Key Elements of Commission Action

1. Phase 1 of the WASC Redesign Is Now Adopted: Where Are We & What’s Next?Ralph Wolff, PresidentWASC

2. Key Elements of Commission Action • Transparency • Validation of Retention and Graduation • Triennial Financial Reviews • Validating Graduation Proficiencies • Assuring the Meaning, Quality, and Rigor of Degrees • Piloting the DQP • Implementing the Revised Institutional Review Process (IRP) ALA 1-12

3. Transparency • Starts with June 2012 Commission actions and forward • All team reports and actions posted on WASC website • Notice of Concern becomes public going forward • Link to any institutional response • All structural and substantive change actions • Revised disclosure statements/ Commission policies ALA 1-12

4. Validation of Retention and Graduation • Narrative and template forms to be circulated after Commission review February 2012 • WASC review committees formed in summer 2012, trained in fall 2012 with pilot • Review of all institutions awarding undergraduate degrees in 2013 and 2014 • Review of graduate programs 2014 and 2015 ALA 1-12

5. Retention/Graduation (2) • Institutional narratives to include: • Institutional description, mission and student info • Self-evaluation of 3 years + of data; trends and areas of needed improvement identified, • Disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, SES, first generation, transfer and part-time students, • Comparison to external sources • Areas for improvement, targets and timelines identified ALA 1-12

6. Triennial Financial Review • Separate panels for public, nonprofit, and for- profit • Use of auditing firm or independent CPA for for-profits • Reviews based on audits and ratio analysis with triggers • Results fed into IRP unless more immediate monitoring is needed • Commencing summer 2012 ALA 1-12

7. Validating Graduation Proficiencies • Application of CFRs 2.2(a), 2.6, and 2.7 • Graduation proficiencies as: • Written communication • Oral communication • Quantitative skills • Critical thinking • Information literacy • Program/major field outcomes • Other outcomes identified by institution ALA 1-12

8. Graduation Proficiencies (2) • Institutional responsibilities: • Define each proficiency • Establish level of performance for graduation • Determine how the proficiency is to be assessed • Demonstrate level of performance meets or surpasses institutional standards • Variations likely within and across institutions • Multiple methods and approaches • Innovation welcome ALA 1-12

9. Graduation Proficiencies (3) • Possible ways of demonstrating proficiencies: • Calibrating levels of performance (across institution/schools/programs) • Setting performance standards for all students and demonstrating consistent achievement through sampling • Building on existing practices: adding to program review process, reviews of student work through capstone or portfolios ALA 1-12

10. Graduation Proficiencies (4) • Validation: internal and external • Assuring that standards are appropriate and results are “good enough” • Cross-departmental or school reviews within the institution • Cross-institutional comparisons through shared scoring of rubrics, benchmarking on common examinations, results from external tests or instruments • Use of multiple approaches (direct, indirect, periodic) ALA 1-12

11. Emphasis on the Meaning, Quality and Rigor of the Degree CFR 2.2: “All degrees-undergraduate and graduate-awarded by the institution are clearly defined in terms of entry-level requirements and in terms of levels of student achievement necessary for graduation that represents more than simply an accumulation of courses or credits.” CFR 1.2 “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. “ ALA 1-12

12. Meaning of the Degree (2) • Institutional responsibilities: • Demonstration that the degrees offered, as a whole, have a coherent structure, clearly defined outcomes, and appropriate sequencing of courses and learning activities to assure achievement of expected proficiencies at graduation • Effective practices to assure the quality and rigor of degrees awarded ALA 1-12

13. Meaning of the Degree (3) • Ways of demonstrating the meaning, quality, and rigor of the degree: • Curricular maps for the degree as a whole • Sampling of course syllabi to ensure outcomes are embedded, and at increasing levels of proficiency • Review of student assignments and work products to ensure engagement • Student and alumni surveys (NSSE, UCUES, others) ALA 1-12

14. Voluntary Piloting of the Degree Qualifications Profile • DQP provides common language to discuss the meaning of the degree—in terms of a coherent framework, areas of learning, and degree outcomes. • DQP provides a distinction between various degree levels, i.e. associate’s, bachelor’s, and master’s. • DQP can be used to analyze general education, program review, and the components of a degree. ALA 1-12

15. Piloting the DQP (2) • Ways institutions are piloting application of the DQP: • The Master’s College is using the DQP to look at GE and major requirements and seeing how they align with their institutional learning outcomes. • UC, Santa Cruz School of Humanities is using the DQP to evaluate their programs within their school. • University of LaVerne is using the DQP in their coordinating of what they are designing as “The LaVerne experience”. ALA 1-12

16. Piloting the DQP (3) • Goals of the DQP Learning Community: • To share promising practices • To provide support for institutions as they review their degrees, programs, and general education • To determine/promote common ways to discuss degrees across all institutions • 28 institutions in pilot – Brandman, National, Marymount already deeply engaged ALA 1-12

17. Student Success • What does student success mean at your institution? What are the distinctive characteristics you want for your students? • What is working to assure student success? How can you demonstrate that it is occurring? • What is being done to improve success both qualitatively and quantitatively? ALA 1-12

18. The Redesigned Institutional Review Process (IRP) • Restructured to be shorter and more focused on student success and student learning • Process combines review panels for retention/graduation and finance with a new comprehensive review process of a day-long offsite review followed 1-2 semesters later with an focused onsite visit • Institutions will file a single narrative with a supporting portfolio ALA 1-12

19. Redesigned IRP (2) • To be developed: • Criteria for adapting process to institutional accrediting history, current status and key issues • Development of dashboard indicators for determining early warning signs in finance and other areas • Expanded compliance audit; chapter headings with big framing questions • Reframing role of WASC staff to support new process ALA 1-12

20. Additional Steps • Transparency: development of a quality matrix; further attention to institutional transparency • Standards of Accreditation: to be reviewed by Steering Committee and discussed at 2012 ARC • Commission Policies: to be updated by expert sub-groups • Additional criteria for for-profit institutions • Consideration of levels of accreditation • Changing ecology: embedding within WASC exploration of dynamic changes in content, delivery methods, organizational forms, and learning approaches ALA 1-12

21. Challenges • External validation/benchmarking • Implementing graduation proficiencies adaptively • Timeline for implementation • Piloting of Degree Qualifications Profile • Training of panel and team member • Pressure to take tougher actions/weed out the ‘bad actors’ ALA 1-12