Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Wasc Evaluator Training Webinar - July 13, 2011


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Wasc Evaluator Training Webinar - July 13, 2011

  1. 1. 1<br />Evaluator WorkshopFall Visits 2011Wednesday, July 13, 2011<br />Please join the audio portion of this training:866-740-1260, Access Code: 7489001<br />ReadyTalk Help Desk: 800.843.9166 International Help: 303.209.1600<br />
  2. 2. 2<br />Announcements<br />This presentation and the accompanying materials are available for download from: <br /><br />For assistance with Voice and Web connections please contact:<br />ReadyTalk Help Desk, 800.843.9166International Help: 303.209.1600<br />Please mute your microphone if you are not speaking.<br />If you have questions, please enter them into the Chat window.<br />
  3. 3. 3<br />WASC Evaluator WorkshopFall Visits 2011<br />
  4. 4. 4<br />Workshop Outcomes<br /><ul><li>Know the evolving context within which accreditation visits are situated
  5. 5. Know how to prepare for and conduct an effective visit
  6. 6. Be prepared to produce a useful, high-quality team report
  7. 7. Be ready to make sound judgments about institutions under the Standards
  8. 8. Be familiar with resources that support your work on a team</li></li></ul><li>5<br />Agenda<br />External Contextfor Review Process<br />Recent changes in Review Process<br />Overview of WASC Review Process<br />Preparing for the Visit<br />Conducting the Visit<br />Developing Team Recommendations<br />Writing the Team Report<br />
  9. 9. 6<br />External Context for Accreditation and Visits<br />The continuing evolution of the WASC process and Standards<br />Changes in Higher Education<br />Perceptions about Accreditation <br />The Changing Roles of Accreditation<br />Changes within the WASC Region<br />Handbook revision process<br />
  10. 10. Continuing Evolution of WASC<br />Commitment to the region when the 2001 Handbook was adopted<br />Follow-up to the 2006-07 External Review<br />USDE requirement for periodic comprehensive review of the Standards<br />Challenges to the effectiveness of accreditation and changes in higher education<br />7<br />
  11. 11. Changes in Higher Education-1<br />Low graduation rates<br />High student debt/high default rates<br />Difficulty in transferring credit<br />Dissatisfaction with quality of undergraduate education/low levels of learning<br />Rapid growth of online education<br />Growth and practices of for-profit education<br />8<br />
  12. 12. Changes in Higher Education-2<br />Changing demographics of students-age, working, diversity<br />Swirl: majority of students attending more than one institution<br />Open source and DIYers<br />Shrinking support for publics<br />Trend to privatize public universities<br />Increased federal regulation<br />9<br />
  13. 13. Perceptions about Accreditation<br />Lack of oversight of the for-profit sector<br />Emphasis on process not results<br />Inadequate attention to graduation rates and student learning outcomes<br />“Pass-fail” nature of accreditation<br />Lack of transparency about process and results<br />Cost and labor intensiveness of accreditation<br />Long terms of accreditation<br />10<br />
  14. 14. The Changing Role of Accreditation<br />Compliance Centered<br />Scope of review: compliance of all standards<br />Improvement Centered<br />Scope of review: key areas selected for improvement<br />Accountability Centered<br />Scope of review: key areas identified for all reviews, e.g., retention, graduation rates, student learning outcomes<br />11<br />
  15. 15. Changes within the WASC Region<br />163 now accredited/candidates<br />22 institutions in eligibility<br />Growth in national footprint and for-profit institutions<br />Possible growth in community college baccalaureate degrees<br />International institutions seeking WASC accreditation<br />Growth in online offerings<br />12<br />
  16. 16. Guiding Principles of the Redesign<br />Student Centeredness<br />Accountability and quality assurance<br />Transparency of process and results<br />Efficiency in the process<br />Heightened attention to learning and completion results<br />New modes of oversight of for-profits<br />Respect for institutional diversity and mission<br />Support for innovation<br />13<br />
  17. 17. Major Topics for Handbook Development<br />Retention and Graduation<br />Levels of learning<br />Degree qualifications profile<br />Public Reporting and transparency<br />Changing ecology of learning<br />Institutional review process<br />14<br />
  18. 18. Retention/Graduation<br />A WASC emphasis since 2008<br />Creating a common template with overall and disaggregated data<br />Establishing groups of comparable institutions in order to set target rates/timelines and share good practices<br />15<br />
  19. 19. Degree Qualifications Profile/Levels of Learning<br />Considering how to integrate the DQP into WASC standards and policies<br />Establishing core UG competencies and identifying methods for measuring student learning/external benchmarking<br />Creating learning communities of institutions using the same methods of assessment<br />Establishing level of achievement that is “good enough”<br />16<br />
  20. 20. Public Reporting and Transparency<br />Making explicit the information on student achievements that institutions must publish<br />Making WASC more transparent by publishing Commission action letters<br />Developing a more effective communications strategy so that accreditation is not so opaque<br />Considering a publicly available key-indicator rating system<br />Adding “public” members/students to the review process<br />17<br />
  21. 21. Changing Ecology of Learning<br />Considering several “bundles” of change and how to address them in the Handbook<br />E.g., characteristics of learning, new delivery systems, globalization, new players and kinds of affiliations, outsourcing, open source, competency-based programs<br />Considering a research and development function for WASC<br />Developing a pathway for institutions to innovate/pilot<br />18<br />
  22. 22. Institutional Review Process Redesign<br />Assure that progress to date is sustained<br />Shorten the five-year three-stage process without reducing rigor<br />Use of off-site reviews, existing data, and technology<br />Allow adaptability graduated to the strengths of the institution<br />Do regular off-site monitoring<br />Create teams of evaluator “specialists”<br />19<br />
  23. 23. Task Force on For-Profit Education<br />Develop new expertise and new ways to evaluate:<br />Governance structures<br />Financial data<br />Recruitment and student services practices<br />Faculty models<br />20<br />
  24. 24. 21<br />Recent Changes in the Institutional Review Process and Standards<br />Changes to Institutional Review Process re: Student Success, Program Review and EE Sustainability<br />Changes to CFRs (e.g., 1.2, 2.7, 2.11,4.4)<br />Clarifying the scope of the CPR visit to review the “infrastructure” for assessment of student learning<br />Program Review and Program-Level Student Learning in a systematic way<br />Tool: Table A & B <br />(EVG pg. 74 & 80); SVG pg. 68 & 74) <br />
  25. 25. Addressing Student Success<br />State 3-5 year trends in retention and graduation rates<br />Benchmark against peer institutions<br />Set goals with timelines<br />Establish Plan B scenarios<br />22<br />
  26. 26. Addressing Program Review<br />The systematic approach described below calls for the team to:<br />review a sample of recent program reviews (the number may vary by institution)<br />evaluate them under the CFRs, applying various WASC rubrics as appropriate<br />study one or two program reviews in depth, and<br />meet with the faculty and appropriate administrators from the one or two programs selected for in-depth examination to learn more about <br />how program review works,<br />what was learned, <br />and what actions flowed from the program review.<br />23<br />
  27. 27. Addressing Sustainability<br />What structures, processes, and plans does the institution have in place for continuing the progress that it has made in the current review cycle?<br />For CPR: What are the plans for using institutional capacity to achieve and demonstrate educational effectiveness at the EER? <br />For EER: What are the plans for optimizing EE at the institution until the next interaction with WASC?<br />24<br />
  28. 28. 25<br />Covering the Impact of the Financial Recession on Institutions<br />Questions to ask the institution:<br />How has the financial recession affected your institution?<br />How has your institution responded?<br />What plans are in place to operate within the current financial environment?<br />
  29. 29. Covering Concerns about Recruitment and Marketing<br />Does the institution provide accurate information about:<br />The length of time to degree?<br />The overall cost of the degree?<br />The kinds of job for which the graduate is qualified with this degree?<br />26<br />
  30. 30. Canceling the Proposal<br />The requirement for institutional proposals was cancelled in summer 2010 in anticipation of the redesign of the Institutional Review Process.<br />27<br />
  31. 31. 28<br />Q&A<br />Please feel free to type in your questions using the chat window or just chime in.<br />
  32. 32. 29<br />Overview of the Three-Stage Review Process<br />1.<br />2.<br />3.<br />Capacity & Preparatory<br />Review<br />Educational Effectiveness<br />Review<br />Institutional <br />Proposal<br />
  33. 33. 30<br />Timeline for Three-Stage Review Process<br />
  34. 34. 31<br />Institutional Self-Review<br />The heart of accreditation<br />Built upon an effective internal process of<br />Evaluation<br />Self-reflection<br />Recommendations from previous reviews<br />Plans for action<br />
  35. 35. 32<br />Stage 1:The Institutional Proposal<br />
  36. 36. 33<br />The Institutional Proposal(currently not required for accredited institutions and institutions seeking initial accreditation)<br />Guides the entire accreditation review process<br />Connects institution’s context and priorities with the Standards of Accreditation<br />Provides primary basis for both institution self-review and team evaluation<br />Allows alignment of accreditation activities to institutional strategic plan and key areas chosen for improvement<br />
  37. 37. 34<br />The Letter of Intent<br />Submitted by institutions seeking Candidacy, the LOI serves the same purpose as the proposal<br />Includes suggestions from Eligibility approval letter<br />Submitted to assigned WASC liaison, one year in advance of CPR Review<br />Instructions are in “How to Become Accredited” on WASC website <br />
  38. 38. 35<br />Stage 2: The Capacity and Preparatory Review<br />
  39. 39. 36<br />Purpose of the CPR<br />Review and verify the information in the institutional presentation (report and data)<br />Evaluate key institutional resources, structures, processes in light of Standards<br />Evaluate institution’s infrastructure to support and assess student learning<br />Assess institution’s preparedness to undertake the Educational Effectiveness Review<br />
  40. 40. 37<br />Stage 3: The Educational Effectiveness Review<br />
  41. 41. 38<br />Purpose of the EER<br />Assess the use of capacity toward the effectiveness of both student and organizational learning<br />Invite sustained engagement by the institution on the extent to which it fulfills its educational objectives<br />Enable the Commission to make a judgment about extent to which institution fills its Core Commitment to Educational Effectiveness<br />
  42. 42. 39<br />Q&A<br />Please feel free to type in your questions using the chat window or just chime in.<br />
  43. 43. 40<br />The Two Core Commitments<br />
  44. 44. 41<br />Core Commitment 1<br />“The institution functions with clear purposes, high levels of institutional integrity, fiscal stability, and organizational structures to fulfill its purposes.”<br />
  45. 45. 42<br />Core Commitment 2<br /> “The institution evidences clear and appropriate educational objectives and design at the institutional and program level. The institution employs processes of review, including the collection and use of data, that ensure delivery of program and learner accomplishments at a level of performance appropriate for the degree or certificate awarded.”<br />
  46. 46. 43<br />The Four Standards<br />Tool: Standards of Accreditation (EVG pg. 51, SVG pg. 47)<br /> Standards at a Glance (EVG pg. 68, SVG pg. 63)<br />
  47. 47. 44<br />Standard 1:Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives<br />Institutional Purposes<br />Integrity<br />(Note 1.2 and 1.9)<br />
  48. 48. 45<br />Standard 2:Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core Functions<br />Teaching and Learning<br />Scholarship and Creative Activity<br />Support for Student Learning<br />(Note 2.7, 2.10, and 2.11)<br />
  49. 49. 46<br />Standard 3:Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Ensure Sustainability<br />Faculty and Staff<br />Fiscal, Physical, Information Resources<br />Organizational Structures & Decision Making Processes<br />(Note 3.5 and 3.10)<br />
  50. 50. 47<br />Standard 4:Creating an Organization Committed to Learning and Improvement<br />Strategic Thinking and Planning<br />Commitment to Learning andImprovement<br />(Note 4.5)<br />
  51. 51. 48<br />Expectations for Two Reviews<br />Tool: Expectations for Two Reviews <br />(EVG pg. 45, SVG pg. 42)<br />
  52. 52. 49<br />Q&A<br />Please feel free to type in your questions using the chat window or just chime in.<br />
  53. 53. 50<br />Preparing for the Visit<br />
  54. 54. 51<br />Roles and Responsibilities of Team Members and Staff<br />Role of Team Chair: guides the team (EVG pg. 259, SVG pg. 193)<br />Role of Team Assistant Chair: guides the report and the logistics (EVG pg. 261, SVG pg. 195)<br />Role of assigned WASC staff liaison: guides the process (EVG pg. 9)<br />Team assignments<br />Tool: Section 10 (Tips, Roles and Advice) <br />
  55. 55. 52<br />Timeline For CPR/EER Reviews<br />12 weeks 2 months<br />Institution mails report to team and WASC<br />Team holds conference call<br />Site visit held and team report written<br />Institution responds to errors of fact in team report<br />Institution responds to final team report<br />Commission acts at February or June meeting<br />Tool: CPR or EER Timeline (VG, pg. 75, SVG pg. 73)<br />
  56. 56. 53<br />Pre-visit Preparation<br />Read all the documents from WASC<br />General: Standards, CFRs, policies, visit guide, rubrics<br />Institution Specific: Background documents re: institution and purpose of the visit, including proposal and/or last action letter/team report<br />Read the institutional report<br />Review the data portfolio and exhibits<br />
  57. 57. 54<br />Reviewing the Exhibits<br />Enrollment data<br />Headcounts and FTE<br />Graduation data<br />Faculty data<br />Key financial indicators<br />Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators<br />Inventory of Concurrent Accreditation and Key Performance Indicators<br />Tool: How to Review WASC Data Exhibits (EVG pg. 107, SVG pg. 96)<br />
  58. 58. 55<br />Reading the Report<br />Has the institution done what it said it would do in its proposal?<br />Has it collected and analyzed data effectively?<br />Are its conclusions supported by evidence?<br />Are there serious problems or potential areas of noncompliance?<br />Does the report contain recommendations for further institutional action?<br />
  59. 59. 56<br />Worksheet for Team Pre-Visit Conference Call<br />Organizes team’s responses to institutional materials <br />Helps team make preliminary evaluation under the Standards<br />Provides basis for team to work toward consensus<br />Should be submitted in advance of call<br />Tool: Team Conference Call Worksheet (EVG pg. 94; SVG pg. 88)<br />
  60. 60. 57<br />Team Pre-Visit Conference Call<br />Evaluates quality of institutional report and alignment with Proposal and previous action letter(s) <br />Identifies areas of good practice, improvement, and further inquiry <br />Identifies issues, strategies, evidence needed<br />Identifies persons and entities to be interviewed <br />Makes or refines team assignments<br />Plans visit logistics <br />
  61. 61. 58<br />Off-Campus Sites and Distance Education Programs(special requirement for some visits)<br />Prior to Visit: Sites/online programs will be identified and assignments made<br /><ul><li>Review substantive change action letters to determine if issues have been identified
  62. 62. Develop plan for the review of the programs and/or sites </li></ul>During Visit (site visit may be prior to or during institutional visit)<br /><ul><li>Interview faculty, administrators and students
  63. 63. Evaluate facilities OR online infrastructure
  64. 64. Observe classes (can be done ahead for online)
  65. 65. Document visit and findings in the appendix
  66. 66. Discuss important findings with team for inclusion in report, as appropriate</li></ul>Tools: Distance Ed. Summary (EVG pg. 216, SVG pg. 157)<br /> Off-Campus Site Summary (EVG pg. 205, SVG pg. 148)<br />
  67. 67. 59<br />Compliance Audit(special requirement for some visits)<br />Required for:<br />Institutions seeking Candidacy and Initial Accreditation<br />Some institutions under sanction<br />Additional report submitted by institution in advance of the visit—with links to documents<br />Prepare as appendix to report<br />Tool: Compliance Audit Checklist (EVG pg. 103, SVG pg. 93)<br />
  68. 68. 60<br />Determining Strategy for CPR Visit<br />What evidence is provided to show capacity and readiness for EE?<br />What are the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence?<br />What other evidence do you want to review to evaluate capacity and preparation for EE?<br />Do any issues arise with regard to the Standards?<br />Meetings: format/methodologies<br />
  69. 69. 61<br />Determining Strategy for EER Visit<br />What evidence is provided to show EE?<br />Why was it chosen?<br />What are the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence?<br />What other evidence do you want to see to evaluate effectiveness?<br />Do any issues arise with regard to the Standards?<br />Meetings: format/methodologies<br />
  70. 70. 62<br />Drafting in Advance of the Visit<br />Assistant Chairs follow template to draft outline of team report and Section I<br />Team members draft narrative of section(s) for which they are responsible, using institution’s report and data portfolio, with space for additional evidence, analysis and conclusions <br />Tool: Guidelines for Drafting Preliminary Report Narratives Prior to the Visit (EVG pg. 102, SVG pg. 92)<br />
  71. 71. Assign and Draft Sections on Recent Requirements<br />Student Success (CPR and EER)<br />Program Review (EER)<br />Sustainability (CPR and EER)<br />Financial Impact of Recession (CPR,EER)<br />Accuracy in Marketing (CPR and EER)<br />63<br />
  72. 72. 64<br />Q&A<br />Please feel free to type in your questions using the chat window or just chime in.<br />
  73. 73. 65<br />Conducting the Visit<br />
  74. 74. 66<br />Launching the Visit: Team Executive Session<br />Discuss preliminary findings<br />Identify major issues for exploration<br />Refine lines of inquiry for each meeting<br />Confirm team assignments<br />Discuss use of tools and rubrics during visit<br />Review preliminary outline/draft team report<br />Discuss options for confidential team recommendation<br />Review schedule<br />
  75. 75. 67<br />Visit Schedule<br />Executive sessions and debriefings with team only<br />Meetings and interviews with key individuals and groups<br />Open meetings with students, faculty and staff<br />Document review and reflection <br />Time for drafting report sections<br />Final exit meeting<br />
  76. 76. 68<br />Confidential Email Account<br />Set up by WASC as extension of open meetings<br />Checked by Assistant Chair during visit<br />Important emails shared with team and investigated<br />Comments included in team report only if the institution has a chance to address them<br />Tool: Sample Notification re: Confidential Email Account <br />(EVG pg. 179, SVG pg. 123)<br />
  77. 77. 69<br />Approaches Used on Visits<br />Document review<br />Interviews and meetings<br />Techniques for small and large meetings <br />Mini-surveys (large group)<br />Fishbowl exercises (small group)<br />Audits<br />Plan visit methodologies in advance <br />as part of schedule.<br />
  78. 78. 70<br />Tips for Good Interviews<br />Decide on a protocol for interview<br />Prepare questions and lines of inquiry in advance <br />Ask questions that elicit information, stimulate discussion, or require judgment<br />Avoid interrogation, leading questions, or loaded language<br />Avoid consultation, giving solutions, or talking about your institution<br />Let them do the talking<br />
  79. 79. Tools to Use on Visits<br />The EER Toolkit<br />Rubrics for Assessing Student Learning<br />The Educational Effectiveness Framework<br />71<br />
  80. 80. 72<br />Evaluating Program Review and Student Learning on EER Visits<br />Tool:<br />EE Toolkit (available online) <br />Suggested Approaches for Evaluating Program Review (EVG pg. 184)<br />
  81. 81. 73<br />EER Toolkit<br />
  82. 82. 74<br />
  83. 83. 75<br />
  84. 84. 76<br />
  85. 85. 77<br />Rubrics: Assessment of Student Learning<br />Academic Program Learning Outcomes<br />Use of Portfolios in Assessing Program Outcomes<br />Use of Capstones in Assessing Program Outcomes<br />Integration of Student Learning Assessment into Program Review<br />General Education Assessment Process<br />Tool: Rubrics for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Assessment Practices (EVG pg. 190)<br />
  86. 86. 78<br />Educational Effectiveness Framework<br />Use with team to evaluate institution’s “place” <br />Use language of rubric to describe the institution in the report<br />Ask the institution to evaluate itself and discuss<br />Confer with team toward end of visit to mark a copy of the EEF <br />Submit the marked EEF confidentially to WASC<br />Tool: Educational Effectiveness Framework (EVG pg. 188)<br />
  87. 87. 79<br />The Exit Meeting<br />Team chair communicates commendations and key recommendations that will be included in report<br />Chair may ask team members to participate<br />The meeting is not a dialog, discussion or debate<br />The visit ends after the Exit Meeting. The visit is a “snapshot in time.” No new information is accepted after the Exit Meeting.<br />
  88. 88. 80<br />Q&A<br />Please feel free to type in your questions using the chat window or just chime in.<br />
  89. 89. 81<br />Producing Effective Team Reports<br />
  90. 90. 82<br />Report Preparation Logistics<br />Follow report template<br />Review documents and materials before the visit<br />Start writing from document review before the visit<br />Incorporate observations from visit during the visit <br />Complete your sections on site and give to Assistant Chair before Exit Meeting<br />Tool: Section 7 (Producing Effective Team Reports)<br />
  91. 91. 83<br />Using Evidence in Team Reports<br />Use qualitative and quantitative evidence <br />Select evidence carefully and purposefully<br />Connect evidence to an assertion or question <br />Analyze information; do not just set forth data<br />Let evidence suggest improvements<br />Use evidence that speaks to the institution’s themes and the team's questions<br />
  92. 92. 84<br />Team Use of the Standards and CFRs<br />Team judgments must be linked to specific Standards and CFRs<br />CFRs must be cited in reports <br />Standards and CFRs form the basis for Commission decisions<br />Standards and CFRs provide a context for continuous quality improvement<br />
  93. 93. 85<br />What is an effective team report?<br />Reflects a thorough assessment of the institution’s capacity, preparation, and/or effectiveness<br />Is evidence based<br />Cites the Standards and CFRs<br />Provides the basis for a sound and supportable Commission decision<br />Identifies important areas for institution to address <br />
  94. 94. 86<br />Tips for Writing Team Reports<br />Consider multiple audiences: institution, Commission, and next team<br />Know your areas of responsibility, including length and depth of your section<br />Start writing before you arrive on campus<br />Address priorities and goals set by the institution<br />Address Commission’s concerns (last action letter)<br />Make commendations, but don’t overdo it<br />Use praise that doesn’t send wrong or mixed signal<br />
  95. 95. 87<br />More Tips on Team Reports….<br />Be sure to check facts <br />Support findings and recommendations with evidence --and tie them to CFRs<br />Ensure evidence is sound and valid<br />Distinguish recommendations from suggestions or observations<br />Use formal language and tone (e.g., not “we/they”)<br />Don’t mention personnel by name<br />Don’t prescribe solutions <br />
  96. 96. 88<br />Developing Team Recommendations<br />
  97. 97. 89<br />Two Kinds of Recommendations<br />Team recommendations at the end of team report, delivered at the exit meeting<br />Summarize observations of team<br />Indicate important areas for institution to address<br />Confidential Team Recommendation to the Commission for action<br />Recommend follow-up action to the Commission regarding future reports, visits, and accreditation status of institution<br />
  98. 98. 90<br />Team Report Recommendations<br />Should be:<br />Overarching and important<br />Supported by evidence <br />Linked clearly to Standards and CFRs<br />Supported by text in the report<br /><ul><li>Distinguish recommendations from suggestions and observations embedded in the report</li></ul>Tool: Educational Effectiveness Framework<br />(EVG pg. 188) <br />
  99. 99. Confidential Team Recommendation to Commission<br />Should be based upon evidence from observations and document review by the team<br />Must follow Commission guidelines and decision indicators<br />Commission Decisions on Institutions <br /> (EVG pg. 245, SVG pg. 173)<br /> Commission and Team Decision Indicators<br />(EVG pg. 255, SVG pg. 187)<br />91<br />
  100. 100. 92<br />Q&A<br />Please feel free to type in your questions using the chat window or just chime in.<br />
  101. 101. 93<br />After the Visit<br />
  102. 102. 94<br />What happens next?<br />Assistant Chair prepares draft for Chair, team, and staff liaison review; changes as needed<br />Chair sends to institution for corrections of fact<br />Chair finalizes draft and submits to WASC<br />Chair sends Confidential Team Recommendation and completed EEF to WASC<br />WASC sends report to institution<br />
  103. 103. 95<br />Then…<br />Staff prepares draft action letter, which is reviewed by team Chair<br />Commission Panel reads report and documentation including institution’s written response, meets with institutional representatives at Commission meeting<br />Panel makes recommendation to Commission, and Commission acts<br />Staff finalizes draft action letter on behalf of Commission<br />
  104. 104. 96<br />Also after the visit….<br />Team members send reimbursement forms to WASC within 30 days<br />Hotel arranged and paid directly by institution<br />Travel / food reimbursed <br />Rental car must be approved in advance by WASC staff<br />Spouse or assistant costs not covered<br />See policy for more details<br />Team members should not have any contact with the institution <br />About the visit OR<br />Consult with the institution for one year<br />All information related to visit is confidential and should not be shared with anyone other than team members<br />
  105. 105. 97<br />The Team’s Impact <br />Peer review is the foundation of accreditation. <br />The team report forms the basis for the Commission action and its letter.<br />The team report and action letter inform the work of the institution for years to come.<br />You were chosen for a specific team because of your expertise and your experiences in Higher Education and for your willingness to serve this institution and Higher Education<br />
  106. 106. 98<br />Resources for Teams<br /><ul><li>Appendices of Visit Guide
  107. 107. Team Materials emailed by WASC and located in Box.Net
  108. 108. Institutional Report mailed 10-12 weeks in advance of visit
  109. 109. WASC Website:
  110. 110. WASC Email Advisory (sent prior to visit)
  111. 111. WASC Staff</li></li></ul><li>99<br />Q&A<br />Please feel free to type in your questions using the chat window or just chime in.<br />
  112. 112. 100<br />Thank you<br />for your service to the region<br />
  113. 113. 101<br />Announcements<br />The materials presented during this webinar and a recording of this session will be posted at: <br /><br />