A Connoisseur, a Critic, and a Skeptic walk into a student union… CAS provides a structured method of evaluation: Is the “X” functioning effectively to.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
[Imagine School at North Port] Oral Exit Report Quality Assurance Review Team School Accreditation.
Advertisements

Assessment: A Mirror with 2 Faces Accountability Reflective Practice.
St. Louis Public Schools Human Resources Support for District Improvement Initiatives (Note: The bullets beneath each initiative indicate actions taken.
Using the New CAS Standards to Assess Your Transfer Student Programs and Services Janet Marling, Executive Director National Institute for the Study of.
CAS Standards Announced for Parent and Family Programs NASPA - Philadelphia, PA March 15, 2011 Margaret (Mickey) Hay, Ph.D., Southwestern Michigan College.
A specialized accrediting agency for English language programs and institutions Accreditation Presentation ABLA conference 2012.
Performance Appraisal System Update
John Purdie II, Ph.D. Assoc. Dir., Residence Life Western Washington University.
ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP: SESSION 1 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES ACADEMIC AND STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES PRESENTED BY THE DIVISION OF INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS.
North Carolina Professional Teaching Standards Lee County Schools New Hire Training
Understanding Teaching Effectiveness and Assessment Projects.
Orientation to the Accreditation Internal Evaluation (Self-Study) Flex Activity March 1, 2012 Lassen Community College.
Quality Assurance Review Team Oral Exit Report School Accreditation Bayard Public Schools November 8, 2011.
Accreditation Engaging in Continuous Improvement.
Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European
School Leadership Evaluation System Orientation SY13-14 Evaluation Systems Office, HR Dr. Michael Shanahan, CHRO.
Internal Auditing and Outsourcing
Maps, Rubrics and Templates A Primer on Their Uses for Assessment in Student Affairs.
Student Services Program Review Plan. Overview Develop/Review Mission, Purpose, Vision and Values Create Strategic Academic Development Plan (5 year plan)
John Purdie II, Ph.D. Assoc. Dir., Residence Life Western Washington University.
Program Review and Division-wide Assessment
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Patricia Carretta George Mason University CAS Officer-at-Large
CAS STANDARDS INCORPORATING THE CAS STANDARDS INTO YOUR DAILY LIFE.
Staff Performance Evaluation Process
Association for Biblical Higher Education February 13, 2013 Lori Jo Stanfield Evaluator Team Training for Business Officers.
RAISING THE BAR Meeting CSA Guidelines And Preparing for Health Canada
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency Reviewing Management System and the Interface with Nuclear Security (IRRS Modules 4 and 12) BASIC IRRS TRAINING.
Monitoring through Walk-Throughs Participants are expected to purpose the book: The Three-Minute Classroom Walk-Through: Changing School Supervisory.
Program Review In Student Affairs Office of the Vice President Division of Student Affairs Virginia Tech
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Special Education Advisory Committee Virginia Department of Education.
March 26-28, 2013 SINGAPORE CDIO Asian Regional Meeting and Workshop on Engineering Education and Policies for Regional Leaders Programme Evaluation (CDIO.
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Virginia Association of School Superintendents Annual Conference Patty.
Crosswalk of Public Health Accreditation and the Public Health Code of Ethics Highlighted items relate to the Water Supply case studied discussed in the.
Copyright 2005, CAS All rights reserved. Tidewater Community College and CAS –The Basics of Program Self-evaluation in Community College Student Affairs.
S TUDENT F INANCIAL A SSISTANCE Mission Statement: The Office of Student Financial Aid will strive to make a significant and positive difference in the.
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AUDIT ON AREA 1, 2 AND 3 Prepared By: Nor Aizar Abu Bakar Quality Academic Assurance Department.
AdvancED District Accreditation Process © 2010 AdvancED.
Quality Assurance Review Team Oral Exit Report District Accreditation Bibb County Schools February 5-8, 2012.
Building and Recognizing Quality School Systems DISTRICT ACCREDITATION © 2010 AdvancED.
SACS-CASI Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement FAMU DRS – QAR Quality Assurance Review April 27-28,
Distinguished Educator Initiative. 2 Mission Statement The Mission of the Distinguished Educator is to build capacity in school districts to enable students.
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education Building Bridges of Accountability: Using CAS Standards to Sustain a Culture of Assessment.
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education CAS Basics CAS Standards, Self-Assessment, and Student Learning Outcomes in Higher Education.
The Conceptual Framework: What It Is and How It Works Linda Bradley, James Madison University Monica Minor, NCATE April 2008.
Systems Accreditation Berkeley County School District School Facilitator Training October 7, 2014 Dr. Rodney Thompson Superintendent.
Consultant Advance Research Team. Outline UNDERSTANDING M&E DATA NEEDS PEOPLE, PARTNERSHIP AND PLANNING 1.Organizational structures with HIV M&E functions.
Quality Assurance Review Team Oral Exit Report School Accreditation AUTEC School 4-8 March 2012.
Quality Assurance Review Team Oral Exit Report School Accreditation Center Grove High School 10 November 2010.
Program Evaluation and Outcomes Assessment: Channels to Quality Assurance February 9, 2008 ACCA 4 th National Conference Savannah, GA PRESENTER Laura A.
External Review Team: Roles and Responsibilities A Very Brief Training! conducted by JoLynn Noe Office of Assessment.
District Accreditation Completing the Standards Assessment Report July 20, 2010.
Evaluate Phase Pertemuan Matakuliah: A0774/Information Technology Capital Budgeting Tahun: 2009.
Elementary School Administration and Management GADS 671 Section 55 and 56.
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education CAS Standards and Self- Assessment in Higher Education Tony Ellis, CAE Director of Education,
Quality Assurance Review Team Oral Exit Report School Accreditation Sugar Grove Elementary September 29, 2010.
What is Regional Accreditation? Regional Accreditation is a time-tested model of professional peer review that supports education excellence. Accreditation.
October 20 – November 6, 2014 Alovidin Bakhovidinov Alina Batkayeva
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education.
Selection Criteria and Invitational Priorities School Leadership Program U.S. Department of Education 2005.
The Newly Revised CAS Standards and Guidelines Dr. Luke Jensen February 3, 2011.
School Leadership Evaluation System Orientation SY12-13 Evaluation Systems Office, HR Dr. Michael Shanahan, CHRO.
1 Institutional Quality and Accreditation: A Workshop on the Basics.
EVALUATING EPP-CREATED ASSESSMENTS
Dutchess Community College Middle States Self-Study 2015
DRAFT Standards for the Accreditation of e-Learning Programs
Continuous Improvement through Accreditation AdvancED ESA Accreditation MAISA Conference January 27, 2016.
2017 Annual CRLA Conference November 2, 2017 Pittsburgh, PA
Implementation Guide for Linking Adults to Opportunity
School Leadership Evaluation System Orientation SY12-13
Presentation transcript:

A Connoisseur, a Critic, and a Skeptic walk into a student union… CAS provides a structured method of evaluation: Is the “X” functioning effectively to achieve its mission? X can equal program, service, department What evidence is available to support the determination?

What is CAS? The mission of the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) is to promote the improvement of programs and services to enhance the quality of student learning and development. CAS is a consortium of professional associations who work collaboratively to develop and promulgate standards and guidelines and to encourage self-assessment.

Essential Elements in the CAS Approach Culture that values involvement of all its members Has identified quality indicators Use of standards and guidelines Willingness/capacity: To examine itself and assemble results To report and use the results Credibility, accountability, improvement: Program & service improvement; measures of quality and effectiveness; measures of impact on learning

Purpose Introduce the CAS Standards Develop capacity to conduct CAS self-review Recognize value of Program & Learning Outcomes Provide support and motivation as you continue to progress toward becoming… Mission Driven Evidence-based decision-making Informed Practitioners Culture of Evidence Data driven Able to demonstrate contributions to student learning

Assessment Pyramid SL CAS Accreditation

CAS Self-Assessment Process 1. Establish and prepare the Self-Assessment Teams 2. Compile and evaluate evidence 3. Determine how well Standards are met 4. Where needed, determine appropriate corrective action 5. Recommend steps for program enhancement 6. Prepare an action plan

The Self-Assessment Team Appoint and Train the Team: Size of team ≈ 5 Composition: Faculty, Staff, Students & Others Leader & admin. support Establish team ground rules Discuss meaning of each standard Establish team’s inter-rater reliability Encourage team discussion; expect disagreements; commit to consensual resolution

Team Actions Decide whether to include guidelines or other measures that go beyond the standards Gather and analyze quantitative and qualitative data Individuals rate each and every criterion measure Obtain additional documentary evidence if required to make an informed team decision Complete the assessment, ratings & action plan worksheets

Organization of CAS Standards Mission Program Leadership Human Resources Ethics Legal Responsibilities Equity and Access Diversity Organization and Management Campus and External Relations Financial Resources Technology Facilities and Equipment Assessment and Evaluation

CAS: Standards and Guidelines STANDARD (BOLD TYPE; AUXILARY VERB MUST) must must Financial Aid Programs (FAP) must have adequate, suitably located facilities and equipment to support its mission and goals efficiently and effectively. Facilities and equipment must be evaluated regularly and be in compliance with relevant federal, state, provincial, and local requirements to provide for access, health, safety, and security. GUIDELINE (LIGHT-FACED TYPE; VERB SHOULD) should The program should have facilities or have access to: private office or space for confidential counseling, interviewing, and other meetings office, reception, and storage space and security sufficient to accommodate assigned staff, supplies, equipment, library resources, and machinery conference room or meeting space

Assessment Criteria Example Part 6: FINANCIAL RESOURCES Financial Aid Programs (FAP) must have adequate funding to accomplish its mission and goals. Funding priorities must be determined within the context of the stated mission, goals, objectives, and comprehensive analysis of the needs and capabilities of students and the availability of internal or external resources. FAP must demonstrate fiscal responsibility and cost effectiveness consistent with institutional protocols. PART 6. FINANCIAL RESOURCES (Criterion Measures) Rating ScaleNOTES 6.1 The program has adequate funding to accomplish its mission and goals. ND NR 6.2 Funding priorities are determined within the context of program mission, student needs, and available fiscal resources.ND NR 6.3The program demonstrates fiscal responsibility and cost effectiveness consistent with institutional protocols. ND NR Part 6: Financial Resources Overview Questions A. What is the funding strategy for the program? B. What evidence exists to confirm fiscal responsibility and cost-effectiveness?

Criterion Measure Rating Scale Using this scale, consider the evidence available and decide the extent to which each criterion measure has been met. ND1234NR Not Done Not met Minimally Well Fully Not Rated MetMetMet

CAS: Work Form A Assessment, Ratings, and Significant Items CAS Work Form A Assessment, Ratings, and Significant Items INSTRUCTIONS: This work form should be completed following individual ratings of the participants. For each of the 13 Parts, identify (circle) the criterion measure item number(s) in the column labeled for which there is a substantial rating discrepancy (two or more ratings apart). Items not circled should reflect consensus among judges that practice in that area is satisfactory. Items where judgment variance occurs need to be discussed thoroughly by team members. Follow this action by determining which practices (criterion measures) can be designated as “excellent” or “unsatisfactory” and record them in the Step One column. In Step Two, list the items requiring follow-up action including any criterion measure rated as being unsatisfactory by any reviewer. Step One PartItemsExcellentUnsatisfactory 1.Mission1.1a b c Program d e a 2.8f b c 2.10

CAS: Work Form A continued Step Two: List item number(s) for each Part determined to merit follow-up and describe the practice weaknesses that require attention

CAS Work Form B: Follow Up Actions INSTRUCTIONS: The purpose of this work form is to begin the planning for action to be taken on the practices judged to merit follow-up (See Step 1, Work Form A). In Step Three, transfer short descriptions of the practices requiring follow- up and detail these items using the table format provided. Step Three: Describe the current practice that requires change and actions to initiate the change Practice Description Corrective Action Sought Task Assigned ToTimeline Due Dates

CAS Work Form C: Summary Action Plan Step Four: This form concludes the self-assessment process and calls for action to be taken as a consequence of study results. Write a brief action plan statement in the spaces below for each Part in which action is required. Part 1: Mission Part 2: Program Part 3: Leadership Part 4: Human Resources Part 5: Ethics

An iterative Cycle… 1. Purpose & scope of study is defined 2. Self-study team is created and trained 3. Evaluative evidence is collected 4. Determine how well Standards are met 5. Appropriate actions are recognized 6. Action plan is developed and approved 7. Plan is communicated and enacted 8. Repeat (i.e., step 1 = check if improvement achieved)

Participant Outcomes In order to be able to conduct a CAS self-review, by the end of this session participants will be able to: Articulate the purpose and benefits of the review Articulate the purpose and benefits of the review Feel increased self-efficacy Feel increased self-efficacy Identify institutional stakeholders needed for review process Identify institutional stakeholders needed for review process Identify and obtain appropriate sources of data/evidence Identify and obtain appropriate sources of data/evidence Use data to evaluate compliance with standards & guidelines Use data to evaluate compliance with standards & guidelines Document and present the results of the review Document and present the results of the review