• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
W 2 WASC 101
 

W 2 WASC 101

on

  • 1,221 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,221
Views on SlideShare
1,194
Embed Views
27

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

2 Embeds 27

http://2010.wascarc.org 25
http://www.wascarc.org 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    W 2 WASC 101 W 2 WASC 101 Presentation Transcript

    • WASC 101: The Accrediting Process Clear & Simple Richard Winn, Associate Director Stephanie Bangert, Samuel Merritt University Nandini Dasgupta, Samuel Merritt University Bill Neal, Brigham Young University, Hawaii SPONSORED BY ACSCU IN COLLABORATION WITH ACCJC
    • By the end of the workshop, you will:
      • Make sense of the three-stage review process
      • Draw clear distinctions among each stage of a comprehensive review
      • Understand recent changes in the CFRs and review process
      • Draw lessons from several examples of campus organization for a WASC review
    • The WASC accreditation focus
      • From inputs to processes and outputs
      • From numbers to meaning-making and reflection
      • From single measures or simple numbers to indicators of complex, nuanced, context-linked student learning
      • From monitoring compliance to building internal capacities around student learning
    • Mom! I taught Spike how to whistle! A learning-centered process . . .
    • But I don’t hear him whistling . . .
    • I said I taught him; I didn’t say he learned!
    •  
    • The WASC process embeds this classic cycle into the institution’s culture: 2. Measure achievement of those goals. 1. Set measurable performance goals 4. Use data and reflection to make improvements. 3. Reflect on meaning of the performance data.
    • Proposal Capacity and Preparatory Review Educational Effectiveness Review 2 yrs to site visit 1½ yrs to site visit Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 2 The WASC Institutional Review Process: A Learning-Centered Review Model Institutional Learning Through Formative Feedback
      • Feedback from:
      • Proposal Review
      • Committee
      • WASC Staff
      • Feedback from:
      • Team visit, report
      • Commission Action
      • Follow Up
      • Feedback from:
      • Team visit, report
      • Commission Action
      • Follow Up
    • Proposal -> Capacity & Preparatory Review -> Educational Effectiveness Review
      • How well have we achieved our mission and goals?
      • How are we learning to be more effective in achieving these goals for each student and for the institution?
      • What is our capacity (in resources and structures) to support learning?
      • Are we prepared to support an evidence-based EER report?
      • What is our goal?
      • What do we want to know about our institution?
      • How will we go about knowing it?
      • How can we “own” the review process?
    • The Standards and CFRs apply to both reviews, but the focus differs… Capacity and Preparatory Review: Focuses on resources, systems, and infrastructure to support education and needed improvements Focuses on readiness to conduct a rigorous, data- supported Educational Effectiveness Review
      • Educational Effectiveness
      • Review:
      • Moves beyond a descriptive
      • summary of assessment
      • activities to an inquiry about
      • educational effectiveness
      • Documents results of the
      • inquiry
      • Demonstrates commitment
      • to improve student and
      • institutional learning
    • Two Lenses on Two Reviews Applying the WASC Standards across Both Reviews The Focus for the Two Reviews:
      • Educational results :
      • Completed program reviews
      • Assessment results at the course, program, and institutional levels
      • Results of assessment of student services/ support units
      • Use of these results to plan for and make improvements
      • Infrastructure to support learning :
      • Stated learning outcomes
      • Defined levels of achievement
      • Program review process
      • Support for faculty scholarship
      • Support for academic and co-curricular learning
      Standard 2: Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core Functions
      • Achievement of, or tangible progress toward meeting, institutional goals
      • Multiple indicators of effectiveness
      • Evidence of integrity
      • Analysis of data on diversity; use of analysis for assessment and improvement
      • Clear sense of institutional purpose
      • Integrity and good business policies and practices
      • Institutional and program objectives
      • Public accountability and transparency
      • Diversity plans and policies
      Standard 1: Defining Institutional Purpose and Ensuring Educational Objectives Student Learning (measures of educational achievement); Institutional Learning (performance data to inform reviews; results of review processes) Capacity (purposes, integrity, stability, resources, structures, processes, policies); Preparatory (issues to forward for EE Review) Primary Focus of Each Review: Educational Effectiveness Review Capacity and Preparatory Review
    • The Focus for the Two Reviews (Part 2):
      • Engagement of leadership at all levels in learning processes
      • Quality improvement system results
      • Evidence of a learning organization
      • Planning processes that involve constituents and are aligned with goals
      • Adequate institutional research
      • Quality improvement systems designed in alignment with mission
      • Wide use of evidence in planning
      Standard 4: Creating an Organization Committed to Learning and Improvement
      • Appropriate alignment, commitment, and use of resources to support learning
      • Evidence-based decision making
      • Effective governance and decision making
      • (Any “trailing issues” from the CPR report)
      • Adequate resources, including:
      • faculty and staff
      • policies and practices re: faculty and staff
      • financial sustainability
      • library and information technology
      • Sound organizational structures and decision-making processes
      • Qualified and adequate administration, board, and faculty governance
      Standard 3: Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Assure Sustainability Educational Effectiveness Review Capacity and Preparatory Review
    • Organizing the Inquiry Deliverables : What will be the outcome of the research? What form will the product take? Deadline for delivery? Personnel: Who will be involved in the research? How will tasks be divided? How will personnel be organized? Research Methods : How will we go about obtaining the needed information? Researchable Questions : What do we want to know? Why do we want to know it? Educational Effectiveness Review Capacity & Preparatory Review Elements for Standard/CFR ______
    • Observations . . .
      • The WASC process impacts the entire institution; “quality” is an institutional value
      • Those leading the review effort must have considerable access to key constituencies, with clear support from administration
      • As with any quality effort ( e.g. ISO 9000, Baldrige Award, etc.) the WASC review can be resource intensive – but worth it!
    • New Requirement for CPR Reports:
      • Retention and graduation rates, disaggregated by student type and program
        • Comparisons to other institutions, where possible
        • Recommendations for improvement, where appropriate
      • 1. Analysis of institutional effectiveness with regard to student success . Build on the CPR’s analysis to understand:
        • Educational achievement
        • Year-to-year attrition
        • Campus climate
        • Success for all categories of students
      • 2. Analysis of program review process with an emphasis on:
        •  Programs’ achievement of student learning outcomes
        •  Impact and alignment with other processes
      • 3. Sustaining the effort : Updated data portfolio and evidence relevant to EER, including plan, methods, and schedule for assessment of student learning beyond EE visit.
      New requirements for EER Reviews (fall 2008):