1. WASC Self Study: A First LookCo
Co-sponsored by President Castro and the Academic Senate
submit questions and use #FresnoStateWASC

2. Outline Overview of WASC and accreditation Our process so far
Summary of key points from the self study
Feedback

3. Regional Accreditation
Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools
New England Association of Schools and Colleges
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools
Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities
Western Association of Schools and Colleges
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools

4. Regional Accreditation:
Assures quality
Allows students to transfer credits
Allows students to receive federal financial aid
Provides institutions an opportunity to reflect on their practices and improve

5. WASC Standards
CFRs
Standard 1: Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives
Standard 2: Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core Functions
Standard 3: Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Ensure Quality and Sustainability
Standard 4: Creating an Organization Committed to Quality Assurance, Institutional Learning, and Improvement

6. CFR Examples:
1.2 Educational objectives are widely recognized throughout the institution, are consistent with stated purposes, and are demonstrably achieved. The institution regularly generates, evaluates, and makes public data about student achievement, including measures of retention and graduation, and evidence of student learning outcomes.

7. CFR Examples:
3.3 The institution maintains appropriate and sufficiently supported faculty and staff development activities designed to improve teaching, learning, and assessment of learning outcomes.

8. The Self Study - provides evidence of the CFRs through
Introduction: Institutional Context; Response to Previous Commission Actions
Compliance with WASC Standards and Federal Regulations: Self-review under the Standards; Compliance Checklist
Degree Programs: Meaning, Quality, and Integrity of Degrees
Educational Quality: Student Learning, Core Competencies, and Standards of Performance at Graduation
Student Success: Student Learning, Retention, and Graduation
Quality Assurance and Improvement: Program Review; Assessment; Use of Data and Evidence
Sustainability: Financial Viability; Preparing for the Changing Higher Education Environment
Conclusion: Reflection and Plans for Improvement

9. Our Campus Process:
Fall 2012 – Meaning Quality and Integrity Subcommittee and Core Competency Subcommittee
Executive Committee
Steering Committee

10. Our Campus Process:
Fall 2013 – Essays written by groups (from Exec and Steering) – 2 rounds of revision
Jan 2014 – Outside review / revision
March – Editing and revision by Gil Harootunian
April draft circulated to campus for input

11. Looking forward: Aug 2014: Self narrative submission
November 20, 2014: Offsite Review
October 20-22, 2015: Accreditation Visit

12. Introduction: Institutional Context;
Sets institutional context as regional, minority serving, primarily first gen commuter campus.
Changes over last 10 years including:
Demographics (more Hispanic, more Pell eligible)
Classification as Carnegie engaged institution
Capital Campaign and infrastructure

13. Introduction: Response to Previous Commission Actions
Strengthening GE and University Wide Assessment
Faculty Expectations for Research / Universities place within Higher Ed.

14. Compliance with WASC Standards and Federal Regulations: Self-review under the Standards; Compliance Checklist
Compliance Review
Policies clear and Shared governance string
Self review
Strengths
Strategic planning
Student success focus
Faculty evaluation
Values diversity

15. Self Review (cont’d) Challenges:
Values and character weak in mission statement
SLO standards generally nonexistent
Lack of publicly available data on achievement of SLOs
MQI not language we have used
Information literacy not a focus
ILOs just now being developed
GE assessment course rather than program based
Student affairs program review processes unclear
Broader concept of faculty development needed-address part-time faculty

16. Degree Programs: Meaning, Quality, and Integrity of Degrees
Development of Institutional Learning Outcomes for undergrad (and potential for eportfolios)
Less work done for graduate programs
Reviewed assessment processes in place to insure quality

17. Educational Quality: Student Learning, Core Competencies, and Standards of Performance at Graduation
Fresno State evaluated written communication core competency in spring/summer Seventy-one percent (71%) of W course samples and 94% of W exam samples are rated at competent or accomplished levels (on a rubric developed by The Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing, and adopted by Writing Across the Curriculum Committee at Fresno State).

18. Educational Quality: Student Learning, Core Competencies, and Standards of Performance at Graduation
Fresno State is planning to evaluate all five cores (Oral and Written Communication, Information Literary, Critical Thinking and Quantitative Reasoning) by selecting student work samples via an E-portfolio system that will be implemented in academic year.

19. Educational Quality: Student Learning, Core Competencies, and Standards of Performance at Graduation
Standards of Core competency will be determined either universally (all students are expected to reach a certain level) or by discipline (students are expected to reach varying degrees of competency across disciplines).

20. Student Success: Student Learning, Retention, and Graduation
Fresno State has had an unwavering focus on improving student learning, retention and degree completion for well over a decade.
A wide variety of discipline specific initiatives, pedagogy, technology and intervention strategies have been deployed to support student retention and degree completion.

21. Student Success: Student Learning, Retention, and Graduation
Fresno State is well on track to surpass the goal of increasing the six year graduation rate by six percentage points (from 45 to 51%) and is making good progress with closing the achievement gap between underrepresented minority groups and non-Underrepresented minority groups.

22. Quality Assurance and Improvement: Program Review; Assessment; Use of Data and Evidence
Culture of evidence and use of data are evolving
University-level use of data is strong; program-level use of data needs to be strengthened
Fall short in follow-through on Program Review Action Plans
Currently lacking a means by which we periodically review the Program Review process

23. Sustainability: Financial Viability; Preparing for the Changing Higher Education Environment
Organization
Fiscal
Process
Alignment
Strategic planning
University
Division

24. Sustainability: Financial Viability; Preparing for the Changing Higher Education Environment
Identify and Respond to changes in higher education
Access
Accountability
EPortfolios
Accommodation
Common core
Learning strategies/pedagogies
Technology

25. Feedback:
Twitter: submit questions and use #FresnoStateWASC
Submit feedback on the web: