Capacity and preparatory review workshop 2010
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,011
On Slideshare
999
From Embeds
12
Number of Embeds
3

Actions

Shares
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 12

http://2010.wascarc.org 10
http://www.wascarc.org 1
http://www.slideshare.net 1

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Capacity and Preparatory Review Workshop – ARC - 2010 Dick Osborn, WASC Aubyn Fulton, Pacific Union College SPONSORED BY ACSCU IN COLLABORATION WITH ACCJC
  • 2. Who are we?
    • Kind of campus? Public, independent, faith based, proprietary; eligibility; candidacy;
    • Done the CPR before?
    • 1 st time?
    • When will your visit be?
      • Fall 2010; Spring 2011; Fall 2011; Spring 2012; Fall 2012
    • Served as a site visitor on a CPR?
    • Your campus role? [Attendee List]
      • ALO; WASC Committee member; faculty; other
  • 3. Drill Sergeant, Mothers Hens
    • Every organization has two chains of command: de facto and de jure. The truly successful people know which is which, and act accordingly.
    • One of them, the de jure, everybody knows about instinctively–the logical one. The one on letterheads and power-flow charts. The person on top (usually a man) is the boss. The next one down is next in importance, and so on, each one proportionally less important, until you get to the bottom. These are the ones most everyone goes to when they need something. But is it valid?
  • 4.
    • The other one, the de-facto, almost nobody knows about, because it’s not on letterhead or power flow charts. The only ones who know about it are insiders, and they won’t talk about it. Why? Because it’s too precious, coming under the abstract heading: “Knowledge is power.”
    • It works this way: in each department, there is a go-to person (usually a woman). There has to be, or the entire organization will collapse, for somebody has to be in charge, know how to negotiate the system. Combined in that one person are two oxymoronic qualities: being both a drill-sergeant and a mother hen. Externally no nonsense and hard as nails; deep down, loving, kind, caring, appreciative, tender, empathetic, and supportive.
  • 5.
    • What is really intriguing is that these de facto go-to people each report to another, higher up, just like them. Up and up and up till you get to the very top. That’s why, when I want to get or learn something, I by-pass the letterhead people and start with the top. Not the CEO, of course, but most likely his personal secretary (usually a woman); I call on her because she runs the entire organization. It would disintegrate without her. – Joe Wheeler, Wednesdays with Dr. Joe
  • 6. What do you think?
    • Why does WASC do a CPR?
    • How many have some confusion between the different purposes of the CPR & EER?
    • Not necessarily reflecting your own position, but how many have heard questions or doubts about the need for a CPR visit on your campus? What kinds of questions?
  • 7. Three hats – As a President, a WASC team member, and as an Associate Director at WASC
  • 8.  
  • 9.  
  • 10. A Campus Veteran
  • 11. Workshop Goals
    • Clarify the role of the CPR within the broader comprehensive review process
    • Provide tools and guidance for development and completion of the CPR report
    • Provide tools and guidance for campus involvement with the reaffirmation process
    • Share experiences with other institutions at various stages of the CPR
  • 12. WASC Comprehensive Review Process
    • Three stage developmental process: institutional work and review are meant to be concurrent, not consecutive
    • CPR focus is the Core Commitment to Capacity: “The institution functions with clear purposes, high levels of institutional integrity, fiscal stability, and organizational structures and processes to fulfill its purposes.”
    • Standards and CFRs must be met as the infrastructure, not necessarily the focus, of the reviews
    • Focus on learning, especially student learning, as central to the review process; capacity to measure student learning, assure student success, and assure preparedness for the EER
  • 13. Old & New
    • In 2001 went from 9 standards with 268 subcomponents to 4 standards with 42 subcomponents.
    • Outcomes-based focused on educational effectiveness.
    • Tenet that institutions would move forward with their responsibility to assess student learning outcomes.
    • Multi-stage process called by Judith Eaton, President of CHEA as “the most significant reform in accreditation in the past 50 years.”
    • Not an “event” but a process of continuous improvement as a learning organization.
  • 14. Core Commitment to Institutional Capacity Core Commitment to Educational Effectiveness Standard I Defining Institutional Purposes & Ensuring Educational Objectives CFRs Institutional Purposes (3) Integrity (6) [guidelines] Standard II Achieving Educational Objectives through Core Functions CFRs Teaching & Learning (7) Scholarship & Creative Activity (2) Support for Student Learning (5) [guidelines] Standard III Developing & Applying Resources & Organizational Structures to Ensure Sustainability CFRs Faculty & Staff (4) Fiscal, Physical & Information Resources (3) Organizational Structures & Decision-making Processes (4) [guidelines] Standard IV Creating an Organization Committed to Learning & Improvement CFRs Strategic Thinking & Planning (3) Commitment to Learning & Improvement (5) [guidelines]
  • 15. Study Committee for Next Handbook
    • Several important values or outcomes need to be added, e.g., public accountability, transparency, more emphasis on student-centeredness.  This will be part of the early process.
    • Retention & Graduation
    • New ways of earning credit/technology
    • Transparency
    • Degree, the meaning of the baccalaureate
  • 16. REAFFIRMATION REVIEW CYCLE EER 18 to 24 months 7 to 10 years P R O P O S A L 18 to 24 months E E R C P R
  • 17. DETAIL OF COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW TIMING Ongoing institutional engagement, reflection, focus on learning S U B M I T P R O P O S A L C P R E E R Acceptance: 18-24 mos. to target CPR date Revise and re- submit Acceptance: 16-18 mos. to target CPR date 18 to 24 months to target EER date
  • 18. INSTITUTIONAL PROPOSAL
    • *Linkages: mission, strategic plans, other institutional priorities; previous Commission action letters
    • *Purpose: Frames the comprehensive review process; responds to previous Commission actions; lays out what institution hopes to achieve, why these foci were chosen, how institution plans to achieve them, by whom, and when
    • *Reviews: Proposal Review Committee (peer review) and WASC staff; provided to visiting teams
    • *Actions: staff letter outlining recommendations of the PRC; institution may be required to revise and resubmit
  • 19. CAPACITY AND PREPARATORY REVIEW
    • *Linkages: Proposal, mission, strategic plans, other institutional priorities; previous Commission action letters; Core Commitments, Standards and CFRs [Handout – “Worksheet for Preliminary Self-Review Under the Standards” and “Standards & Themes Matrix”]
    • *Purpose: demonstration of institution’s Core Commitment to Capacity; institution’s progress moving forward to EER (systems, organization, procedures, data, infrastructure)
    • *Reviews: WASC Staff, Team (on-site visit), Commission
    • *Actions: Commission action letter—proceed to EER (noting any issues to be addressed); reschedule the EER; request Special Visit; issue Formal Notice of Concern; impose a Sanction
  • 20.
    • * Linkages: Proposal, CPR, mission, strategic plans, other institutional priorities; previous Commission action letters; Core Commitments, Standards and CFRs
    • *Purpose: demonstration of institution’s Core Commitment to Educational Effectiveness [Handout – “The Educational Effectiveness Framework”]
    • *Reviews: WASC Staff, Team (on-site visit), Commission
    • *Actions: Commission action letter—reaffirm Accreditation; reaffirm Accreditation with Interim Report (almost all are being required to do an Interim Report) or Special Visit; reaffirm Accreditation with Formal Notice of Concern; impose a Sanction (2008-09 – 46% 10-Year; 42% 7-9 Years; 2.5% Sanction)
    EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW
  • 21. CPR and EER: Quality assurance in two phases (Handout – “Expectations for Two Reviews”)
    • CPR
    • Leadership for EE in place
    • SLOs defined at all levels
    • Infrastructure in place (committees, processes)
    • Faculty knowledgeable
    • EER
    • Results of leadership documented
    • Evaluation, achievement of SLOs
    • Pattern of good, consistent functioning of infrastructure
    • Faculty engaged, active
  • 22. CPR and EER: Quality assurance in two phases
    • CPR
    • Collection of data
    • Assessment plans for full cycle
    • Program review process
    • Links to planning, budgeting, reward systems
    • EER
    • Data analysis and reflection; evidence used for improvement
    • Plans actualized
    • Program reviews carried out; lead to demonstrated improvement
    • Demonstrated support for assessment, program review; sustainable processes
  • 23. The CPR Report
    • Institutions organize the CPR report either by Standards or by selected themes – What are you doing? (Handout – “CPR Report Organizational Model Examples” and “Elements for Standard ___ or Theme ___ “]
    • Report narrative (limited to 35 pages) should include:
    • *Responses to issues raised in previous Commission action letters
    • *Description of the institution’s approach to the CPR (aligned with the Proposal)
    • *Evidence of campus-wide engagement in the reaffirmation process including system(s) of quality assurance
    • *Evidence of readiness for EER
    • *Explicit linkages to the Standards and CFRs. *Integrative concluding essay with plans for use of findings,
    • continuing inquiry
  • 24. The CPR Report (continued)
    • Exhibits and appendices: portfolio/DVD/website/jump drive organized by Standard and/or theme; links, site map provided
    • Required data elements:
    • *Summary Data Form
    • *Required Data Exhibits to Support the Capacity
    • and Preparatory Review [including Inventory of Concurrent Accreditation] [See Handout]
    • Remember that you’re addressing two parallel dimensions: infrastructure and readiness…focus on Core Commitment to Capacity AND readiness for Educational Effectiveness Review
  • 25. New Items of Note…
    • If your proposal has been approved and you are scheduled for a CPR visit during or after fall 2009, you need to include in your report
    • (1) an analysis of how the revised CFRs may affect institutional practice and policy [See “WASC Core Commitment & Standards (updated 02/08)].
    • (2) an analysis of student success (including data on retention and graduation rates, disaggregated by student type and program)
    • These supplements may be included using format(s) of your choice (i.e., narrative, table, chart).
  • 26. Pacific Union College CPR University of California, Merced
  • 27. Using Rubrics (Handouts)
    • Capstones
    • General Education Assessment Process
    • Portfolios
    • Program Learning Outcomes
    • Program Review
  • 28. WASC Details (Handouts)
    • CPR/EER Schedule Template (Handout)
    • Team Worksheet for CPR Conference Call
    • CPR Team Report Directions
    • Distance Education Summary
    • Off-Campus Site Summary
  • 29. More advice…
    • #1 Team Complaint: They made it hard for us to understand, to find the evidence.
    • #1 Institutional Complaint: We already gave them that information.
    • Remember that your readers don’t know your institution as well as you do…be clear, provide evidence, and clearly link the evidence to the explanations.
    • Cite to Standards and CFRs to help guide team.
    • Suggestion: Have outside readers review your report: Did they get it? Is it as clear to them as it is to you?
  • 30. Areas for special attention and things you need to know:
    • *Off-campus and distance education (team visits)
    • *Team has both verification function and evaluative function
    • *CPR and EER are concurrent efforts: attention to educational effectiveness cannot begin where capacity leaves off
  • 31. A Digression Concerning Evidence…
    • Evidence used to respond to inquiry, to document the nature of the responses
    • What is evidence? What are the characteristics of good evidence?
    • *purposeful: responds to a question
    • *interpretive: involves analysis of and reflection upon the data
    • *quantitative and qualitative
    • *direct and indirect
    • *relevant, valid, verifiable, representative, actionable, cumulative, systematic
    • Evidence is NOT a data dump; NOR is it the telling of anecdotal tales
  • 32. More advice…
    • *Respond quickly to team requests for information before the visit
    • *Be flexible before and during visit
    • *CPR does not just pertain to Standards I and III; all four Standards have capacity (and educational effectiveness) dimensions
    • *Make the process work for your institution: reaffirmation is a useful vehicle for helping to move internal institutional agendas forward
  • 33. Organizing the Campus
    • To sustain interest, choose matters of high priority (and engage campus-wide constituencies in defining what those high priorities are)
    • Share work across divisions, involve campus leadership from all parts of the institution
    • Involve faculty in substantive ways
    • Move beyond summaries to analysis, reflection and use of findings for learning and improvement
    • Be realistic about what it is possible to accomplish given time and resources
    • Communicate early and often and through multiple means; recognize and reward colleagues
  • 34. Campus Communication:
    • Consider your many needs in data collection and analysis (who might know?) as well as other communication needs throughout the self-review process
    • Use WASC “Self Review Under the Standards of Accreditation” and “What Really Matters on Campus?” worksheets—or homegrown tools—broadly across campus
    • Ideas for Modes of Communication
      • Campus-wide surveys, chat rooms
      • Focus groups
      • House calls
      • Information booths
      • Town Hall meetings
      • Newsletters, e-mailings
  • 35. Submitting Your CPR Report…
    • *Submit to WASC: one paper copy of the report itself AND an 3 electronic versions (USB flash drive, DVD or CD) of the report and the exhibits/appendices/data portfolio (Supplemental documents/appendices should only be submitted in electronic version.) [Handout – “Institutional Report Media Requirements”]
    • *Submit to each team member: one paper copy of the report itself AND an electronic version of the report and the exhibits/appendices/data portfolio.  [Team members may request a paper copy of the exhibits.]