Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

WASC Accreditation Process DUE Managers Meeting December 2, 2009 Sharon Salinger and Judy Shoemaker.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "WASC Accreditation Process DUE Managers Meeting December 2, 2009 Sharon Salinger and Judy Shoemaker."— Presentation transcript:

1 WASC Accreditation Process DUE Managers Meeting December 2, 2009 Sharon Salinger and Judy Shoemaker

2 Accreditation Mandated by the Federal government Required for receipt of student Federal financial aid funds Regional accreditation agencies WASC = Western Association of Schools and Colleges (California and Hawaii) – Senior commission: All UC’s, CSU’s and Independents 10-year review cycle

3 What’s new? Expanded timeline – 2007 through 2012 Three stages of review – Institutional proposal, submitted Nov 1, 2009 – Capacity and Preparatory Review, site visit in 2011 – Educational Effectiveness Review, site visit in 2012 – Ensure linkages among the three stages Primary focus is demonstrating educational effectiveness – institution establishes its own educational objectives and methods for assessing attainment of those objectives

4 Why assessment? Accountability – Demonstrating the value of higher education to the public Paradigm shift in educational practices – From teaching to learning – Based on research in the cognitive sciences – Assessment promotes learning Institutional improvement, not just resources Federal requirements for accreditation agencies – Standards must address success with respect to student achievement in relation to its mission

5 WASC Institutional Proposal Response to the most recent WASC review Self-review under the WASC Standards* Themes selected for the review* Work plan through 2012 Required data exhibits* Steering Committee – co leaders: Michael Clark and Sharon Salinger

6 Review Under the Standards Standard 1: Institutional Mission and Values Standard 2: Educational Objectives Standard 3: Resources and Organizational Structures Standard 4: Learning Organization Reviewed by: – Leadership Academy – Academic Senate, Student Affairs, Libraries – Staff Assembly, ASUCI, AGS, Alumni Association

7 Educational Objectives: Criteria for Review Educational objectives are clearly recognized throughout the institution and are consistent with stated purposes. The institution develops indicators for the achievement of its purposes and educational objectives at the institutional, program and course levels. The institution has a system of measuring student achievement, in terms of retention, completion and student learning. The institution makes public data on student achievement at the institutional and degree level, in a manner determined by the institution. (CFR 1.1)

8 CFR’s continued All degrees – undergraduate and graduate – awarded by the institution are clearly defined in terms of entry- level requirements and levels of student achievement necessary for graduation that represent more than simply an accumulation of courses or credits. (CFR 2.2) The institution’s expectations for learning and student attainment are developed and widely shared among its members, including faculty, students, staff, and where appropriate, external stakeholders. The institution’s faculty takes collective responsibility for establishing, reviewing, fostering, and demonstrating the attainment of these expectations. ( CFR 2.3)

9 More CFR’s All programs offered by the institution are subject to systematic program review. The program review process includes analyses of the achievement of the program’s learning objectives and outcomes, program retention and completion… (CFR 2.7) Consistent with its purposes, the institution develops and assesses its co-curricular programs. (CFR 2.11)

10 Themes for the Review Selected by UCI Theme 1: Student Learning in the Major Theme 2: General Education Theme 3: Academic Program Review All themes related to educational objectives and assessment

11 Student Learning in the Major Goal: To create and sustain a campus culture of assessment in which faculty are engaged in identifying important learning outcomes for undergraduate majors, assessing the degree to which student achieve those outcomes, and using the results to improve the program Outcomes: – Establish needed infrastructure (University Assessment Committee, assessment grants, online assessment management system) – Demonstrate that assessment lead to program improvements and better student learning

12 General Education Goal: To complete implementation of revised GE requirements and to incorporate student learning outcomes and evidence of student learning into the review process Outcomes: – Insure alignment between GE learning outcomes and course learning outcomes – Reinstate regular review of GE categories using assessment of student learning outcomes (example: UD and LD Writing Assessment)

13 Academic Program Review Goal: To revise criteria used in program review to include evidence on the degree to which student achieve stated learning outcomes for each major being reviewed Outcomes: – Academic Senate will adopt new policies and procedures for academic program review process – Develop a formal method for determining the effectiveness of the Academic Program Review process

14 Required Data Exhibits Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators For program outcomes at three levels: institutional, general education and degrees Information required – Have formal learning outcomes been developed? – Where will these learning outcomes be published? – Other than GPA, what evidence is used to determine that graduates have achieved stated outcomes for the degree? – Who interprets the evidence? What is the process? – How have the findings been used? – Date of last program review for this degree program.

15 How are we evaluated by WASC? WASC Rubrics – Student learning outcomes and assessment plans for every program, and demonstrated use of the results for the improvement of programs – Portfolios for assessing student learning outcomes – Capstones for assessing student learning outcomes – Program Review process

16 External Reviews Sharon’s experiences as an external reviewer Scoring rubric for reviewers – Rubric for Evaluating Institutional Proposals

17 Costs for WASC Accreditation CategoryCost Annual fees (based on enrollment)$30, 406 Institutional Proposal Review $3,000 Proposal Resubmission Fee $500 Capacity and Preparatory Review $3,000 Educational Effectiveness Review $3,000 Site VisitsInstitution is responsible for all expenses including travel and hotel expenses for all reviewers

18 Additional Information WASC Website UCI’s Accreditation Website http:// UCI’s Assessment Website

Download ppt "WASC Accreditation Process DUE Managers Meeting December 2, 2009 Sharon Salinger and Judy Shoemaker."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google