1 / 91

WASC Evaluator Workshop Spring Visits 2010

WASC Evaluator Workshop Spring Visits 2010. Workshop Outcomes. Know how to prepare for and conduct an effective visit and produce a useful, high-quality team report Be prepared to make sound judgments about institutions under the Standards

hayes-bauer
Download Presentation

WASC Evaluator Workshop Spring Visits 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WASC Evaluator WorkshopSpring Visits 2010

  2. Workshop Outcomes Know how to prepare for and conduct an effective visit and produce a useful, high-quality team report Be prepared to make sound judgments about institutions under the Standards Be familiar with resources that support your work on a team

  3. Agenda • Context for the Visit/Accreditation • Preparing for the Visit • Conducting the Visit • Developing Team Recommendations • Writing the Team Report

  4. Context for Accreditation and Visits • The Continuing Evolution of the WASC Process and Standards • The Accountability Movement • Retaining Peer Review • The Impact of the Economy • Value Added, Collaboration, and Ongoing Efforts to Refine and Improve

  5. Recent Changes in the Institutional Review Process and Standards • Implement 2009 changes to Institutional Review Process re: Student Success, Program Review and EE Sustainability • Implement 2009 changes to CFRs • Clarify the scope of the CPR visit to review the “infrastructure” for assessment of student learning • Examine Program Review and Program-Level Student Learning in a systematic way • Allow teams more time together on visits Tools: Table A (RB pg. 41); Table B (RB pg. 47)

  6. THE THREE-STAGE REVIEW PROCESS

  7. THE THREE-STAGE REVIEW PROCESS • Institutional Proposal • Capacity and Preparatory Review • Educational Effectiveness Review • This applies to all institutions, regardless of where they are in the accreditation cycle. • This is intended to be for a maximum of 10 years.

  8. TIMELINE FOR THREE-STAGE REVIEW PROCESS

  9. INSTITUTIONAL SELF-REVIEW • The heart of accreditation • Built upon an effective internal process of • Evaluation • Reflection • Recommendations • Plans for Action

  10. OUTCOMES OF THE ACCREDITATION PROCESS FOR THE INSTITUTION-1 • Validation of institution’s presentation of evidence of compliance and improvement • Effective use of indicators of institutional performance and educational effectiveness • Greater clarity about institution’s educational objectives • Improvement of institution’s capacity for self-review and quality assurance

  11. OUTCOMES OF THE ACCREDITATION PROCESS FOR THE INSTITUTION-2 • Deeper understanding of student learning • Use of assessment results to improve program and institutional practices • Systematic engagement of the faculty on issues of assessing and improving teaching and learning processes

  12. THE INSTITUTIONAL PROPOSAL

  13. THE ROLE OF THE INSTITUTIONAL PROPOSAL • Guides the entire accreditation review process • Connects institution’s context and priorities with the Standards of Accreditation • Provides primary basis for both institution self-review and team evaluation • Allows alignment of accreditation activities to institutional strategic plan and key areas chosen for improvement

  14. THE INSTITUTIONAL PROPOSAL-1 • Section 1 • Sets the institutional context • Relates the proposal to the Standards • Describes how the proposal was developed • Describes extent to which the process generated broad institutional support

  15. THE INSTITUTIONAL PROPOSAL-2 • Section 2 • Frames the review process to align the two reviews • Describes a coherent vision and specific outcomes for the entire review cycle as a single connected process • Specifies what institution intends to accomplish and how the CPR and EER are aligned to achieve those outcomes, framed as results not as activities to be undertaken

  16. THE INSTITUTIONAL PROPOSAL-3 • Section 3 • Demonstrates a feasible work plan and engagement of key constituencies • Includes: • A work plan and milestones • The effectiveness of data gathering and analysis systems • A commitment of resources to support the review

  17. THE STRUCTURE OF THE INSTITUTIONAL PROPOSAL-4 • Section 4 • A set of Appendices that include: • Data exhibits • Information about off-campus and distance education degree programs • Institutional stipulations signed by the Chief Executive Officer

  18. THE INSTITUTIONAL LETTER OF INTENT • Submitted by institutions seeking Candidacy or Initial Accreditation, the LOI serves the same purpose as the proposal • Includes suggestions from Eligibility Approval Letter • Submitted to Assigned WASC Liaison, one year in advance of Capacity Review • Instructions are in “How to Become Accredited” on WASC website

  19. THE CAPACITY AND PREPARATORY REVIEW

  20. PURPOSE OF CAPACITY AND PREPARATORY REVIEW • Review and verify the information in the institutional presentation (report and data) • Evaluate key institutional resources, structures, processes in light of Standards • Evaluate institution’s infrastructure to support student and program learning • Assess institution’s preparedness to undertake Educational Effectiveness Review

  21. THE EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW

  22. PURPOSE OF EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW • Invite sustained engagement by the institution on the extent to which it fulfills its educational objectives • Enable the Commission to make a judgment about extent to which institution fills its Core Commitment to Educational Effectiveness

  23. THE TWO CORE COMMITMENTS

  24. CORE COMMITMENT #1 “The institution functions with clear purposes, high levels of institutional integrity, fiscal stability, and organizational structures to fulfill its purposes.”

  25. CORE COMMITMENT #2 “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.”

  26. THE FOUR STANDARDS

  27. STANDARD 1:Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives • Institutional Purposes • Integrity

  28. STANDARD 2:Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core Functions • Teaching and Learning • Scholarship and Creativity • Support for Student Learning

  29. STANDARD 3:Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Ensure Sustainability • Faculty and Staff • Fiscal, Physical, & Information Resources • Organizational Structures & Decision Making Processes

  30. STANDARD 4:Creating an Organization Committed to Learning and Improvement • Strategic Thinking and Planning • Commitment to Learning andImprovement

  31. POLICIES MANUAL AT WWW.WASCSENIOR.ORG

  32. INTERIM REPORTS AND SPECIAL VISITS

  33. INTERIM REPORTS AND SPECIAL VISITS • May or may not be connected to a sanction • Intended to monitor institutional issues identified by Commission or to assess how institution will move into compliance • Both focus on only a few specified areas of concern • Interim Reports are reviewed by a panel of peer reviewers (IRC) • Special Visit length and number of team members are determined by number, depth, and complexity of issues

  34. Expectations for Two Reviews Tool: Expectations for Two Reviews (RB pg. 20)

  35. The CPR and EER as a Whole The CPR evaluates what an institution has for infrastructure (staff/faculty, resources, processes, facilities, systems, structures). The EER evaluates how well that infrastructure works and the results that the institution achieves.

  36. Navigating Multiple Purposes-1

  37. Navigating Multiple Purposes-2

  38. Covering the Impact of the Financial Recession on Institutions Questions to ask the institution: • How has the financial recession affected your institution? • How has your institution responded? • What plans are in place in case the current state of affairs becomes permanent?

  39. Preparing for the Visit(Visit Guide, Part II, pp. 29-52)

  40. Timeline For CPR/EER Reviews 12 weeks 2 months Institution mails report to team and WASC Team holds conference call Site visit held and team report written Institution responds to errors of fact in team report Institution responds to final team report Commission acts at February or June meeting Tool: CPR or EER Timeline (VG, pg. 29)

  41. Roles and Responsibilities of Team Members and Staff • Role of Team Chair (RB pg. 193) • Role of Team Assistant Chair (RB pg. 195) • Role of assigned WASC staff liaison (VG pg. 7) • Team assignments

  42. Pre-visit Preparation • Read all the documents from WASC • Standards, CFRs, policies, visit guide, rubrics • Background documents re: institution and purpose of the visit, including Proposal and/or last action letter/team report • Read the institutional report • Review the data portfolio and exhibits • What to look for and highlight? Tools: Timeline(VG pg. 8, VG pg. 29)

  43. Reviewing the Exhibits • Enrollment data • Headcounts and FTE • Graduation data • Faculty data • Key financial indicators • Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators • Inventory of Concurrent Accreditation and Key Performance Indicators Tool: How to Review WASC Data Exhibits(RB pg. 61)

  44. Reading the Report • Has the institution done what it said it would do in its Proposal? • Has it collected and analyzed data effectively? • Are its conclusions supported by evidence? • Are there serious problems or potential areas of noncompliance? • Does the report contain recommendations for further institutional action?

  45. Worksheet for Team Conference Call • Organizes team’s responses to institutional materials • Helps team make preliminary evaluation under the Standards • Provides basis for team to work toward consensus • Should be submitted in advance of call Tool: Team Worksheet(VG pg. 42)

  46. Team Conference Call • Evaluates quality of institutional report and alignment with Proposal and previous action letter(s) • Identifies areas of good practice, improvement, and further inquiry • Identifies issues, strategies, evidence needed • Identifies persons and entities to be interviewed • Makes or refines team assignments • Plans visit logistics

  47. Off-Campus Sites and Distance Education Programs(special requirement for some visits) Prior to Visit: Sites will be identified and assignments made • Review substantive change action letters to determine if issues have been identified • Develop plan for the review of the programs and/or sites During Visit • Interview faculty, administrators and students • Evaluate facilities OR online infrastructure • Observe classes • Document visit and findings in appendix • Discuss important findings with team for inclusion in report, as appropriate Tools:Protocols(RB pg. 157, RB pg. 162) Forms(RB pg. 55, RB pg. 58)

  48. Compliance Audit (special requirement for some visits) • Required for: • Institutions seeking Candidacy and Initial Accreditation • Some institutions under sanction • Additional report submitted by institution in advance of the visit—with links to documents Tool: Compliance Audit Checklist(RB, pg. 51)

  49. Determining Strategy for CPR Visit • What evidence is provided to show capacity and readiness for EE? • Why was it chosen? • What are the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence? • What other evidence do you want to review to evaluate capacity and preparation for EE? • Do any issues arise with regard to the Standards? • Meetings: format/methodologies

  50. Determining Strategy for EER Visit • What evidence is provided to show EE? • Why was it chosen? • What are the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence? • What other evidence do you want to see to evaluate effectiveness? • Do any issues arise with regard to the Standards? • Meetings: format/methodologies

More Related