alo workshop

1

Accreditation Liaison OfficersAnnual Workshop

SPONSORED BY ACSCU IN COLLABORATION WITH ACCJC

2

SUSTAINABILITY: A VISIONFOR HIGHER EDUCATION

2010 WASC CONFERENCE

Welcome and Introductions

• WASC Staff– Directors: Keith Bell, Richard Giardina, Diane

Harvey, Dick Osborn, Richard Winn, Ralph Wolff, Barbara Wright

– Managers: Amy Allington, Chris Castagnola, Julie Kotovsky, Henry Hernandez, Sharyl McGrew, Siobhan Williams

– Support Staff: Raymond Lui, Jessica Massoletti, Muey Saechao, Jamie Wilkins

3

Welcome to New ALOs

Recognition of ALO Participation in WASC

ActivitiesSUSTAINABILITY: A VISIONFOR HIGHER EDUCATION


4

Status Report on WASC



5



Our Institutions

• 156 accredited and four candidate institutions (as of 06/2009)

• Represents more than 870,000 students • Public institutions = 25% of institutions and

70% of students• 17+% are large (>10,000 FTE) and 42+% are

small (<1000 FTE)

6



New WASC Institutions• 18 institutions in eligibility (as of 03/2010)• 41 have applied in the last 10 years, ¾ of these in the

last five years• Very diverse group of institutions:

– 8 already accredited– 9 proprietary, 5 state supported, the rest non-profit– 9 faith-based– 30 are specialized in offerings– Half are graduate-only

7



Peer Participation in WASC Activities2008-09

• 25 Commissioners• 49 Committee members and 16 Task Force

members• 293 team members

– More diversity than previous years – More CEOs and faculty members

8



Committee Activity (2008-09)

• 7 Proposals reviewed by the PRC– 3 approved on first review– 4 approved after revision and resubmission

• 10 Interim Reports reviewed by the IRC• 93 Substantive Changes reviewed

– 74 approved– Seven structural changes reviewed and approved

9



Visit Activity (2009-10)• 34 Visits in fall 2009 and 32 Visits in

spring 2010• 31 CPR, 27 EER, and 8 Special Visits • 57 Commission actions expected by June

2010*

*Eligibility visits and CPRs for Candidacy are not reviewed by the Commission

10



Educational Effectiveness ReviewsCompleted

• About 2/3 will have completed an EER by June 2010

• All but four institutions will have completed EERs under the three-stage process by June 2012

11



Terms of Accreditation Granted(Feb. 2003- Feb. 2010)

Reaccreditation Actions

Year 7 yr 8 – 8 ½ yr

9 – 9 ½ yr

10 yr

2003 1 4

2004 3 5

2005 6 4

2006 3 3

2007 7 0

2008 6 5 1 3

2009 7 3 1 2

2010 4 3 2 1

Total 37 11 4 22

30%

50%

5%

15%

10 Year 7 Year 9-9 1/2 year 8 - 8 1/2 year

12



More on Commission Actions• Increase in Interim Reports• Most frequent issues for Interim Reports and

Special Visits– Educational effectiveness/assessment/outcomes– Financial issues

13

Educational Activities

• Academic Resource Conference – Annual attendance: 750-850, representing 200-

250 institutions• Educational Seminars/Workshops

– Enrollment reached 750 this year, representing almost 250 institutions

• Includes assessment workshops, program review (new this year), president/trustee workshops



14

Assessment Leadership Academy

• Designed to prepare the next generation of leaders in assessment– Building capacity and intellectual capital

• 59 applied; 30 admitted• Ten-month program, March to January• In-person and online • Prominent leaders in higher education



15

Dues and Fees• No general dues increases in 2009-10 and 2010-11

– Increase in the number of FTE tiers – New site maintenance fee ($100 per site)– Change in multi-site fees for visits ($500 per site)

• Substantive Change– Increase in fees for changes in ownership and control

• Eligibility, Candidacy and Initial Accreditation– Increase in fee for application for candidacy– New fee for initial accreditation of institutions already

accredited



16

Future Directions of Accountability and Public Policy



17

Key Public Policy Issues

• Retention and graduation/cost• Student learning outcomes• Online education: rapid growth and

questions of quality• The rapid rise of for-profit higher

education



18



New and Proposed Regulations

• State authorization • New and proposed federal regulations • Definitions of the degrees

19

DEFINING THE CREDIT HOUR: DRAFT REGULATORY LANGUAGE602.24 Additional procedures that certain institutional accreditors

must have: [after striking out reference to Carnegie Unit criteria](c) Credit Hour Policies. The accrediting agency, as part of its review of an institution for initial accreditation or preaccreditation or renewal of accreditation, must conduct an effective review and evaluation of the reliability and accuracy of the institution’s assignment of credit hours.

The agency meets this requirement if – (1) It reviews the institution’s –

(i) Policies and procedures for determining the credit hours that it assigns to courses and programs; and (ii) The application of the institution’s policies and procedures to its programs and coursework; and

(2) Makes a reasonable determination of whether the institution’s assignment of credit hours conforms to accepted practice in higher education.

20

(3) In reviewing and evaluating whether an institution’s policies and procedures for determining credit hour assignments, an accrediting agency may use sampling or other methods in the evaluation sufficient to comply with (2).

(4) The accrediting agency must take such actions that it deems appropriate to address any deficiencies identified at an institution as part of its evaluations under paragraph (c) (1) and (2) of this section, as it does in relation to other deficiencies it may identify, subject to the requirements of the criteria for recognition for enforcement of agency requirements.

(5) If, following the institutional review process under this paragraph, the agency finds systematic noncompliance with the agency’s policies and significant noncompliance regarding one or more programs at the institution, the agency shall promptly notify the Secretary.

21

Implications of Policy Discussions for WASC and its Institutions

• Raises questions about the credibility of accreditation as an agent of quality assurance and accountability

• Calls for greater transparency and clarity about what we do and what it means

• Has implications for the next Handbook revisions



22

Task Force on Student Success



23

Background on Task Forces

• 2008-09 Task Forces– Program Review – Transparency and Accountability

• 2008-10 Task Force on Student Success



24



MembersTask Force on Student Success

• Heather Brown, 2009-10Assistant Vice President, Institutional Planning and ResearchMount St. Mary's College

• Gillian Butler, 2008-10Director, Student Affairs Research and InformationUC Davis

• Nandini Dasgupta, 2009-10Director, Institutional Research and Evaluation Samuel Merritt University

• Cherron Hoppes, 2008-10 Dean, Undergraduate ProgramsGolden Gate University

• Cel Johnson, 2009-10

Executive Director, Institutional Research and PlanningUniversity of San Diego

• Halyna Kornuta, Chair of the Task Force in 2008-09Director of Educational EffectivenessCalifornia Lutheran University

• Sheri McKenzie, 2008-10Vice President for Enrollment ManagementCalifornia College of the Arts

• Jose Moreno, 2008-10Assistant ProfessorCSU Long Beach

• Eduardo Ochoa, 2008-10Provost Sonoma State University

• Jing Wang, 2009-10Director of Institutional ResearchCalifornia State University, Sacramento

• Fred Wood, 2008-09Vice Chancellor, Student AffairsUniversity of California, Davis

• Samples Consultant: David Fairris • Vice Provost, Undergraduate Education• UC Riverside

• Responder: William A. LadusawVice Provost and Dean, Undergraduate EducationUniversity of California, Santa Cruz

25



Task Force Report on Student Success

• Introduction• Collecting and Analyzing Data: The Workbook• Making Meaning of and Acting on Data• Elements of an Effective Student Success

Program• Appendices

26

TFSS: Introduction

• Why are retention and graduation rates so important? How did we get here?– 2001 shift in emphasis from inputs to outcomes– Greater focus on student learning and

achievement– Findings from reviews– The national policy discussion– 2008 formalized requirements to address



27

Collecting and Analyzing Data

Retention and Graduation RatesTime to Degree



2828

IPEDS Requirements

• IPEDS Fall Enrollment Survey:Retention rates for full- and part-time freshmen

• IPEDS Graduation Rate Survey:Graduation rates for full-time freshmen at 4, 5, 6, and 8 years



2929

Cohorts to Track

• IPEDS: first-time, degree-seeking students– Retention rates for full time and part time– Graduation rates for full time

• WASC: additional entering cohorts– Transfer student cohorts– Graduate student cohorts



3030

Cohort Issues

• Full- and part-time students: separate cohorts?

• Transfers: class standing or year of entry?

• Grad students: single or combined programs?



3131

Demographic Indicators

• IPEDS: federally mandated– Gender– Race/ethnicity

• WASC: mission oriented, problem oriented– In or out of state– Previous school type (high school or college)– Entering test scores– Advanced standing



3232

Academic Environment Indicators

• Resident or commuter• Undergraduate major or graduate program• STEM or non-STEM field• Varsity athletic teams• Financial aid factors• Participation in targeted program• Remediation status



3333

Time to Degree

• No federal requirements

• Another way to look at success– Looks backward rather than forward– Focus is on graduating cohorts– Looks at efficiency rather than effectiveness– Academic environment factors are fixed



3434

Cohorts and Data• Use IPEDS Completions graduating cohort

– Gender and race/ethnicity– Major

• Add essential data– Date of entry– Status at entry (freshman or transfer)

• Add more indicators– Demographic– Academic environment



3535

Measurement Options

• Time elapsed between entry and graduation– Calendar time– Academic years

• Terms enrolled between entry and graduation

• Credits accumulated at time of graduation



3636

Using the Results• Establish overall rates and targets

– Internal studies– Peer comparisons

• Disaggregate the data appropriately• Identify groups or programs with problems• Determine the reasons for the differences• Establish programs to improve experiences• Assess, evaluate, and repeat as necessary!



37

TFSS: Making Meaning of and Acting on Data

• Making meaning of data• Acting on data

• Finding comparative data



38

Making Meaning of the Data

• Take stock of existing reports, and look for ways to enhance them

• Involve members from various groups in discussion of the scope, design and purpose of the reports



39

Making Meaning of the Data • Consider how responsibilities for success and

retention performance are currently distributed– Involve those who have clear responsibility for

contributing to student success and – those who don’t typically consider these

indicators on a routine basis (e.g., admissions, financial aid).

• The idea: get fresh perspectives, consensus about future goals and improvements



40

Taking ActionConsider formal decision-making processes and

extent to which they are they informed by student performance

Questions for exploration (see also p. 22 of report)• How are measures of student success incorporated into the

cyclical program review process?• Is there a comprehensive retention and graduation plan?• Have student success goals and objectives been established

in the strategic plan?• How do retention and graduation rates and/or the

achievement of goals and objectives factor into annual and long range resource allocation processes?‐ ‐



41

Taking Action• Review and reassess performance,

measures and action on a regular basis

“It’s really no longer a question of whether institutions can get the data they need – it’s whether they invest in analyzing the data they already have. Using information to drive improvement is a consistent theme among high-performing institutions….” ~ K.Carey for EdTrust



42

Finding Comparative Data and Benchmarking: Resources

• IPEDS• College Results Online (from The Education

Trust) – draws upon IPEDS GRS data with friendlier interface

• College Insight (from the Institute for College Access & Success)



43

More Resources

• Information from state systems and membership in various consortia

• Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE)

• National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)



44

Making meaning of and taking action on data requires

time and attention on

• details and the bigger picture• internal and external perspective



45

TFSS: Effective Student Success Programs

• Elements of an effective program– Data based– Collaboratively developed– Targeted and strategic– Accountability established– Tracking, assessing and adjusting planned

• Samples– Built on analysis of data– Proven effective by data



46

TFSS: Appendices

• Workbook and Spreadsheet• Examples of Process/Key Indicators• Samples• Bibliography



47



TFSS Report: ALO Discussion Groups

• Large(ish) comprehensive undergraduate and graduate

• Small(ish) with undergraduate focus• Specialized or limited range of degree

programs• E.g., seminaries, fine arts/art, health care, and

psychology • Graduate only; doctorate only

48

TFSS Report: Discussion Group Questions

• What is most useful? Works best? Seems most relevant?

• What is unclear? Insufficiently developed? Not relevant to you?

• What is missing?• Who at your institution would use this?



49

Task Force on Student Success

Final Thoughts



50

WASC Updates

Substantive ChangeTechnology



51



Substantive Change Policy

• Fast Track– Authorization extended from 4 to 5 years– No site visits at end of authorization period

• Blended degree category eliminated• Contracts with Unaccredited Organizations• Verification of Online Student Identity

52



Substantive ChangeMore Updates

• More proposal samples on web– samples.wascsenior.org

• Revised Substantive Change Manual• Increase in some Structural Change fees

53



New/Revised Substantive Change PoliciesComing in July 2010

• Authorization for off-campus sites, if:• +3 off-campus sites• Accredited more than 10 years• Sufficient capacity

• Policy on Dual and Joint Degrees

54



Technology Update

55

Handbook Revision

Strategic Vision for the Handbook 2012-2020



56

2001 Handbook of Accreditation• Background and history

– From inputs to outcomes– Culture of evidence– Emphasis on student learning– Formative and developmental approach

• Refinements and improvements• Learning from external review• Learning from evaluations



57



Handbook Revision: Inclusive, open, seeking innovation

• Review of Handbook every seven years• Promise to the region to review the Standards

and three-stage process after full implementation

• Need for adaptations re:– external accountability and other external factors– internal improvement

58



Goals for the Handbook Revision

• Increase accountability for high levels of student achievement (outcomes and retention/graduation)

• Implement accreditation process cost effectively using technology

• Promote and disseminate good practice

59



Conditions to be considered …

• Global and national economics• National degree attainment goals/retention

and graduation rates• Absolute levels of learning v. assessment

process• The meaning of a baccalaureate degree/

“degree level frameworks”

60



More conditions …

• Emerging institutional structures• Rapid growth of online education• Promoting, not impairing, innovation• Transparency: Institutional and WASC

61



Steps and Structures for the Handbook Revision Process

• Survey of presidents, CAOs, ALOs, faculty• Focus groups of employers, students and parents • Meetings with key groups (systems, affinity groups)• NCHEMS reliability study• Regional concept development sessions• Online discussion• Analysis of data and evaluations; studies (e.g. Boyce)• Development of pilots

62

Structures

• Vision statement/philosophy• Steering committee• Committees on policies, e.g., graduate

education, international studies, collective bargaining, diversity, credit for prior learning

• Committee on Institutional Review Process• Committee on Standards of Accreditation

63

Handbook Revision: First Chance for Input

• What works best about the process?– What do you most value about the process? – What do you want to preserve?

• What has not worked well?– What would you most like to change? OR– How can we help you to address your challenges?

• What policy issues should be addressed in the revisions?



64

Thank You Accreditation Liaison Officers!

