View
3.377
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Presentation on the WASC Accreditation Redesign process by Ralph A. Wolff, Anna DiStefano.
Citation preview
Situating WASC Accreditation in the 21st Century
Regional ForumsOctober 2011
Goals of the Redesign ProcessApproved 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.
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.
Goals of the Redesign Process
6
Pressures on Accreditation
Accreditation
External
Concerns
Internal Dissatisfac
tion
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
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
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
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)
Core Principles of AccreditationGate-keeping/ Compliance Centered
Improvement Centered
Public Accountability and Assurance
Scope of Review
All standards applied to assure compliance
Key areas selected and approved by accreditor for improvement
Specific areas identified for all reviews to address common policy issues i.e. retention/ graduation, student learning outcomes
Level of Judgment
Standards met at least minimum level
Simplify compliance review; primary emphasis on improvement
External benchmarking with comparative indicators of institutional type
Public Reporting
Public announcement of accreditation
Reports internally circulated for improvement; accrediting action publicly reported
Meaningful and clear public reporting about institutional performance; Commission actions reported
Repurposing Accreditation
Revised IRP adaptive to each
institution’s context; right-sized cost and work load
Open and responsive to innovation; a 21st century
model of accreditation
Robust and visible agent of public
accountability and quality assurance
Where is the Region? Institutional Data
2009-2010
Total Member Institutions: Accredited and Candidate Institutions 163
Total Eligible Institutions 22Total Students (FTE) Educated by Our Member Institutions 967,189
Percent of WASC Members that are Public InstitutionsPercent of Students (FTE) Educated by Public Institutions
22%
72%
Institutions with > 10,000 FTE: Percent of WASC Membership Percent of Enrollment
17%74%
Institutions with 1,000 -10,000 FTE: Percent of WASC MembershipPercent of Enrollment
40%24%
Institutions with < 1000 FTE: Percent of WASC MembershipPercent of Enrollment
43%2%
Terms Granted at ReaffirmationJune 2008 through June 2011 (84 institutions)
Interim Reports and Special Visits requestedJune 2008 through June 2011 (84 institutions)
EERs Rescheduled Following CPRFebruary 2010 through June 2011
Total CPRs during this period = 34Total rescheduled = 14 (41%)
Library
Moving to University Structure
Integrity
New Location
Institutional research
Graduate Education
Information technology
General Education
Faculty / Staff
Retention / Student Success
Diversity
Enrollment
Governance / Leadership
Strategic Planning
Financials
Educational Effectiveness
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
1
1
2
2
4
5
5
9
16
18
19
21
24
35
48
82
Interim Report Indicators (Based on action from February 2004 - June 2011)
Frequency
Are
as
of
Co
nc
ern
Initial Accreditation
Reporting
Faith-based Education
General Education
Institutional Research
Comunication
Library
Organizational Structures
Evidence
Academic / Student Support
Graduate Education
Diversity
Integrity
Faculty / Staff
Enrollment
Strategic Planning
Governance / Leadership
Financials
Educational Effectiveness
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
6
8
11
12
14
20
42
44
47
49
Special Visit Indicators (Based on actions from February 2004 - June 2011)
Frequency
Are
as o
f C
on
cern
Review of published
graduation rates
Team ratings of institutions on the Framework for Evaluating Educational
Effectiveness
Commission Research
Finance Review
• Triennially • 3 panels: publicly funded, privately funded
and for-profit• Results folded into the review process
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
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.”
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
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.”
Revised Institutional Review Process (IRP)
Elements of the IRP:The Institutional NarrativeResponse to previous Commission ActionResponse (as needed) to the Finance ReviewResponse (as needed) to the Retention and Graduation ReviewNarrative 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
Proposed Timeline for Institutions with the next CPR visit in fall 2013Institutions 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 2012
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
Fall 2013
Spring 2014
Fall 2014
Spring 2015
Offsite Review
X
Onsite Review
X
Commission Action
X
Annual Reports
X X X X
Offsite Review Retention and Graduation1
X(for
undergraduate students)
X(for graduate
students)
Offsite Finance Review1
x
1 The Retention and Graduation and Finance Reviews will be before the Offsite Review so the feedback can be incorporated into the review process
Proposed Timeline for institutions with their next CPR visit in spring 2013Institutions 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 2012
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
Fall2013
Spring 2014
Fall 2014
Spring 2015
Offsite Review
X
Onsite Review
X
Commission Action
X
Annual Reports
x X X X
Offsite Review of Retention
and Graduation1
X(for
undergraduate students)
X (for graduate
students)
Offsite Finance Review1
X
1 The Retention and Graduation and Finance Reviews will be before the Offsite Review so the feedback can be incorporated into the review process
Moving Forward
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.
Resource Fairs
Explore assessment tools to measure graduation proficiencies in CFR 2.2• January 19th (Northern California) • January 20th (Southern California)Examples of vendors:
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.
DQP Pilot - Interested InstitutionsUniversity of Hawai’i System – Multiple Foci• Cross-system• Cross-institutional with
other Hawai’i and South Pacific schools
• Individual campus based
Small Faith-based Institutions• The Master’s College• Point Loma Nazarene
University• Marymount College• Holy Names University
UC Santa Cruz Brandman UniversityUniversity of San Diego CSU FresnoUniversity of LaVerne Occidental CollegeAshford University California Lutheran UniversityHawai’i Pacific University Academy of Art UniversityNational University CSU East bayVanguard University
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/
Thank youDownload the QR Scanner, take a picture of the barcode, and get connected
to the comments webpage.
35
Recommended