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. 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 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

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 context CPR 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 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 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 )

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, Caveat: WASC documents are under revision. See website for updates.