WASC 101: The Accrediting Process Clear & Simple Richard Winn, Associate Director Stephanie Bangert, Samuel Merritt Univer...
By the end of the workshop, you will: <ul><li>Make sense of the three-stage review process </li></ul><ul><li>Draw clear di...
The WASC accreditation focus <ul><li>From inputs to processes and outputs </li></ul><ul><li>From numbers to meaning-making...
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  ...
Proposal Capacity and Preparatory Review Educational Effectiveness Review 2 yrs to site visit 1½ yrs to site visit Stage 3...
Proposal -> Capacity & Preparatory Review -> Educational Effectiveness Review <ul><li>How well have we achieved our missio...
The Standards and CFRs apply to  both  reviews, but the focus differs…   Capacity and Preparatory  Review:  Focuses on res...
Two Lenses on Two Reviews Applying the WASC Standards across Both Reviews The Focus for the Two Reviews: <ul><li>Education...
The Focus for the Two Reviews (Part 2): <ul><li>Engagement of leadership at all levels in learning processes </li></ul><ul...
Organizing the Inquiry   Deliverables : What will be the outcome of the research? What form will the product take? Deadlin...
Observations . . . <ul><li>The WASC process impacts the entire institution; “quality” is an  institutional  value </li></u...
New Requirement for CPR Reports:   <ul><li>Retention and graduation rates, disaggregated by student type and program  </li...
<ul><li>1. Analysis of institutional effectiveness with regard to  student success . Build on the CPR’s analysis to unders...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

W 2 WASC 101

1,222 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,222
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
31
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

W 2 WASC 101

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. By the end of the workshop, you will: <ul><li>Make sense of the three-stage review process </li></ul><ul><li>Draw clear distinctions among each stage of a comprehensive review </li></ul><ul><li>Understand recent changes in the CFRs and review process </li></ul><ul><li>Draw lessons from several examples of campus organization for a WASC review </li></ul>
  3. 3. The WASC accreditation focus <ul><li>From inputs to processes and outputs </li></ul><ul><li>From numbers to meaning-making and reflection </li></ul><ul><li>From single measures or simple numbers to indicators of complex, nuanced, context-linked student learning </li></ul><ul><li>From monitoring compliance to building internal capacities around student learning </li></ul>
  4. 4. Mom! I taught Spike how to whistle! A learning-centered process . . .
  5. 5. But I don’t hear him whistling . . .
  6. 6. I said I taught him; I didn’t say he learned!
  7. 8. 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.
  8. 9. 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 <ul><li>Feedback from: </li></ul><ul><li>Proposal Review </li></ul><ul><li>Committee </li></ul><ul><li>WASC Staff </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback from: </li></ul><ul><li>Team visit, report </li></ul><ul><li>Commission Action </li></ul><ul><li>Follow Up </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback from: </li></ul><ul><li>Team visit, report </li></ul><ul><li>Commission Action </li></ul><ul><li>Follow Up </li></ul>
  9. 10. Proposal -> Capacity & Preparatory Review -> Educational Effectiveness Review <ul><li>How well have we achieved our mission and goals? </li></ul><ul><li>How are we learning to be more effective in achieving these goals for each student and for the institution? </li></ul><ul><li>What is our capacity (in resources and structures) to support learning? </li></ul><ul><li>Are we prepared to support an evidence-based EER report? </li></ul><ul><li>What is our goal? </li></ul><ul><li>What do we want to know about our institution? </li></ul><ul><li>How will we go about knowing it? </li></ul><ul><li>How can we “own” the review process? </li></ul>
  10. 11. 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 <ul><li>Educational Effectiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Review: </li></ul><ul><li>Moves beyond a descriptive </li></ul><ul><li>summary of assessment </li></ul><ul><li>activities to an inquiry about </li></ul><ul><li>educational effectiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Documents results of the </li></ul><ul><li>inquiry </li></ul><ul><li>Demonstrates commitment </li></ul><ul><li>to improve student and </li></ul><ul><li>institutional learning </li></ul>
  11. 12. Two Lenses on Two Reviews Applying the WASC Standards across Both Reviews The Focus for the Two Reviews: <ul><li>Educational results : </li></ul><ul><li>Completed program reviews </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment results at the course, program, and institutional levels </li></ul><ul><li>Results of assessment of student services/ support units </li></ul><ul><li>Use of these results to plan for and make improvements </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure to support learning : </li></ul><ul><li>Stated learning outcomes </li></ul><ul><li>Defined levels of achievement </li></ul><ul><li>Program review process </li></ul><ul><li>Support for faculty scholarship </li></ul><ul><li>Support for academic and co-curricular learning </li></ul>Standard 2: Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core Functions <ul><li>Achievement of, or tangible progress toward meeting, institutional goals </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple indicators of effectiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Evidence of integrity </li></ul><ul><li>Analysis of data on diversity; use of analysis for assessment and improvement </li></ul><ul><li>Clear sense of institutional purpose </li></ul><ul><li>Integrity and good business policies and practices </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional and program objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Public accountability and transparency </li></ul><ul><li>Diversity plans and policies </li></ul>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
  12. 13. The Focus for the Two Reviews (Part 2): <ul><li>Engagement of leadership at all levels in learning processes </li></ul><ul><li>Quality improvement system results </li></ul><ul><li>Evidence of a learning organization </li></ul><ul><li>Planning processes that involve constituents and are aligned with goals </li></ul><ul><li>Adequate institutional research </li></ul><ul><li>Quality improvement systems designed in alignment with mission </li></ul><ul><li>Wide use of evidence in planning </li></ul>Standard 4: Creating an Organization Committed to Learning and Improvement <ul><li>Appropriate alignment, commitment, and use of resources to support learning </li></ul><ul><li>Evidence-based decision making </li></ul><ul><li>Effective governance and decision making </li></ul><ul><li>(Any “trailing issues” from the CPR report) </li></ul><ul><li>Adequate resources, including: </li></ul><ul><li>faculty and staff </li></ul><ul><li>policies and practices re: faculty and staff </li></ul><ul><li>financial sustainability </li></ul><ul><li>library and information technology </li></ul><ul><li>Sound organizational structures and decision-making processes </li></ul><ul><li>Qualified and adequate administration, board, and faculty governance </li></ul>Standard 3: Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Assure Sustainability Educational Effectiveness Review Capacity and Preparatory Review
  13. 14. 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 ______
  14. 15. Observations . . . <ul><li>The WASC process impacts the entire institution; “quality” is an institutional value </li></ul><ul><li>Those leading the review effort must have considerable access to key constituencies, with clear support from administration </li></ul><ul><li>As with any quality effort ( e.g. ISO 9000, Baldrige Award, etc.) the WASC review can be resource intensive – but worth it! </li></ul>
  15. 16. New Requirement for CPR Reports: <ul><li>Retention and graduation rates, disaggregated by student type and program </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Comparisons to other institutions, where possible </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recommendations for improvement, where appropriate </li></ul></ul>
  16. 17. <ul><li>1. Analysis of institutional effectiveness with regard to student success . Build on the CPR’s analysis to understand: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Educational achievement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Year-to-year attrition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Campus climate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Success for all categories of students </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2. Analysis of program review process with an emphasis on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li> Programs’ achievement of student learning outcomes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> Impact and alignment with other processes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>New requirements for EER Reviews (fall 2008):

×