
Decide whether to include guidelines or other measures that go beyond the standards
–
Gather and analyze relevant quantitative/qualitative data
–
Individuals rate each and every criterion measure
–
Obtain additional documentary evidence if required to make an informed team decision
–
Complete the assessment, ratings, and action planning
–
Compile and review results, and create an overarching Action Plan
Judging Performance
• Each team member needs:
o A complete copy of teach SAG with guidelines
we have selected for rating
o Access to all documentary evidence
Decisions: If you use
teams to review each
functional area SAG,
how do they score
criteria – individually
& average or
consensus?
• What happens when an individual
standard does not apply to your situation?
• Coalescing into a single review (from many
voices to one voice):
o How: single or group activity?
o How will conflict be managed?
o How deal with personal feelings (i.e. low
ratings of a person who is on the committee?)
The Reports
• What reports should you have?
• Exec Summaries
• Final Report
• Action Plans
• Who should write the report?
• Who should give feedback on
the draft?
• How judgmental should the
report be?
Expectations
• What is a reasonable timeline?
(see attached sample)
• How will management work
within and across divisions?
• How long should we expect
departments to have to develop
an action plan?
• How will we follow-up on this
review?
Implementation Discussions
• Are we ready for a program review? Is it
the right process for us?
• What should our process look like?
• What are barriers to implementation on
our campus?
• How do we get buy in at an administrative
level, at the department level?
• What resources do we have, do we need?
• What other questions do we have?
Presenter
References
• Ellis, T. (2009). CAS
Dr. Kerry Lynn Levett
standards and selfAssociate Vice President of Student Affairs assessment in higher
education. Washington, DC:
Finger Lakes Community College
Council for the
585-785-1284
Advancement of Standards
[email protected]
in Higher Education.
• Garrett, D., Henry, C.,
Lange, D. (2009). CAS
standards: Program review
and organizing a divisionwide assessment. 2009 CAS
Annual Symposium.