Joint ATS-WASC Accreditation Reviews

1. Joint ATS-WASC Accreditation Reviews Please join the audio portion of this training: 1-866-854-6779 Access code *1912504*

2. Announcements This presentation and the accompanying materials are available for download from: http://www.wascsenior.org/ats2009 For assistance with Voice and Web connections please contact: Genesys Help Desk, 1-866-436-3797(press option 2) Please mute your microphone if you are not speaking

3. 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

4. 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

5. Protocol for the Conductof Joint VisitsWASC & ATS * ATS Protocol

6. 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

7. Responsibilities of the WASC and ATS Staff • Orientation of ATS/WASC Chairs • Coordination of team recommendations and respective Commission actions • Staffing of visits [two visits: Capacity and Preparatory Review (CPR) and Educational Effectiveness Review (EER)] • Normally most CPR members also serve, if possible, on EER team

8. Responsibilities of theWASC 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 • WASC staff consult with school on dates and coordinate with ATS staff • Materials for visits sent to each agency and to team members 12 weeks prior

9. Responsibilities ofTeam Members • Team Co-Chairs (one from each agency) • Role of ATS Co-Chair: The usual ATS chair duties AND preparation of the ATS supplemental report • 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: Preference for joint reports with ATS supplement that addresses ATS standards that might not be covered in joint report • Team Recommendations: • Consensus desired with respect to recommendations and monitoring actions • Alignment desired as much as possible, but differences may emerge • Note difference about team recommendation to commissions * CPR Report Template * EER Report Template

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. * 3 Stage Process

13. More on the Scope of the Two Reviews * Expectations for 2 Reviews

14. 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 WASC Expectations about Assessment of Student Learning * Closing the Loop

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 * Pre-Visit Conference Call Worksheet- CPR and EER

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 * Alignment of ATS and WASC Standards

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

18. WASC Standards at a Glance * Standards at a Glance * WASC Standards

19. STANDARD 1:Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational ObjectivesInstitutional PurposesIntegrity

20. STANDARD 2:Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core FunctionsTeaching and LearningScholarship and CreativitySupport for Student Learning

21. STANDARD 3:Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Ensure SustainabilityFaculty and StaffFiscal, Physical, and Information ResourcesOrganizational Structures and Decision-Making Processes

22. STANDARD 4:Creating an Organization Committed to Learning and ImprovementStrategic Thinking and Planning Commitment to Learning and Improvement

23. What’s New on WASC Visits in 2009-10

24. New on WASC Visits, 2009-10 • Systematic review and reporting of off-campus sites and distance education programs • Team rating of institution on Framework for Evaluating Educational Effectiveness (pilot) • Compliance audits for new and sanctioned institutions • Revisions to CFRs adopted in 2008 • Coverage of student success on both reviews • Coverage of program review at EER stage

25. 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 * Rubrics: Capstone, PLO, Program Review, Portfolio

26. 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

27. 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 * Educational Effectiveness Framework

28. 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

29. Thank You! This presentation and the accompanying materials are available for download from: http://www.wascsenior.org/ats2009