WASC “All Hands” Meeting Overview and Update November 12, 2007 D. Jonte-Pace.
-
Upload
claribel-tucker -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of WASC “All Hands” Meeting Overview and Update November 12, 2007 D. Jonte-Pace.
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.