Upload
amber-galloway
View
219
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Joint ATS-WASC Accreditation Reviews
Jerry McCarthy, ATS
Teri Cannon, WASC
2
Value of ATS-WASC Reviews
• Enriches the experience for the institution
• Brings more points of view to the evaluation of the institution
• Reduces duplicative work of preparing reports for and conducting two reviews
3
General Responsibilities
• Sharing information, reports, and actions on institutions
• Providing orientation to participating institutions and teams
• Coordinating actions• Staffing teams collaboratively• Planning visits collaboratively• Conducting visits and preparing reports together
Protocol for the Conductof Joint VisitsWASC & ATS
5
General Principles of the Joint Protocol
• To facilitate the process of accreditation for the member institutions
• To guide the process of joint visits involving both accrediting agencies
6
Responsibilities of the WASC and ATS Staff
• Coordination of WASC Institutional Protocols• Orientation of ATS/WASC Chairs• Coordination of team recommendations and respective
Commission actions• Staffing: Usually 3-4 WASC visitors and 2 ATS visitors/
possibility of joint chair• Two visits: Capacity and Preparatory Review (CPR) and
Educational Effectiveness Review (EER)• Normally most CPR members also serve, if possible, on
EER team
7
Responsibilities of the WASC and ATS Staff
• Sharing of Documents: No restrictions on sharing of accreditation-related information
• Logistics of Visit Planning: WASC/ATS staffs consult on team composition 12 months
prior to visits WASC/ATS staffs consult 20-24 weeks prior to coordinate
planning WASC staff consult with school on team dates and
coordinate with ATS staff Materials for visits sent to each agency 12 weeks
prior to team members
8
Responsibilities of the Institutions
• Distribution of Institutional Presentations: Submitted to WASC and ATS (Proposals, CPR Review, EER
Review)• Distribution of WASC Institutional Proposal to ATS after approval by
WASC• CPR/EER Reports: 1 paper copy and 1 electronic copy to
ATS/WASC and 1 copy to each team member 12 weeks prior to visit
• Reports for Special/Focused Visits: 4 copies to each agency + 1 to each team member 8 weeks prior
• Interim Reports and Progress Reports: 4 copies to agency requiring report + 1 copy to partner agency
9
Responsibilities ofTeam Evaluators
• Team Co-Chairs (one from each agency)
• Role of ATS Co-Chair: As prescribed in ATS Handbook of Accreditation
• Role of WASC Co-Chair: Responsible for oversight of visit, drafting WASC team report with WASC Assistant Chair, making team recommendation to Commission
10
Development and Constructionof the Team Report
• General Report Coverage: Address standards/criteria of both agencies
• Report Format: Each agency’s standards are addressed and appended to the partner agency report
• Report Content: Follows the guidelines of each agency• Team Recommendations:
Coordinated as much as possible for both agencies Consensus desired with respect to recommendations
and monitoring actions Alignment desired as much as possible, but differences
may emerge
11
Development and Constructionof the Team Report
• Finalizing Team Report Commission staffs, team chairs/assistant chairs confer as soon
as possible Drafts to be available ordinarily within two weeks of visit
• Exit Meeting and Confidentiality of Team Recommendations: Each agency has different practices and will report findings
appropriately at the exit interview ATS and WASC teams are not required to make the same
recommendation The Commissions of each agency make the final recommendations that
may or may not follow the recommendation of the visiting team
12
More on the WASC Three-Stage Review Process
1. Proposal: Identifies priorities, areas of emphasis, and outcomes. Aligns work with institutional plans and needs.
2. Capacity/Preparatory Review: Focuses on capacity and readiness for educational effectiveness.
3. Educational Effectiveness: Focuses on results of assessment of student learning/quality improvement.
13
More on the Scope of the Two Reviews
Capacity and Preparatory
• Preparatory as: readiness for the Educational Effectiveness Review
• Capacity as: purposes, integrity, stability, resources, structures, policies, processes
Educational Effectiveness
• Demonstrating student learning• Demonstrating institutional
learning• Demonstrating evidence-based
decision-making
14
Timeline For Review(CPR/EER)
12 weeks 2 months
Institution mails report to team and
WASC
Team holds conference call; chairs
talk with CEO
Site visit held and team report
written
Institution responds to
errors of fact in team report
Institution responds to final team
report
WASC Commission
acts at February or
June meeting
15
More on the Team Pre-Visit Preparation and Coordination
• Materials review• Call with the CEO and chairs• Pre-visit conference call
– To meet team members– To identify issues and strategy– To agree on team assignments– To refine visit schedule– To identify needed documents– To plan visit logistics and report
16
WASC Standards and CFRs
• Core Commitments: Capacity and EE• Standards: Broad, holistic, encompassing• Criteria for Review: Provide specificity and
meaning• Guidelines: Ways to demonstrate compliance
with CFRs
17
Team Use of the Standards and CFRs
• Team judgments must be linked to specific Standards and CFRs
• CFRs must be cited in reports • Standards and CFRs form the basis for
Commission decisions• Standards and CFRs provide a context for
continuous quality improvement
WASC Standards at a Glance
STANDARD 1:Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives
Institutional PurposesIntegrity
STANDARD 2:Achieving Educational Objectives
Through Core Functions
Teaching and LearningScholarship and Creativity
Support for Student Learning
STANDARD 3: Developing and Applying Resources and
Organizational Structures to Ensure Sustainability
Faculty and StaffFiscal, Physical, and Information Resources
Organizational Structures and Decision-Making Processes
STANDARD 4: Creating an Organization Committed
to Learning and Improvement
Strategic Thinking and Planning Commitment to Learning and
Improvement
23
Example: CFR 2.6SLOs used to evaluate students, graduates achieve
stated levels of attainment
Capacity and Preparatory
Has the institution defined expected levels of attainment for SL?
Are they embedded in the standards and measures for student work?
What data are collected & how analyzed?
How are they measured?
Educational Effectiveness
What do data show? Are data disaggregated
and analyzed? Has the institution used
data analysis to make changes and/or improvements?
How well are graduates achieving SLO?
What’s New on WASC Visits in 2008-09
25
WASC Visit Advisory for 2008-09
• Systematic review and reporting of off-campus sites and distance education programs
• Analysis of retention and graduation rates • Team rating of institution on Framework for Evaluating
Educational Effectiveness (pilot) • Compliance audits for new and sanctioned institutions
26
New WASC Tools for Teams: Rubrics for
Assessment of Student Learning • Academic Program Learning Outcomes• Use of Portfolios in Assessing Program
Outcomes• Use of Capstones in Assessing Program
Outcomes• Integration of Student Learning Assessment
into Program Review
27
WASC Expectations about Assessment of Student Learning
CPR• Student learning outcomes
set at program and course level
• SLOs are in syllabi• Faculty has developed
assessment plans• Faculty has set
expectations for student achievement
• Faculty has tools to measure learning (direct and indirect; multiple)
EER• Results of assessment
show extent to which graduates are meeting expected levels of achievement
• Results used to improve student learning
• Results used to improve assessment strategies
28
Expected Examples of Evidence of Assessment
• Retention and graduation data/disaggregated and analyzed
• Standardized test results/licensing exams• Faculty assessments
– Grades– Portfolios, capstones and work samples
• Surveys and standardized interviews
29
Good Practice in Evidence of Educational Effectiveness
• Direct evidence of student learning and self-reported or indirect evidence
• Evidence related to the intended student learning outcomes -- validity
• Replicable evidence, representative of the student population -- reliability
• Multiple measures of student learning
30
Using the WASC EE Framework
• Identify where the institution fits on the framework for each line
• Use results to determine where the institution is in its evolution toward being a highly developed learning organization
• Use language of the framework in the report to guide the Commission and the institution
31
Using Evidence in Team Reports
• Use qualitative and quantitative evidence • Select evidence carefully and purposefully• Connect evidence to an assertion or question • Analyze information; do not just put forth data• Let evidence suggest improvements• Use evidence that speaks to the institution’s themes and
the team's questions• Address results/findings of assessment, not just process