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