Transcript How Can I Miss You If You Won't Go Away? And Other

WASC Evaluator Workshop
Fall Visits 2009
1
Workshop Outcomes
•
•
•
•
•
Understand WASC’s three-stage process and how your
visit fits into the process
Be familiar with the WASC Standards and CFRs and
how to use them in the review process
Know how to prepare for and conduct an effective visit
and produce a useful, high-quality team report
Be prepared to make sound judgments about
institutions under the Standards
Be familiar with resources that support your work on a
team
2
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Context for the Visit/Accreditation
WASC Three-Stage Review Process
Standards and CFRs
Preparing for the Visit
Conducting the Visit
Developing Team Recommendations
Writing the Team Report
After the Visit
3
Context for Accreditation
and Visits
• The Continuing Evolution of the WASC
Process and Standards
• The Accountability Movement
– Retaining Peer Review
• The Impact of the Economy
• Value Added, Collaboration, and
Ongoing Efforts to Refine and Improve
4
Changes this Year:
Revisions and Improvements
• Implement changes to Institutional Review
Process re: Student Success, Program Review
and EE Sustainability
• Implement changes to CFRs
• Clarify the scope of the CPR visit to review the
“infrastructure” for assessment of student
learning
• Examine Program Review and Program-Level
Student Learning in a systematic way
• Allow teams more time together on visits
5
The WASC
Review Process
6
WASC’s Three-Stage
Review Process
1. Proposal: Identifies priorities, themes/areas
of emphasis, and outcomes. Aligns work with
institutional plans and needs.
2. Capacity/Preparatory Review: Focuses on
capacity (systems, policies, resources) and
readiness for educational effectiveness.
3. Educational Effectiveness: Focuses on
results, findings.
7
The Two Reviews
Capacity and Preparatory
Educational Effectiveness
• Preparatory = readiness for • Demonstrating student
learning
the Educational
Effectiveness Review
• Demonstrating institutional
• Capacity = purposes,
learning
integrity, stability,
• Demonstrating evidenceresources, structures,
based decision-making
policies, processes
8
The CPR and EER as a Whole
• The CPR evaluates what an institution has
for infrastructure (staff/faculty, resources,
processes, facilities, systems, structures).
• The EER evaluates how well that
infrastructure works and the results that the
institution achieves.
9
Navigating Multiple Purposes
Focusing on the institution

Applying the Standards and CFRs
Focusing on Proposal
themes/topics

Evaluating capacity and
effectiveness under Standards;
addressing team-identified issues
Reviewing the whole institution

Focusing on specifics, e.g.,
distance education, samples of
program reviews
Advancing institutional
development

Addressing “compliance” matters
10
Navigating Multiple Purposes
Allowing flexibility and
experimentation on visit

Ensuring consistency and
fairness among visits and quality
control of visits and reports
Using the CPR to evaluate
EE readiness

Leaving evaluation of
educational effectiveness until
EER
Supporting institutional
creativity and excitement

Reporting to the Commission
and serving the public
11
The Special Visit
• Intended to monitor institutional progress on
issues identified by the Commission
• May or may not be connected to a sanction
• Limited to a few specific areas of concern
• Intended to assess how institution will move
into compliance (if on sanction)
12
Changes in the Institutional
Review Process
• Institutions will cover the following in their
reports:
– Student Success (at CPR and EER)
– Program Review (at EER)
– Sustainability of EE (at EER)
• Teams should address in the team report
Tool: Table B (RB pg. 47)
13
The Team’s Impact
• Peer review is the foundation of
accreditation.
• The team report forms the basis for the
Commission action and its letter.
• The team report and action letter inform the
work of the institution for years to come.
• Why were you chosen for a team?
14
Working with
the Standards and CFRs
15
Standards and CFRs
• Two Core Commitments: Capacity and
Educational Effectiveness
• Standards: Broad, holistic, encompassing
• Criteria for Review: More specific and
detailed
• Guidelines: Ways to demonstrate compliance
with the relevant CFR
16
Revisions to CFRs
• Institutions required to submit summary
showing how they address revised CFRs
• Teams should review to see if institution is
addressing important new requirements
Tool: Table A (RB pg. 41)
17
Team Use of the Standards and
CFRs
• Team judgments must be linked to specific
Standards and CFRs
• CFRs must be cited in reports
• Standards and CFRs form the basis for
Commission decisions
• Standards and CFRs provide a context for
continuous quality improvement
18
Standards at a Glance
19
STANDARD 1:
Defining Institutional Purposes and
Ensuring Educational Objectives
Institutional Purposes
Integrity
20
STANDARD 2:
Achieving Educational Objectives
Through Core Functions
Teaching and Learning
Scholarship and Creativity
Support for Student Learning
21
STANDARD 3:
Developing and Applying Resources
and Organizational Structures to
Ensure Sustainability
Faculty and Staff
Fiscal, Physical & Information Resources
Organizational Structures &
Decision-Making Processes
22
STANDARD 4:
Creating an Organization Committed
to Learning and Improvement
Strategic Thinking and Planning
Commitment to Learning and
Improvement
23
Two Visits:
Different Views of a CFR (2.6)
The institution demonstrates that its graduates
consistently achieve its stated levels of
attainment and ensures that its expectations for
student learning are embedded in the standards
faculty use to evaluate student work.
24
CFR 2.6: Two Views
Capacity and Preparatory
 Has the institution
defined expected levels
of attainment for SL?
 Are they embedded in
the standards and
measures for student
work?
 How does the institution
know if students are
meeting expectations?
 What data are collected
and how analyzed?
 How is student learning
measured?
Educational Effectiveness
 What do data show
about student learning?
 Are data disaggregated
and analyzed?
 Did the students learn
what the faculty
intended them to learn?
At what levels of
performance?
 Has the institution used
data to make changes
and/or improvements?
25
Preparing for the Visit
(Visit Guide, Part II, pp. 29-52)
26
Timeline For CPR/EER Reviews
12 weeks
Institution
mails report
to team and
WASC
Team holds
conference
call
2 months
Site visit held
and team report
written
Institution
responds to
errors of fact in
team report
Institution
responds to
final team
report
Commission
acts at
February or
June meeting
27
Roles and Responsibilities of
Team Members and Staff
•
•
•
•
Role of team chair (RB pg. 189)
Role of team assistant chair (RB pg. 191)
Role of assigned WASC staff liaison (VG pg. 7)
Team assignments
28
Pre-visit Preparation
• Read all the documents from WASC
– Standards, CFRs, policies, visit guide, rubrics
– Background documents re: institution and purpose of
the visit, including Proposal and/or last action
letter/team report
• Read the institutional report
• Review the data portfolio and exhibits
– What to look for and highlight?
Tools: Timeline (VG pg. 8, VG pg. 29)
29
Reviewing the Exhibits
• Enrollment data
– Headcounts and FTE
•
•
•
•
•
Graduation data
Faculty data
Key financial indicators
Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators
Inventory of Concurrent Accreditation and Key
Performance Indicators
Tool: How to Review WASC Data Exhibits (RB pg. 61)
30
Reading the Report
• Has the institution done what it said it would
do in its Proposal?
• Has it collected and analyzed data effectively?
• Are its conclusions supported by evidence?
• Are there serious problems or potential areas
of noncompliance?
• Does the report contain recommendations for
further institutional action?
31
Developing Visit Strategies and
Lines of Inquiry
• What are areas needing clarification and/or
more information?
• What are the major issues challenging the
institution?
• What is raised by the themes that needs to be
verified or explored?
• What are the strategies that will be most
effective?
32
Worksheet for Team Conference Call
• Organizes team’s responses to institutional
materials
• Helps team make preliminary evaluation under
the Standards
• Provides basis for team to work toward
consensus
• Should be submitted in advance of call
Tool: Team Worksheet (VG pg. 43)
33
Team Conference Call
• Evaluates quality of institutional report and
alignment with Proposal and previous action
letter(s)
• Identifies areas of good practice, improvement,
and further inquiry
• Identifies issues, strategies, evidence needed
• Identifies persons and entities to be interviewed
• Makes or refines team assignments
• Plans visit logistics
34
Off-Campus Sites and
Distance Education Programs
Prior to Visit: Sites will be identified and assignments made
• Review substantive change action letters to determine if issues
have been identified
• Develop plan for the review of the programs and/or sites
During Visit
•
•
•
•
•
Interview faculty, administrators and students
Evaluate facilities OR online infrastructure
Observe classes
Document visit and findings in appendix
Discuss important findings with team for inclusion in report, as
appropriate
Tools: Protocols (RB pg. 158, RB pg. 160)
Forms (RB pg. 55, RB pg. 58)
35
Compliance Audit
• Required for:
– Institutions seeking Candidacy and Initial
Accreditation
– Some institutions under sanction
• Additional report submitted by institution in
advance of the visit—with links to documents
Tool: Compliance Audit Checklist (RB, pg. 51)
36
Determining Strategy for CPR Visit
• What evidence is provided to show capacity and
readiness for EE?
• Why was it chosen?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the
evidence?
• What other evidence do you want to review to evaluate
capacity and preparation for EE?
• Do any issues arise with regard to the Standards?
• Meetings: format/methodologies
37
Determining Strategy for EER Visit
• What evidence is provided to show EE?
• Why was it chosen?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the
evidence?
• What other evidence do you want to see to evaluate
effectiveness?
• Do any issues arise with regard to the Standards?
• Meetings: format/methodologies
38
Drafting in Advance of the Visit
• Assistant Chair draft outline of team report
and context sections
• Team members draft outline or text for which
they are responsible, using data from
institution, with space for additional data,
analysis and conclusions
Tool: Team Reports (VG pg. 53)
39
Conducting the Visit
40
Process of Visit
• Team meets at start of visit to confirm roles, assignments,
logistics, and agenda
• Team meets frequently re: observations, emerging
recommendations, and issues
• Team members draft sections of report and turn in to
assistant chair on the last day
• Team agrees on report recommendations and confidential
recommendation to Commission
41
Visit Schedule
• Executive sessions and debriefings with team
only
• Meetings and interviews with key individuals
and groups
• Open meetings with students, faculty and
staff
• Document review
• Time for drafting report sections
• Final exit meeting
42
Confidential Email Account
• Set up by WASC as extension of open
meetings
• Checked by assistant chair during visit
• Important emails shared with team and
investigated
• Comments included in team report only if the
institution has a chance to address them
43
Approaches Used on Visits
• Document review
• Interviews and meetings
– Mini-questionnaires
– Techniques for small and large meetings
– Fishbowl exercises
• Audits
Plan visit methodologies in advance
as part of schedule.
44
Document Review
DO as much as possible in advance:
Use to:
• Check compliance
• Evaluate the level of institutional
engagement
• Examine the evolution of a policy or process
• Identify direct and indirect evidence of
student and organizational learning
• Confirm report claims
45
Interviews
Use to:
• Gather information
• Explore issues
• Build relationships with members of the
institution
• Validate impressions and observations
46
Tips for Good Interviews
• Decide on a protocol for interview
• Prepare questions and lines of inquiry in
advance
• Ask questions that elicit information, stimulate
discussion, or require judgment
• Avoid interrogation, leading questions, or
loaded language
• Avoid consultation, giving solutions, or talking
about your institution
• Let them do the talking
47
Alternative Forms of Interview
•
•
•
•
•
Fishbowl
Brainstorm/free discussion on a salient topic
Go-round
Bundling
Audit
48
Evaluating Program Review
and Student Learning
on EER Visits
49
50
51
52
53
Rubrics re: Assessment of
Student Learning
1. Academic Program Learning Outcomes
2. Use of Portfolios in Assessing Program
Outcomes
3. Use of Capstones in Assessing Program
Outcomes
4. Integration of Student Learning
Assessment into Program Review
5. Assessing General Education
54
Expectations for Two Reviews
• Use questions re: Student Learning on
page 2
• Use as a monitor to be sure you are within
the proper scope of the visit
55
Educational Effectiveness
Framework
• Use with team to evaluate institution’s “place”
• Use language of rubric to describe the institution
in the report
• Ask the institution to evaluate itself and discuss
• Confer with team toward end of visit to mark a
copy of the EEF
• Submit the marked EEF confidentially to WASC
56
The Exit Meeting
• Team chair communicates commendations
and key recommendations that will be
included in report
• Chair may ask team members to participate
• The meeting is not a dialog, discussion or
debate
57
Lunch
Meet your team and assigned
WASC staff liaison
58
Case Studies
• CPR group
• EER group
• Special Visit group
59
Developing Team
Recommendations
60
Two Kinds of
Recommendations
• Confidential Team Recommendation to the
Commission for action
• Team recommendations at the end of team report,
delivered at the exit meeting
Tools:
Commission Decisions on Institutions
(Visit Guide pg. 84; SV Guide pg. Append. F)
Commission and Team Decision Matrix (RB pg. 173)
61
Team Report Recommendations
Should be:
• Overarching and important
• Supported by evidence
• Linked clearly to Standards and CFRs
• Supported by text in the report
- Distinguish recommendations from suggestions and
observations embedded in the report
Tool: Educational Effectiveness Framework
(RB pg. 176)
62
Confidential Recommendation
to Commission
• CPR
– Proceed to EER or reschedule EER visit
– Conduct a Special Visit (not preferred)
– Add time to EER visit
– Issue a notice of concern or impose
a sanction
Tool: Confidential Team Recommendation Form
(VG pg. 70)
63
Confidential Recommendation
to Commission
• EER
– Grant Candidacy, Initial Accreditation or
Reaffirmation of Accreditation for specified
term
– Sanction or Notice of Concern
– Interim Report or Special Visit
Tool: Confidential Team Recommendation Form
(VG pg.72)
64
Confidential Recommendation
to Commission
• Special Visit
– Varies with status of institution
– Next steps
– Removal or continuation of sanction
(note two-year limit on sanctions)
65
Producing Effective
Team Reports
66
Report Preparation Logistics
• Follow report template
• Start writing before the visit
• Complete your sections on site and give to
assistant chair for editing together
67
What is an effective team report?
 Reflects a thorough assessment of the
institution’s capacity, preparation, and/or
effectiveness
 Is evidence based
 Cites the Standards and CFRs
 Provides the basis for a sound and supportable
Commission decision
 Identifies important areas for institution to
address
68
Using Evidence in Team Reports
•
•
•
•
•
•
Use qualitative and quantitative evidence
Select evidence carefully and purposefully
Connect evidence to an assertion or question
Analyze information; do not just set forth data
Let evidence suggest improvements
Use evidence that speaks to the institution’s
themes and the team's questions
69
Tips for Writing Team Reports
• Consider multiple audiences: institution,
Commission, and next team
• Know your areas of responsibility, including length
and depth of your section
• Start writing before you arrive on campus
• Address priorities and goals set by the institution
• Address Commission’s concerns (last action letter)
• Make commendations, but don’t overdo it
• Use praise that doesn’t send wrong or mixed signal
70
More Tips on Team Reports….
• Be sure to check facts
• Support findings and recommendations with evidence
--and tie them to CFRs
• Ensure evidence is sound and valid
• Distinguish recommendations from suggestions or
observations
• Use formal language and tone (e.g., not “we/they”)
• Don’t mention personnel by name
• Don’t prescribe solutions
71
After the Visit
72
What happens next?
• AC prepares draft for chair, team and staff
review; changes as needed
• Chair sends to institution for corrections
of fact
• Chair finalizes draft and submits to WASC
• Chair sends Confidential Team
Recommendation and completed EEF
to WASC
• WASC sends report to institution
73
Then…
• Staff prepares draft action letter, which is reviewed
by team chair
• Commission Panel reads report and
documentation including institution’s written
response, meets with institutional representatives
at Commission meeting
• Panel makes recommendation to Commission,
and Commission acts
• Staff finalizes draft action letter on behalf of
Commission
74
Also after the visit….
• Team members send reimbursement forms to WASC
within 30 days
– Hotel arranged and paid directly by institution
– Travel / food reimbursed
– Rental car must be approved in advance by
WASC staff
– Spouse or assistant costs not covered
– See policy for more details
• Team members should not have any contact with the
institution
– About the visit OR
– Consult with the institution for one year
75
Some common complaints
about visits
•
•
•
•
•
Some team members not well prepared
The team “did not understand us”
The CPR team moved into EER “territory”
Team did not review all the evidence
Team changed the schedule at the last minute,
or did not stay on schedule
76
Some common complaints
about team reports
• The recommendations were too specific or
were unfair
• The report did not show that the team reviewed
the evidence
• The recommendations were not based on good
evidence or supported in report text
• The report did not address all the important
issues or themes
77
Resources for Teams
• Appendices of Visit Guide
• Team Materials and Institutional Report mailed
10-12 weeks in advance of visit
• WASC Website: www.wascsenior.org
• WASC Email Advisory (sent prior to visit)
• WASC Staff
78
Breakout Groups
• Chairs
• Assistant Chairs
• Evaluators/New Evaluators
79
Remaining Concerns,
Questions, Comments?
And…evaluate!
80
Thank you for your service
to the region
81