WSCUC
Evaluator Webinar
Reaffirmation of Accreditation
Thursday January 15, 2015
Please join the audio portion of this training:
866-740-1260, Access Code: 7489001
ReadyTalk Help Desk: 800.843.9166
1
Announcements
• Feel free to ask questions during the
webinar either verbally or by typing your
question in the designated area
• Please mute your microphone if you are not
speaking
2
Your Hosts for Today
Barbara Gross Davis
bdavis@wascsenior.org
510-748-9798
Richard Osborn
rosborn@wascsenior.org
995-3170
Maureen Maloney
mmaloney@wascsenior.org
510-748-9795
Richard Winn
rwinn@wascsenior.org
748-9792
Christopher Oberg
coberg@wascsenior.org
510-995-3175
3
Spring 2015 Institutions
Graduate Theological Union
Hawaii Pacific University
Pacific Oaks College
Southern California Institute of Architecture
University of California at Santa Cruz
4
Introductions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Name
Title
Home institution
Reaccreditation institution
Role (chair, assistant chair or team member)
Number of previous WASC teams
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
0
1-3
4-6
7-10
Don’t remember, but a lot!
5
Your Liaison
Dick Osborn (rosborn@wascsenior.org)
Hawaii Pacific University
Pacific Oaks College
Christopher Oberg (coberg@wascsenior.org)
Southern California Institute of Architecture
Barbara Gross Davis (bdavis@wascsenior.org)
Graduate Theological Union
University of California at Santa Cruz
6
Evaluator Guide
• What’s in it?
• How is it used?
• Where is it located?
https://wascsenior.org/resources-for-teams
7
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Outcomes for the day
2013 WASC Standards and Criteria for Review
Overview of the Institutional Review Process
(IRP)
Preparing for and conducting the Offsite Review
(OSR)
Preparing for and conducting the Accreditation
Visit (AV)
Team commendations and recommendations
Team report
Completing the process
Tools and resources
8
Outcomes
At the end of the session, participants
will be able to:
•
•
•
•
Make sound judgments about institutions under
the Standards and in the context of the
required essays
Prepare for and conduct an effective OSR and
AV
List characteristics of a useful high-quality team
report
Locate tools and resources for the IRP
9
2013 Core Commitments and
Standards of Accreditation
Three Core Commitments
Four Standards
•
•
Criteria for Review (CFR)
Guidelines
10
2013 Core
Commitments
• Student Learning and Success
• Quality and Improvement
• Institutional Integrity,
Sustainability, and Accountability
11
Core Commitment:
Student Learning and
Success
“Institutions have clear educational goals
and student learning outcomes….Institutions
support the success of all students and seek
to understand and improve student
success.”
12
Core Commitment:
Institutional Integrity,
Sustainability, and
Accountability
“…Institutions engage in sound
business practices, demonstrate
institutional integrity, operate in a
transparent manner, and adapt to
changing conditions.”
13
Core Commitment:
Quality and Improvement
“Institutions are committed to high standards
of quality in all of their educational
activities…. Institutions demonstrate the
capacity to fulfill their current commitments
and future needs and opportunities.”
14
2013 Standards of
Accreditation
•
•
•
•
Standard 1
Standard 2
Standard 3
Standard 4
15
Standard 1:
Defining Institutional Purposes and
Ensuring Educational Objectives
•
•
Institutional Purpose
Integrity and Transparency
Standard 2:
Achieving Educational Objectives
Through Core Functions
• Teaching and Learning
• Scholarship and Creative Activity
• Student Learning and Success
16
Standard 3:
Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational
Structures to Ensure Quality and Sustainability
• Faculty and Staff
• Fiscal, Physical, and Information Resources
• Organizational Structures and Decision-making Processes
Standard 4:
Creating an Organization Committed to Quality
Assurance, Institutional Learning, and Improvement
• Quality Assurance Processes
• Institutional Learning and Improvement
17
Criteria for Review (CFR)
• Provide statements about the meaning of
the Standard
• Are cited by institutions in their report, by
teams in evaluating institutions, and by the
Commission in making decisions
18
Guidelines
• Offer examples of how an institution can address
a particular CFR
• Are not requirements or mandatory
19
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Outcomes for the day
2013 WSCUC Standards and Criteria for Review
Overview of the Institutional Review Process
(IRP)
Preparing for and conducting the Offsite Review
(OSR)
Preparing for and conducting the Accreditation
Visit (AV)
Team commendations and recommendations
Team report
Completing the process
Tools and resources
20
Key Elements of
Comprehensive Review
•
Institutional self-study and report
•
•
•
•
Institutional review process
•
•
•
•
Nine components
“Review under the Standards and Compliance with Federal
Standards”
“Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators”
Offsite Review
Accreditation Visit
Team report (posted on WSCUC website)
Commission action (posted on WSCUC website)
21
Institutional Report:
Nine Components
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Introduction: Institutional context
Compliance
Meaning, Quality, Integrity of Degree
Educational Quality
Student Success
Quality Assurance
Sustainability
Institution-Specific Themes (optional)
Conclusion
22
Institutional Report
Component 1: Introduction:
Context, Response to Previous
Commission Actions
• Addresses history, mission, core
constituencies, recent changes
• Gives reviewers a picture of the
institution’s distinctive character
• Responds to issues identified in previous
Commission action letters
23
Institutional Report
Component 2: Compliance
with Standards and Policies
• One document: “Review under WSCUC Standards and
Compliance with Federal Requirements” replaces two: “Self
Review Under the Standards” and “Compliance Checklist”
• Compliance includes four required Department of Education
forms that must be completed by team members
• Credit hour and program length review
• Marketing and recruitment review
• Student complaints review
• Transfer credit review
• “Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators”
24
Compliance: Review under WSCUC
Standards and Compliance
with Federal Requirements
• Institution reviews itself under the Standards and
under four federal requirements
• Review worksheet is submitted by the institution
as part of its report, with links to documents
• Team verifies the information
• Four required checklists are attached as an
appendix to the team report
25
Compliance: Credit Hours
Questions for the institution:
• Does the institution have a policy for assigning credit
hours?
• How does the policy address non-standard courses
(e.g., labs, studios, internships, individual directed
studies)?
The team:
•
•
•
Reviews a sample of syllabi for non-standard courses
Examines one term’s course schedule
Completes Credit Hour and Program Length Review
checklist as an appendix to team report
26
Compliance:
Marketing and Recruitment
Questions for the institution:
•
•
•
Does the institution follow federal regulations on recruiting
students?
Does the institution provide accurate information about time to
degree and overall cost of the degree?
As applicable, does the institution provide accurate information
about careers and employment?
The team:
•
•
•
Verifies that the institution provides accurate and truthful
information in marketing and recruiting materials and in contacts
with potential students
Confirms that the institution follows federal regulations
Completes Marketing and Recruitment Review checklist as an
appendix to team report
27
Compliance:
Student Complaints
Questions for the institution:
• Does the institution have a policy for handling student
complaints?
• Does the institution maintain records of student complaints?
• Does the institution follow its required policies in handling
complaints?
The team:
• Verifies that the student complaint policy is readily accessible
and adhered to
• Completes Student Complaints Review checklist as an
appendix to team report
28
Compliance:
Transfer Credit
Questions for the institution:
• Does the institution have a policy or procedure for reviewing and
receiving transfer credits?
• Is the policy publicly available?
• Has the institution established criteria for transfer of credits?
The team:
• Verifies that the transfer credit policy is readily accessible,
includes criteria, and is adhered to
• Completes Transfer Credit Review checklist as an appendix to
team report
29
Compliance:
Inventory of Educational
Effectiveness Indicators
• Provides an overview of the institution’s assessment
processes
• Requests brief narrative information for each degree
program
• Ensures that every degree program has in place a
quality assurance system for assessing, tracking, and
improving the learning of its students
30
Institutional Report
Component 3: Degree Programs:
Meaning, Quality, and Integrity of
Degrees
Meaning
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What does a degree from the institution mean?
What does it say students are capable of doing?
What are the distinctive experiences and learning
outcomes of an education at the institution?
What does the degree all add up to?
Is it more than the sum of its parts?
What are the parts?
What’s the overarching goal?
31
Institutional Report
Component 3: Degree Programs:
Meaning, Quality, and Integrity of
Degrees (continued)
Quality
•
How rich are the experiences that the institution
offers?
•
How challenging? How rigorous?
•
What quality assurance processes exist at the
institution to guide improvement?
32
Institutional Report
Component 3: Degree Programs:
Meaning, Quality, and Integrity of
Degrees (continued)
Integrity
•
•
•
•
•
To what extent are all the parts of the educational
experiences coherent, aligned, and intentional?
To what extent does the institution deliver what it
promises to deliver?
How well does the institution achieve what it sets
out to do?
How does it know?
How does it communicate about its degrees to
internal and external audiences?
33
Institutional Report
Component 4: Educational Quality:
Student Learning, Core Competencies,
and Standards of Performance at
Graduation
Student Learning
• What do students learn in General Education?
The major? Elsewhere?
• How well do students learn?
• How does the institution know?
• What’s “good enough?”
34
Institutional Report
Component 4: Educational Quality:
Student Learning, Core Competencies,
and Standards of Performance at
Graduation (continued)
Core Competencies
•
•
•
•
•
Writing
Oral Communication
Quantitative Reasoning
Critical Thinking
Information Literacy
Questions to pose
• How well do students perform at or near graduation?
• How does the institution know?
• What’s “good enough”?
35
Institutional Report
Component 5: Student Success:
Student Learning, Retention and
Graduation
Background on Approach to Retention and
Graduation
•
•
•
The Commission discontinued the review
approach currently described in the 2013
Handbook
The Commission discontinued the Retention and
Graduation Committee (RGC)
Institutions can add five pages to recommended
length of this component to include narrative about
R&G data; can add actual data to appendix
36
Institutional Report
Component 5: Student Success:
Student Learning, Retention and
Graduation (continued)
•
CFR 1.2: Educational objectives are widely
recognized throughout the institution, are
consistent with stated purposes, and are
demonstrably achieved. The institution regularly
generates, evaluates, and makes public data about
student achievement, including measures of
retention and graduation, and evidence of student
learning.
•
WSCUC asks for this webpage link with annual
reporting.
37
Institutional Report
Component 5: Student Success:
Student Learning, Retention and
Graduation (continued)
•
•
•
How does the institution define student success
(accounting for completion and learning) given its
mission, values, programs and the students it
serves?
How does the institution promote student success?
How well are students doing in meeting the
institution’s definition of student success?
38
Institutional Report
Component 5: Student Success:
Student Learning, Retention and
Graduation (continued)
Examples of Measures of Student Success
Retention rates
Graduation rates
Time-to-degree data
Learning outcomes
Licensing exam pass rates
Board certification
Employment
Student engagement
• NSSE
• UCUES
• Locally developed surveys
39
Institutional Report
Component 5: Student Success:
Student Learning, Retention and
Graduation (continued)
Examples of Retention and Graduation Rates
IPEDS
National Student Clearinghouse
College Portraits
Absolute Graduation Rate
40
Institutional Report
Component 5: Student
Success: Student Learning,
Retention and Graduation
(continued)
For retention and graduation data:
• Does the institution report 3-5 year trends in retention and
graduation rates (aggregated and disaggregated)?
• What do the data show?
• Has the institution benchmarked its rates against peer
institutions or aspirational institutions?
• Does the institution have goals with timelines to make
improvements overall or for subgroups, as appropriate?
• Does the team judge the institution’s graduation rates to be
satisfactory?
41
Institutional Report
Component 5: Student Success:
Student Learning, Retention and
Graduation (continued)
Institution may consider and reflect the effect of:
•
the way students matriculate (first time; transfer
lower division, upper division)
•
enrollment patterns (part time; stop and return;
transfer and return)
•
differences in types of programs
42
Institutional Report
Component 5: Student Success:
Student Learning, Retention and
Graduation (continued)
Institutions may describe:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Trends; changes over time
Results considered “too low,” or otherwise
unacceptable
Disaggregated results compared with overall
Comparison of results with similar institutions;
aspirational institutions; internal programs
Challenges to improving results; factors that
influence data
Recommendations for improvement
43
Institutional Report
Component 6: Quality Assurance and
Improvement: Program Review,
Assessment, Use of Data and Evidence
• Program review
• Assessment of student learning
• Data collection, analysis, and use in
decision-making
44
Institutional Report
Component 6: Quality Assurance and
Improvement: Program Review,
Assessment, Use of Data and Evidence
(continued)
Program Review
Questions to answer:
• Is there a robust system of cyclical program review (including
the co-curricular)?
• Does it include findings from assessment of student learning?
• Is program review tied to planning and budgeting?
• Will program review promote the sustainability of assessment?
• Has program review resulted in attention to and enhancement of
student learning?
45
Institutional Report
Component 6: Quality Assurance and
Improvement: Program Review,
Assessment, Use of Data and Evidence
(continued)
Assessment of Student Learning
Has the institution:
• Defined student learning outcomes?
• Gathered evidence of student learning?
• Analyzed and interpreted the evidence?
• Used this information to improve student learning?
46
Institutional Report
Component 6: Quality Assurance and
Improvement: Program Review,
Assessment, Use of Data and Evidence
(continued)
Use of Data and Evidence
Areas to explore:
• How adequate is the institutional research function?
• How effectively does it support and inform decisionmaking, planning and improvement?
• Does the institution have a habit of using evidence to
make decisions?
47
Institutional Report
Component 6: Quality Assurance
and Improvement: Program Review,
Assessment, Use of Data and
Evidence (continued)
Use of Data and Evidence
More areas to explore:
• To what extent does the institution use evidence in
planning, resource allocation and other institutional
processes?
• To what extent is use of data and evidence
embedded in and characteristic of an institution’s
actions and practices?
48
Institutional Report
Component 7: Sustainability: Financial
Viability, Preparing for Changing Higher
Education Environment
• Financial viability
• Changing ecology
49
Institutional Report
Component 7: Sustainability: Financial
Viability, Preparing for Changing
Higher Education Environment
(continued)
Financial viability
• Are resources allocated according to institutional
priorities?
• Does the allocation process includes strategic
planning, operational execution, institution-wide
evaluation, recalibration?
• Is the institution financially sustainable in the next
seven to ten years?
50
Institutional Report
Component 7: Sustainability: Financial
Viability, Preparing for Changing
Higher Education Environment
(continued)
Financial viability
• Financial data collected through the annual report
• Financial Review Committee will review
institution’s financial data (TBD)
51
Institutional Report
Component 7: Sustainability: Financial
Viability, Preparing for Changing
Higher Education Environment
(continued)
The changing higher education
environment
• What changes are taking place globally,
nationally, and locally that will affect the institution
in the next seven to ten years?
• How is the institution planning for the future?
• Has the institution demonstrated that it can
sustain its efforts in educational effectiveness
over the next seven to ten years?
52
Institutional Report
Component 7: Sustainability: Financial
Viability, Preparing for Changing
Higher Education Environment
(continued)
Changing Ecology
• What is the institution’s vision of education for the
coming decade?
• Resource: “The Changing Ecology of Higher Education
and its Impact on Accreditation”
http://www.wascsenior.org/redesign/conceptpapers
53
Institutional Report
Component 8: InstitutionSpecific Themes
Optional
Selected theme(s) to advance
institutional priorities
54
Institutional Report
Component 9: Conclusion:
Reflection and Plans for
Improvement
• What did the institution learn through the
self-study process?
• What are the plans for the future based on
what was learned?
55
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Outcomes for the day
2013 WSCUC Standards and Criteria for Review
Overview of the Institutional Review Process
(IRP)
Preparing for and conducting the Offsite Review
(OSR)
Preparing for and conducting the Accreditation
Visit (AV)
Team commendations and recommendations
Team report
Completing the process
Tools and resources
56
Preparing for
and Conducting the OSR
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Timeline
Roles and responsibilities
Materials from WSCUC and the institution
Team worksheet: Offsite Review
Pre-OSR conference call
Offsite Review schedule
Summary of Lines of Inquiry: Offsite Review
Preliminary narrative
57
The OSR: Timeline
Eight Steps
1
Institution
submits
report to
WSCUC and
team
2
Team holds
pre-OSR
conference
call
3
4
Team
OSR held at
completes
WSCUC
worksheet for offices; video
OSR based
conference
on
with institution
institutional
report
5
Team
prepares
summary
Lines of
Inquiry
report
6
7_______8__
AC compiles
Team
and
members
distributes
draft
preliminary
preliminary
narrative
narrative
within 8
sections and
send to AC weeks after
OSR
Institution
submits
response to
team’s
summary
Lines of
Inquiry
report 8
weeks
before the
visit
58
The OSR: Roles
• Chair: Guides the visit
• Assistant Chair: Guides the report writing;
manages team logistics
• WSCUC staff liaison: Guides the process
• Team: Assesses the institution under the
Standards and in the context of required essays
59
The OSR: Materials
Documents from WSCUC
• General: Standards; training manual; forms, checklists,
rubrics; policies
• Institution specific: accreditation history; Commission
letter; last peer review report or letter
• Visit logistics: roster, timeline, expense report form
Documents from the institution
• Report
• Exhibits
Assignments from the Chair
• Areas of responsibility
• Aspects of the report
60
The OSR: Materials -The Institutional Report
• Has the institution responded to previous
Commission actions?
• Has the institution responded to the nine
components?
• Has it collected and analyzed data effectively?
• Are its conclusions supported by evidence?
• What are the strengths of the institution?
• Are there serious problems or potential areas
of noncompliance?
• Does the report contain recommendations for
further institutional action?
61
The OSR: Pre-OSR
Conference Call
•
•
•
•
•
•
Overview of the institution
Deliverables after the OSR
Confirmation of team assignments
Brief discussion of institutional report
Brief discussion of draft schedule for OSR
Key dates
62
The OSR: Team Worksheet
• Organizes team’s responses to institutional
materials
• Helps team make preliminary evaluation under
the Standards
• Provides basis for team to work toward
consensus
• Submitted to Assistant Chair in advance of OSR
• Assistant Chair compiles individual worksheets
and sends to team before the OSR
63
The OSR: Schedule
The team:
• Meets in executive session the night before the offsite
review to organize assignments and plan for the next
day
• Spends the next day reviewing consolidated OSR
worksheets and evaluating institutional report and
response to previous action letter(s)/reports
• Identifies areas of good practice, improvement, and
further inquiry
• Develops questions to pose to institutional
representatives and conducts video conference
• Prepares summary of Lines of Inquiry
64
The OSR: Video
Conference
• An informal 45-minute discussion with institutional
representatives
• Not an in-depth, fact-finding probe; not an “exit
interview”
• Opportunity to share with institution team’s
commendations
• Opportunity to share with institution areas to be
explored during Accreditation Visit
65
The OSR: Summary of
Lines of Inquiry
• Identifies commendations and areas of good
practice
• Describes the areas of exploration for the
Accreditation Visit (Lines of Inquiry)
• Lists requests for additional documents and
information
• Identifies groups and individuals to meet with
during the visit
66
The OSR:
Preliminary Narrative
Team members:
• Draft preliminary text for areas assigned, using
report and exhibits, leaving space for additional
evidence, analysis and conclusions
• Provide text to Assistant Chair who
consolidates and returns preliminary draft to
team prior to the Accreditation Visit
Caution:
• Do not reach final conclusions
• Be open to evidence obtained on the visit
67
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Outcomes for the day
2013 WSCUC Standards and Criteria for Review
Overview of the Institutional Review Process
(IRP)
Preparing for and conducting the Offsite Review
(OSR)
Preparing for and conducting the Accreditation
Visit (AV)
Team commendations and recommendations
Team report
Completing the process
Tools and resources
68
Preparing for
and Conducting the AV
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Timeline
Institutional response to the Offsite Review Lines of
Inquiry
Conference call worksheet
Conference call
Areas to explore
Confidential email account
Tips for good questions
Conducting interviews
Offsite location, as appropriate (worksheet)
Distance education, as appropriate (worksheet)
69
The AV: Timeline
8 weeks
Institution
mails
response
to team
summary
to WSCUC
Team holds
Site visit
conference held and
call
team report
written
8 weeks
Institution
submits
corrections
of errors of
fact and
redaction
of
proprietary
information
in team
report
Institution
responds
to final
team
report
Commission
acts at
February or
June
meeting
70
The AV:
Institutional Response
• Institution submits a response to team’s
Lines of Inquiry
• Team reviews institution’s response
71
The AV: Conference Call Worksheet
• Organizes team’s responses to institutional
materials
• Helps team make preliminary evaluation under
the Standards
• Provides basis for team to work toward
consensus
• Submitted to Assistant Chair in advance of call
• Assistant Chair compiles individual worksheets
and sends to team before the call
72
The AV: Team Conference Call
During the call the team:
• Evaluates institutional report and response to previous
action letter(s)/reports
• Identifies areas of good practice, improvement, and
further inquiry
• Identifies issues, strategies, evidence needed
• Reviews draft visit schedule
• Identifies persons and groups to be interviewed
• Makes or refines team assignments
• Reviews preliminary team narrative
• Plans visit logistics
73
The AV: Areas to Explore
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the
evidence?
• What other evidence is needed?
• What is the best way to get it?
• What overarching questions should be asked?
74
The AV: Confidential Email Account
• Set up by WSCUC but information about its
availability distributed by institution
• Checked by Assistant Chair and team during
visit
• Important emails investigated
• Comments included in team report only if the
institution has a chance to address them
75
The AV:
Tips for Good Questions
• Prepare questions and lines of inquiry in advance
• Determine who will chair the session and ask which
questions
• Ask questions that elicit information, stimulate
discussion, or require judgment
• Avoid interrogation, leading questions, or loaded
language
• Avoid consulting, giving solutions, or talking about
your own institution
• Let them do the talking
76
The AV:
Conducting Interviews on Site
• “Guide to Conducting Interviews”
http://www.wascsenior.org/search/site/conducting%20interviews
• Provides guidance on preparing for and
conducting interviews
• Lists sample questions for different groups
77
The AV: Off Campus Locations
(applies to locations 25 miles or more from main campus and 50% or more of a
degree program; 25% of locations will be visited)
•
•
•
•
•
•
The team:
Develops plan for review
Interviews faculty, staff, students
Evaluates off site facilities
Observes classes (can be done before institutional visit)
Documents findings in appendix, using off site form
Discusses important findings with team for inclusion in
report, as appropriate
78
The AV: Distance Education
(degree programs with 50% or more of the courses online)
The team:
• Develops plan for review
• Interviews faculty, staff, students
• Evaluates online infrastructure
• Reviews courses (can be done before institutional visit)
• Documents findings in appendix, using distance
education form
• Discusses important findings with team for inclusion in
report, as appropriate
79
Comparing the OSR and AV
• Purposes
• Team preparation
• Methodology
• Deliverables
• Results
80
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Outcomes for the day
2013 WSCUC Standards and Criteria for Review
Overview of the Institutional Review Process
(IRP)
Preparing for and conducting the Offsite Review
(OSR)
Preparing for and conducting the Accreditation
Visit (AV)
Team commendations and recommendations
Team report
Completing the process
Tools and resources
81
Team
Commendations
• Purpose
• Characteristics
• Numbers
82
Team
Recommendations
•
•
•
•
Types
Characteristics
Public recommendations
Confidential recommendations to the
Commission
83
Team Recommendations:
Types
• Public: Team recommendations located at
the end of the team report and shared at exit
meeting and published on the WASC website
• Private: Confidential recommendation to the
Commission (not shared with the institution);
a form submitted to WSCUC by Chair
84
Team Recommendations:
Characteristics
Effective report recommendations are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Overarching and important
Clear and direct
Supported by evidence
Linked clearly to Standards and CFRs
Supported by text in the report
Limited in number (3-8)
Distinct from minor recommendations and from
suggestions embedded in the report
85
Team Recommendations:
Exit Meeting with the
Institution
• Chair reads the commendations and key
recommendations that will be included in
report
• The meeting is not a dialog, discussion or
debate
• The confidential team recommendation to the
Commission is not shared with the institution
86
Team Recommendations:
Confidential Recommendation
to Commission
– Special form the Chair completes and sends to
WSCUC
– Lists options for action:
 Specify length of time until next interaction with
WSCUC
 Issue a notice of concern or sanction
 Require a progress report, interim report or
special visit
– Takes into account the Mid-Cycle Review
87
Mid-Cycle Review
A check-in near the midpoint of an institution’s period of
accreditation
Focuses on student achievement:
 Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators
 Retention and graduation data
More information is available at:
http://www.wascsenior.org/resources/mid-cycle_review
88
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Outcomes for the day
2013 WSCUC Standards and Criteria for Review
Overview of the Institutional Review Process
(IRP)
Preparing for and conducting the Offsite Review
(OSR)
Preparing for and conducting the Accreditation
Visit (AV)
Team commendations and recommendations
Team report
Completing the process
Tools and resources
89
Team Report
•
•
•
•
•
Process
Effectiveness
Use of CFRs
Use of Evidence
Writing Tips
90
Team Report:
Process
• Follow report template
• Draft preliminary narrative based on review of
documents and OSR
• Submit preliminary draft to Assistant Chair for
compilation before Accreditation Visit begins
• Revise narrative based on information from
visit
• Complete your sections on site; give to
Assistant Chair who compiles and edits
91
Team Report:
Effectiveness
Effective reports:
• Reflect a thorough assessment of the institution
• Are based on evidence
• Cite the standards and CFRs
• Provide the basis for a sound and supportable
Commission decision
• Identify institutional strengths: what it’s doing well
• Identify important areas for the institution to address
As of June 2012, Commission action letters and team
reports are publicly available on the WSCUC website.
92
Team Report:
Use of CFRs
• Criteria for Review (CFRs) link the interpretations of
various readers to a common source
• CFRs and Standards form the basis for Commission
decisions
• CFRs and Standards must be cited in each section of
the report and in final findings and recommendations
93
Team Report:
Use of Evidence
•
•
•
•
•
•
Include qualitative and quantitative evidence
Select evidence carefully and purposefully
Connect evidence to an assertion or question
Document the evidence (provide source)
Analyze data; do not just present data
Let evidence suggest improvements
94
Team Report:
WSCUC Style Guide
• Provides information on editorial style and usage
conventions for writing team reports
• Located on WSCUC website:
http://www.wascsenior.org/files/style_guide_for_writing_wasc_reports.pdf
95
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Outcomes for the day
2013 WSCUC Standards and Criteria for Review
Overview of the Institutional Review Process
(IRP)
Preparing for and conducting the Offsite Review
(OSR)
Preparing for and conducting the Accreditation
Visit (AV)
Team commendations and recommendations
Team report
Completing the process
Tools and resources
96
Completing
the Process
• Finalizing the report
• Commission review
• Members’ responsibilities
97
Completing the Process:
Finalizing the Report
• Assistant Chair prepares draft for Chair, team,
WSCUC staff review; changed as needed
• Chair sends final draft report as a PDF to institution
for corrections of fact and possible redaction of
proprietary information
• Chair addresses corrections, finalizes draft, and
submits to WSCUC
• Chair sends Confidential Team Recommendation to
WSCUC
• WSCUC sends report to institution
• Institution has the option to respond formally;
response shared with Commission and team chair 98
WSCUC Commissioners
• 24 volunteer members
• Nominated and voted upon by the heads of member
institutions
• Represent the region and the general public
• Meet three times a year
99
Completing the Process:
Commission Review
• Commission Panel reads report and documentation
including institution’s written response, talks with
institutional representatives at Commission meeting
• Panel makes recommendation to Commission, and
Commission acts
• Staff finalizes draft action letter on behalf of
Commission
• Letter and team report are publicly available on
WSCUC website
• Link provided on WSCUC website, if desired, to
institution’s response to team report
100
Completing the Process:
Member’s Responsibilities
• Team members send reimbursement forms to
WSCUC within 30 days
 Hotel arranged and paid directly by WSCUC
(OSR) or institution (AV)
 Travel / food reimbursed
 Rental car must be approved in advance by
WSCUC staff
 Spouse or assistant costs not covered
• Team members should not:
 have any contact with the institution about the IRP
 consult with the institution for one year
101
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Outcomes for the day
2013 WSCUC Standards and Criteria for Review
Overview of the Institutional Review Process
(IRP)
Preparing for and conducting the Offsite Review
(OSR)
Preparing for and conducting the Accreditation
Visit (AV)
Team commendations and recommendations
Team report
Completing the process
Tools and resources
102
Tools: WSCUC Resources
• WSCUC liaison
• Materials on box
- Repository of materials from WSCUC:
• Institution-specific materials
• General accreditation resources
- Can be used to:
• Send emails to the entire team
• Draft the team report
•
Materials on website
103
Tools: List of Forms and
Worksheets
• Identifies worksheets, forms, templates for IRP
• Grouped by OSR and AV
• Describes location and team task
104
Questions, Comments
Post-Webinar Survey
We want your feedback!
Please take a short survey to let us know how well the
webinar helped you to understand and be better
prepared for your role as a member of a peer review
team.
The survey takes approximately 15 minutes. Responses
will be aggregated; comments will be reported
anonymously.
You will receive the survey shortly.
106
Thank you for your service
to WSCUC and the region
107
Contact Us
Barbara Gross Davis
510-748-9798
bdavis@wascsenior.org
Richard Osborn
510-995-3170
rosborn@wascsenior.org
Maureen Maloney
748-9795
mmaloney@wascsenior.org
Richard Winn
510-748-9792
rwinn@wascsenior.org
Christopher Oberg
510-995-3175
coberg@wascsenior.org
108