Transcript WASC “All Hands” Meeting Overview and Update November 12, 2007 D. Jonte-Pace WASC “All Hands”     Introductions Overview of Accreditation Process  National context (DoE)  Regional context.

WASC “All Hands” Meeting
Overview and Update
November 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 Context
WASC’s Three-Stage Review
1.
2.
3.
Proposal: identifies priorities, areas of
emphasis, and outcomes; aligns work with
institutional plans and needs.
Capacity/Preparatory Review: focuses on
capacity and readiness for educational
effectiveness.
Educational Effectiveness: serves as the
culmination of the process with focus on
results.
Contextualizing WASC’s
Three-Stage Review
Previous self study
Previous visiting team report
Previous 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
Overview: SCU’s context
CPR as Capacity AND Preparatory (looks ahead to EER)
Grounded in Standards and CFRs
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
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 Tensions
Focusing 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.