The document outlines goals and pressures around redesigning the WASC accreditation process to better suit the 21st century. The key goals are to shorten reviews, increase transparency and public accountability, explore alternative models of education, and increase oversight of for-profit institutions. It discusses both external pressures like concerns over student outcomes and value of degrees, as well as internal dissatisfaction with the lengthy and costly nature of the process. It considers alternative accreditation approaches and core principles around compliance, improvement and public accountability. Regional data on institutions, student enrollment, and common issues identified in reviews are also presented.

1. Situating WASC Accreditation
in the 21st Century
Regional Forums
October 2011

3. Goals of the Redesign Process
Approved by the Commission November 2010
1. Shorten and/or focus the institutional review process
and create multiple, adaptive approaches to review.
2. Develop a clear public accountability and quality
assurance role that moves beyond minimum
standards.
3. Increase transparency.
4. Explore core competencies, graduation proficiencies,
and the possible applications of the Lumina Degree
Qualifications Profile (DQP) within the accreditation
process.
5. Identify levels of accreditation, moving beyond merely
being “accredited” or not.

4. Goals (continued)
6. Bridge senior-level institutions with community
colleges more effectively.
7. Clarify what can be taken off the table in the review
process for institutions with long histories of
compliance.
8. Explore alternative models and new approaches to
education and credentialing and the role of WASC in
that effort.
9. Increase oversight of for-profit
institutions, especially those that are publicly traded.
10.Develop a public advocacy role to communicate
about issues of quality and effectiveness in higher
education.

5. Goals of the Redesign Process

6. 6

7. Pressures on Accreditation
External Accreditation Internal
Concerns Dissatisfaction

8. External Concerns
• Accreditation does not:
– Address low completion
– Hold institutions to high standards of learning
– Provide meaningful public accountability
– Provide transparency about its actions
– Catch and deal with abuses of for profits
– Provide adequate consumer protection

9. Is College Worth it?
• Arum & Roksa, Academically Adrift: 45%
showed no learning gains at end of
sophomore year, 36% at end of senior year
• Peter Thiel’s challenge to fund entrepreneurs
not to complete college
• Roper Survey: nearly half of college graduates
don’t think they got their money’s worth
• AAC&U employer surveys: unprepared
graduates for workforce

10. Internal Dissatisfaction
• Common concerns identified by WASC
surveys:
– Process takes too long
– Too costly for value added
– Too rigid and process oriented
– Barrier to innovation
– Too variable and inconsistent in teams and
decisions

11. Alternatives Being Considered
• Limited set of finance and completion
indicators with an open market
• Federally operated eligibility process
• Segmental accreditation
• Separate accreditation for for-profit
institutions
• Congressionally or Departmentally set
standards (bright lines)

12. Core Principles of Accreditation
Gate-keeping/ Improvement Public Accountability
Compliance Centered and Assurance
Centered
Scope of All standards Key areas selected Specific areas identified
Review applied to assure and approved by for all reviews to address
compliance accreditor for common policy issues i.e.
improvement retention/ graduation,
student learning
outcomes
Level of Standards met at Simplify External benchmarking
Judgment least minimum compliance review; with comparative
level primary emphasis indicators of institutional
on improvement type
Public Public Reports internally Meaningful and clear
Reporting announcement of circulated for public reporting about
accreditation improvement; institutional
accrediting action performance;
publicly reported Commission actions
reported

13. Repurposing Accreditation
Revised IRP
Robust and visible
adaptive to each
agent of public
institution’s
accountability and
context; right-sized
quality assurance
cost and work load
Open and responsive to
innovation; a 21st century
model of accreditation

14. Where is the Region?
Institutional Data 2009-2010
Total Member Institutions: Accredited and Candidate Institutions 163
Total Eligible Institutions 22
Total Students (FTE) Educated by Our Member Institutions 967,189
Percent of WASC Members that are Public Institutions 22%
Percent of Students (FTE) Educated by Public Institutions
72%
Institutions with > 10,000 FTE:
Percent of WASC Membership 17%
Percent of Enrollment 74%
Institutions with 1,000 -10,000 FTE:
Percent of WASC Membership 40%
Percent of Enrollment 24%
Institutions with < 1000 FTE:
Percent of WASC Membership 43%
Percent of Enrollment 2%

15. Terms Granted at Reaffirmation
June 2008 through June 2011 (84 institutions)

16. Interim Reports and Special Visits requested
June 2008 through June 2011 (84 institutions)
EERs Rescheduled Following CPR Total CPRs during this period = 34
February 2010 through June 2011 Total rescheduled = 14 (41%)

17. Interim Report Indicators
(Based on action from February 2004 - June 2011)
Educational Effectiveness 82
Financials 48
Strategic Planning 35
Governance / Leadership 24
Enrollment 21
Diversity 19
Areas of Concern
Retention / Student Success 18
Faculty / Staff 16
General Education 9
Information technology 5
Graduate Education 5
Institutional research 4
New Location 2
Integrity 2
Moving to University Structure 1
Library 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Frequency

18. Special Visit Indicators
(Based on actions from February 2004 - June 2011)
Educational Effectiveness 49
Financials 47
Governance / Leadership 44
Strategic Planning 42
Enrollment 20
Faculty / Staff 14
Integrity 12
Areas of Concern
Diversity 11
Graduate Education 8
Academic / Student Support 6
Evidence 4
Organizational Structures 3
Library 3
Comunication 3
Institutional Research 2
General Education 2
Faith-based Education 2
Reporting 1
Initial Accreditation 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Frequency

19. Review of
published
graduation rates
Commission
Research
Team ratings of
institutions on
the Framework
for Evaluating
Educational
Effectiveness

20. Finance Review
• Triennially
• 3 panels: publicly funded, privately funded
and for-profit
• Results folded into the review process

21. Emphasis on Improving Retention and
Graduation
• Narrative and numbers
• Focus on Associate’s and Bachelor’s degrees in
2013 and 2014
• Focus on Graduate programs in 2014 and
2015

22. CFR 2.2a
Baccalaureate “programs ensure the
development of core learning abilities
and competencies including, but not
limited to, college-level written and
oral communication; college-level
quantitative skills; information literacy;
and the habit of critical thinking.”

23. Institutional Requirements
• In the comprehensive review
process, the institution will be required
to demonstrate the 5 proficiencies in
CFR 2.2(a) at graduation
• Externally validate at least 2
• Additionally demonstrate institutionally
selected proficiencies

24. Emphasis on the Meaning of the Degree
CFR 2.2: “All degrees-undergraduate and graduate-
awarded by the institutions are clearly defined in
terms of entry-level requirements and in terms of
levels of student achievement necessary for
graduation that represents more than simply an
accumulation of courses or credits.”
“The Commission sees value in exploring the DQP
as a potential tool to define degree outcomes and
seeks to engage a broad array of institutions in
exploring its usefulness through a series of piloting
activities.”

25. Revised Institutional Review Process (IRP)

26. Elements of the IRP:
The Institutional Narrative
Response to previous Commission Action
Response (as needed) to the Finance Review
Response (as needed) to the Retention and Graduation Review
Narrative should discuss:
• The meaning and rigor of degrees offered
• How the institution assures the achievement of the 5
undergraduate degree outcomes specified in CFR 2.2 and
other areas identified by the institution
• How the institution defines and assures student success with
the distinctive elements of the institution’s mission and goals
• How the institution assures the sustainability of its operations
and responds to the changing ecology

27. Proposed Timeline for Institutions with the next CPR visit in fall 2013
Institutions that are scheduled to complete a re-accreditation CPR visit in fall 2013 will
be the first set of institutions to apply the Standards under the new two-stage model.
YEAR Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015
Offsite X
Review
Onsite X
Review
Commission X
Action
Annual X X X X
Reports
Offsite Review X X
Retention and (for (for graduate
Graduation1 undergraduate students)
students)
Offsite Finance x
Review1
1 TheRetention and Graduation and Finance Reviews will be before the Offsite
Review so the feedback can be incorporated into the review process

28. Proposed Timeline for institutions with their next CPR visit in spring 2013
Institutions that are scheduled to complete a re-accreditation CPR visit in spring 2013
will have the option to either stay under the old accreditation model or to pilot the
new two-stage model.
YEAR Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015
Offsite X
Review
Onsite X
Review
Commission X
Action
Annual x X X X
Reports
Offsite Review X X
of Retention (for (for graduate
undergraduate students)
and Graduation1
students)
Offsite Finance X
Review1
1 TheRetention and Graduation and Finance Reviews will be before the Offsite
Review so the feedback can be incorporated into the review process

29. Moving Forward

30. Cohorts on Graduation Proficiencies
WASC will help organize voluntary cohorts
around the graduation proficiencies:
• Written and oral communication
• Quantitative skills
• Critical thinking
• Information literacy
These cohorts can discuss best practices and
can help with benchmarking.

31. Resource Fairs
Explore assessment tools to measure graduation
proficiencies in CFR 2.2
• January 19th (Northern California)
• January 20th (Southern California)
Examples of vendors:

32. Working with the DQP
WASC is convening
learning communities to
pilot the DQP.
Institutions can pilot the
DQP internally within
the institution, cross-
institutionally or use it
as a framework within
the accrediting process.
Teams will also pilot its
use as a framework
during the review.

33. DQP Pilot - Interested Institutions
University of Hawai’i System – Small Faith-based Institutions
Multiple Foci • The Master’s College
• Cross-system • Point Loma Nazarene
• Cross-institutional with University
other Hawai’i and South • Marymount College
Pacific schools • Holy Names University
• Individual campus based
UC Santa Cruz Brandman University
University of San Diego CSU Fresno
University of LaVerne Occidental College
Ashford University California Lutheran University
Hawai’i Pacific University Academy of Art University
National University CSU East bay
Vanguard University

34. Providing Feedback
• Public Comment on the Web at
http://wascsenior.uservoice.com
• Direct, written comments to
jworchel@wascsenior.org
• Oral presentation at the Commission Public
Hearing on November 3 from 10 am – 12 pm.
Register at
http://wascpublichearing2011.eventbrite.com/

35. Thank you
Download the QR Scanner, take a picture of the barcode, and get connected
to the comments webpage.
35