1v

Designing WASC for 2012-2020

Key Issues and Processes

2

WASC Handbook Timeline 2001-2012

3

Goals of 2001 Handbook Revision

Learning-centered, 3-stage approach Standards intentionally developed to be

outcomes- and evidence-based Proposal stage designed to promote

greater adaptability to each institution’s context and priorities

Focus educational effectiveness in key areas, especially student learning and program review

4

Core Values – 2001 Handbook

Changes are needed to make content and process of accreditation more relevant to institutions and the public

WASC process needs to demonstrably add value and be cost effective

Greater emphasis is needed on evidence of educational effectiveness and student learning

5

Core Values – 2001 Handbook

Accreditation process needs to shift from compliance stance on every issue to recognition that many aspects of quality are best addressed on continuum basis

More efficient means are needed to establish that institutions meet basic resource and integrity standards

WASC needs to maintain posture of experimentation, leading to institutionalization of more adaptive and responsive process of accreditation

6

Key Issues for Public Accountability

1. Low graduation rates2. High student debt3. Difficulty in transferring credit4. Inadequate quality of graduates5. Rapid growth of online education6. Practices of the for-profit industry

7

Past Areas of Federal Regulation

Success with respect to student achievement

Substantive change Monitoring of institutional growth Protocols for online education Monitoring during the term of

accreditation

8

New Areas of Federal Regulation

Credit hour definition and application Misrepresentation State authorization (overturning CA

law?) Incentive compensation Gainful employment

9

10

Today’s Changed Context: A New Eco-system

Demographics – today’s students are older, working, and view education as one of many activities

De-institutionalization of learning – majority of students attend more than one institution

Open source and DIYer’s Growth of online programs Privatization of public universities

11

Three Roles of AccreditationCore Functions

of Accreditation

Gate-keeping/ Compliance Centered

Improvement -Centered

Accountability Centered

Scope of Review All standards applied to assure compliance

Key areas selected and approved by accreditor for improvement

Specific areas identified as part of all reviews to address common policy issues – e.g., retention/graduation rates, student learning outcomes

Level of Judgment

Must demonstrate standards are met at least at minimum level

Simplifies compliance review and primary emphasis on recommended improvements

External reference points reviewed and evaluated – by comparative indicators of institutional type

Public Reporting

Public announcement of grant of accreditation

Reports internally circulated for improvement; accrediting action publicly reported

Meaningful and clear public information about institutional performance and commission actions reported

12

Defining the “Public” for Accountability

.

13

Topics for 2012 Handbook Development

Retention and graduation Degree expectations Degree frameworks Public reporting and transparency The changing ecology of higher education Institutional Review (visit) process

14

Parallel Areas for Attention

Revision of Financial Reports Task Force on For-Profit Institutions Review of WASC Policies

Diversity Graduate Programs Credit for Prior Experiential Learning International Study Support for International Students

15

Structure of the Handbook Revision Process(Fall 2010 – Winter 2012)

16

Sources of Feedback for 2012 Handbook

External Review (2006-2007) Evaluations of visits, from teams and institutions ALO and CAO Forum discussions at 2010 ARC Strategic Planning Meeting with commissioners and

outside consultants (April 2010) June 2010 Commission Meeting Handbook Planning Meeting with commissioners

and outside facilitators (Sept. 2010) Handbook Steering Committee meeting (Nov. 2010)

17

Steering Committee Roster

Commission Members Anna DiStefano, Chair Fielding

Graduate Univ. Jackie Donath, CSU Sacramento Linda Johnsrud, Univ. of Hawaii Julia Lopez, College Access

Foundation of CA Sharon Salinger, UC Irvine Mike Whyte, Azusa Pacific

University Paul Zingg, CSU Chico

Non-Commission Members Janna Bersi, CSU Dominguez

Hills Alma DeCastro, Student, UCSC Dawn Eastmond, Scripps

Research Inst. Rana Glasgal, Stanford Univ. Samuel Hoi, Otis College of Art

and Design Tabatha Jones Jolivet, Student,

Claremont Graduate Univ. April Komenaka, UH at Hilo Deane Neubauer, UH at Manoa Carol Taylor, Vanguard Univ. of

So. California

18

Regional “Listening Sessions”

June 23 - UC ALOs October 15 – So. California faith-based

ALOs and CAOs October 21 – AICCU Presidents October 28 – CSU ALOs November 21-22 – Hawaii and Pacific Basin

ALOs, CAOs, Faculty, Business roundtable Other meetings still to be confirmed

19

Institutional Surveys

Independently conducted surveys in fall 2010: Chief Executive Officers of accredited

institutions ALOs and CAOs of accredited institutions

20

Task Forces and Working Groups

Retention and Graduation Levels of Learning Defining Degree Level Expectations Public Reporting and Transparency Changing Ecology of Higher Education Institutional Review (Visit) Process

21

Concept Papers Changing Ecology of Higher Education (Peter Ewell) Increasing Faculty Engagement in the Accreditation

Process (Pat Hutchings) Changing Demographics of Today’s and Tomorrow’s

Students (Art Levine) Rethinking the Accreditation Process (Kevin Carey) Accreditation’s Role in Improving Retention and

Graduation (Jamie Merisotis) What Community Colleges Want from the Senior

College Commission (Brice Harris)

22

Further Interaction with the Region

WASC Academic Resource Conference (April 6-8, 2011) CEO Forum ALO Meeting CAO Forum Open Forum with the President

Regional dialogues on draft Handbook (winter 2011-12)

Open hearings at November 2011 and February 2012 Commission

23

Revisions to the Institutional Review ProcessTransitional Pilot for 2013

24

Purposes of the Pilot Review Process

To preserve:      Focus on student learning, program review

and student success Alignment with institutional needs and

priorities Emphases on learning results and

educational effectiveness The value of a developmental model of

review

25

Purposes of the Pilot, cont.

Improve the process by: Reframing (and possibly renaming) the site

visit Shortening the process from five to three

years Reducing the number of stages from three to

two Utilizing technology and off-site reviews in

advance to save time and money and to narrow the issues to be explored on visits

26

The Pilot: Two-stage review process

Stage One:  Combine the first review, focused on

capacity, with a Proposal Institutions will submit:

a portfolio-based report re: capacity a proposal with themes that will become the

foci of the second stage, an educational effectiveness review. 

27

The Pilot: Two-stage review process, cont.

Stage Two:  Continued emphases on student learning,

program review and student success (graduation and retention) 

Similar to the current Educational Effectiveness Review, in which the institution’s themes are addressed

Conducted 18-24 months after the stage one visit

28

The pilot: Pre-visit off-site review

Intended to : Build on institutional progress in the first

round of reviews Narrow the issues that will become the

primary foci of the visit through expanded offsite review and interviews

Where possible, shorten the length of a verification visit and reduce the number of team members

29

Questions and Discussion

What key elements of the process are most worth preserving?

Are the proposed visit changes helpful? Are the topics for attention appropriate? What would you add or change?