W 2 WASC 101

1

SUSTAINABILITY: A VISIONFOR HIGHER EDUCATION

2010 WASC CONFERENCE

WASC 101:The Accrediting Process

Clear & Simple

Richard Winn, Associate DirectorStephanie Bangert, Samuel Merritt UniversityNandini Dasgupta, Samuel Merritt UniversityBill Neal, Brigham Young University, Hawaii

SPONSORED BY ACSCU IN COLLABORATION WITH ACCJC

2



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

3



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

4



Mom!I taught Spike

how to whistle!

A learning-centered process . . .

5



But I don’t hear him

whistling . . .

6



I said I taught him; I didn’t

say he learned!

7



8



2. Measureachievement

of thosegoals.

1. Set measurable performance

goals

4. Use dataand

reflection tomake

improvements.

3. Reflect onmeaning of the

performancedata.

The WASC process embeds this classic cycle into the institution’s culture:

9



ProposalCapacity

andPreparatory

Review

EducationalEffectivenes

sReview

2 yrs tosite visit

1½ yrs tosite visit

Stage 3Stage 1 Stage 2

The WASC Institutional Review Process:A Learning-Centered Review ModelInstitutional Learning Through Formative

Feedback

Feedback from:•Proposal ReviewCommittee•WASC Staff

Feedback from:• Team visit, report • Commission Action• Follow Up

Feedback from:• Team visit, report• Commission Action• Follow Up

10



Proposal → Capacity & Preparatory Review →

Educational Effectiveness Review

• 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?

• What is our capacity (in resources and structures) to support learning?• Are we prepared to support an evidence-based EER report?

• 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?

11



The Standards and CFRs apply to both reviews, but the focus differs…

Capacity and Preparatory Review: Focuses on resources, systems, and infrastructureto support educationand needed improvements

Focuses on readiness to conduct a rigorous, data-supported Educational Effectiveness Review

Educational Effectiveness Review: •Moves beyond a descriptivesummary of assessmentactivities to an inquiry abouteducational effectiveness•Documents results of theinquiry •Demonstrates commitment to improve student and institutional learning

12



Two Lenses on Two ReviewsApplying the WASC Standards across Both Reviews

Capacity and Preparatory Review


Primary Focus of Each Review:

Capacity (purposes, integrity, stability, resources, structures, processes, policies); Preparatory (issues to forward for EE Review)

Student Learning (measures of educational achievement); Institutional Learning (performance data to inform reviews; results of review processes)

Standard 1:Defining Institutional Purpose and Ensuring Educational Objectives

Clear sense of institutional purpose Integrity and good business policies and practices Institutional and program objectives Public accountability and transparency Diversity plans and policies

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

Standard 2:Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core Functions

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

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

The Focus for the Two Reviews:

13



Capacity and Preparatory Review


Standard 3:Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Assure Sustainability

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

Appropriate alignment, commitment, and use of resources to support learning Evidence-based decision makingEffective governance and decision making (Any “trailing issues” from the CPR report)

Standard 4:Creating an Organization Committed to Learning and Improvement

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

Engagement of leadership at all levels in learning processes Quality improvement system resultsEvidence of a learning organization

The Focus for the Two Reviews (Part 2):

14



Elements for Standard/CFR ______Capacity & Preparatory

ReviewEducational Effectiveness

Review

Researchable Questions: What do we want to know? Why do we want to know it?

Research Methods: How will we go about obtaining the needed information?

Personnel: Who will be involved in the research? How will tasks be divided? How will personnel be organized?

Deliverables: What will be the outcome of the research? What form will the product take? Deadline for delivery?

Organizing the Inquiry

15



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!

16



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

17



1. Analysis of institutional effectiveness with regard to student success. Build on the CPR’s analysis to understand:

Educational achievementYear-to-year attritionCampus climateSuccess for all categories of students

2. Analysis of program review process with an emphasis on:Programs’ achievement of student learning outcomesImpact 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):