Situating WASC Accreditation in the 21st Century

Regional ForumsOctober 2011

Goals of the Redesign ProcessApproved by the Commission November 2010

1. Shorten and/or focus the institutional review process and create multiple, adaptive approaches to review.

2. Develop a clear public accountability and quality assurance role that moves beyond minimum standards.

3. Increase transparency.4. Explore core competencies, graduation proficiencies,

and the possible applications of the Lumina Degree Qualifications Profile (DQP) within the accreditation process.

5. Identify levels of accreditation, moving beyond merely being “accredited” or not.

Goals (continued)6. Bridge senior-level institutions with community colleges

more effectively.7. Clarify what can be taken off the table in the review

process for institutions with long histories of compliance.8. Explore alternative models and new approaches to

education and credentialing and the role of WASC in that effort.

9. Increase oversight of for-profit institutions, especially those that are publicly traded.

10.Develop a public advocacy role to communicate about issues of quality and effectiveness in higher education.

Goals of the Redesign Process

6

Pressures on Accreditation

Accreditation

External

Concerns

Internal Dissatisfac

tion

External Concerns

• Accreditation does not: – Address low completion– Hold institutions to high standards of learning– Provide meaningful public accountability– Provide transparency about its actions– Catch and deal with abuses of for profits– Provide adequate consumer protection

Is College Worth it?

• Arum & Roksa, Academically Adrift: 45% showed no learning gains at end of sophomore year, 36% at end of senior year

• Peter Thiel’s challenge to fund entrepreneurs not to complete college

• Roper Survey: nearly half of college graduates don’t think they got their money’s worth

• AAC&U employer surveys: unprepared graduates for workforce

Internal Dissatisfaction

• Common concerns identified by WASC surveys:– Process takes too long – Too costly for value added– Too rigid and process oriented– Barrier to innovation– Too variable and inconsistent in teams and

decisions

Alternatives Being Considered

• Limited set of finance and completion indicators with an open market

• Federally operated eligibility process• Segmental accreditation• Separate accreditation for for-profit

institutions• Congressionally or Departmentally set

standards (bright lines)

Core Principles of AccreditationGate-keeping/ Compliance Centered

Improvement Centered

Public Accountability and Assurance

Scope of Review

All standards applied to assure compliance

Key areas selected and approved by accreditor for improvement

Specific areas identified for all reviews to address common policy issues i.e. retention/ graduation, student learning outcomes

Level of Judgment

Standards met at least minimum level

Simplify compliance review; primary emphasis on improvement

External benchmarking with comparative indicators of institutional type

Public Reporting

Public announcement of accreditation

Reports internally circulated for improvement; accrediting action publicly reported

Meaningful and clear public reporting about institutional performance; Commission actions reported

Repurposing Accreditation

Revised IRP adaptive to each

institution’s context; right-sized cost and work load

Open and responsive to innovation; a 21st century

model of accreditation

Robust and visible agent of public

accountability and quality assurance

Where is the Region? Institutional Data 

2009-2010

Total Member Institutions: Accredited and Candidate Institutions 163

Total Eligible Institutions 22Total Students (FTE) Educated by Our Member Institutions 967,189

Percent of WASC Members that are Public InstitutionsPercent of Students (FTE) Educated by Public Institutions

22% 

72%

Institutions with > 10,000 FTE: Percent of WASC Membership Percent of Enrollment

 17%74%

Institutions with 1,000 -10,000 FTE: Percent of WASC MembershipPercent of Enrollment

 40%24%

Institutions with < 1000 FTE: Percent of WASC MembershipPercent of Enrollment

 43%2%

Terms Granted at ReaffirmationJune 2008 through June 2011 (84 institutions)

Interim Reports and Special Visits requestedJune 2008 through June 2011 (84 institutions)

EERs Rescheduled Following CPRFebruary 2010 through June 2011

Total CPRs during this period = 34Total rescheduled = 14 (41%)

Library

Moving to University Structure

Integrity

New Location

Institutional research

Graduate Education

Information technology

General Education

Faculty / Staff

Retention / Student Success

Diversity

Enrollment

Governance / Leadership

Strategic Planning

Financials

Educational Effectiveness

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

1

1

2

2

4

5

5

9

16

18

19

21

24

35

48

82

Interim Report Indicators (Based on action from February 2004 - June 2011)

Frequency

Are

as

of

Co

nc

ern

Initial Accreditation

Reporting

Faith-based Education

General Education

Institutional Research

Comunication

Library

Organizational Structures

Evidence

Academic / Student Support

Graduate Education

Diversity

Integrity

Faculty / Staff

Enrollment

Strategic Planning

Governance / Leadership

Financials

Educational Effectiveness

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1

1

2

2

2

3

3

3

4

6

8

11

12

14

20

42

44

47

49

Special Visit Indicators (Based on actions from February 2004 - June 2011)

Frequency

Are

as o

f C

on

cern

Review of published

graduation rates

Team ratings of institutions on the Framework for Evaluating Educational

Effectiveness

Commission Research

Finance Review

• Triennially • 3 panels: publicly funded, privately funded

and for-profit• Results folded into the review process

Emphasis on Improving Retention and Graduation

• Narrative and numbers• Focus on Associate’s and Bachelor’s degrees in

2013 and 2014• Focus on Graduate programs in 2014 and 2015

CFR 2.2a

Baccalaureate “programs ensure the development of core learning abilities and competencies including, but not limited to, college-level written and oral communication; college-level quantitative skills; information literacy; and the habit of critical thinking.”

Institutional Requirements

• In the comprehensive review process, the institution will be required to demonstrate the 5 proficiencies in CFR 2.2(a) at graduation

• Externally validate at least 2• Additionally demonstrate

institutionally selected proficiencies

Emphasis on the Meaning of the Degree

CFR 2.2: “All degrees-undergraduate and graduate-awarded by the institutions 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.”

“The Commission sees value in exploring the DQP as a potential tool to define degree outcomes and seeks to engage a broad array of institutions in exploring its usefulness through a series of piloting activities.”

Revised Institutional Review Process (IRP)

Elements of the IRP:The Institutional NarrativeResponse to previous Commission ActionResponse (as needed) to the Finance ReviewResponse (as needed) to the Retention and Graduation ReviewNarrative should discuss:• The meaning and rigor of degrees offered• How the institution assures the achievement of the 5

undergraduate degree outcomes specified in CFR 2.2 and other areas identified by the institution

• How the institution defines and assures student success with the distinctive elements of the institution’s mission and goals

• How the institution assures the sustainability of its operations and responds to the changing ecology

Proposed Timeline for Institutions with the next CPR visit in fall 2013Institutions that are scheduled to complete a re-accreditation CPR visit in fall 2013 will be

the first set of institutions to apply the Standards under the new two-stage model.

YEAR Spring 2012

Fall 2012

Spring 2013

Fall 2013

Spring 2014

Fall 2014

Spring 2015

Offsite Review

X

Onsite Review

X

Commission Action 

X

 

Annual Reports

X X X X

Offsite Review Retention and Graduation1 

X(for

undergraduate students)

X(for graduate

students)

Offsite Finance Review1

x

1 The Retention and Graduation and Finance Reviews will be before the Offsite Review so the feedback can be incorporated into the review process

Proposed Timeline for institutions with their next CPR visit in spring 2013Institutions that are scheduled to complete a re-accreditation CPR visit in spring 2013 will have the

option to either stay under the old accreditation model or to pilot the new two-stage model.

YEAR Spring 2012

Fall 2012

Spring 2013

Fall2013

Spring 2014

Fall 2014

Spring 2015

Offsite Review

X

Onsite Review

X

Commission Action 

X

 

Annual Reports

x X X X

Offsite Review of Retention 

and Graduation1

X(for

undergraduate students)

X (for graduate

students)

Offsite Finance Review1

X

1 The Retention and Graduation and Finance Reviews will be before the Offsite Review so the feedback can be incorporated into the review process

Moving Forward

Cohorts on Graduation Proficiencies

WASC will help organize voluntary cohorts around the graduation proficiencies: • Written and oral communication • Quantitative skills • Critical thinking• Information literacy These cohorts can discuss best practices and can help with benchmarking.

Resource Fairs

Explore assessment tools to measure graduation proficiencies in CFR 2.2• January 19th (Northern California) • January 20th (Southern California)Examples of vendors:

Working with the DQP

WASC is convening learning communities to pilot the DQP. Institutions can pilot the DQP internally within the institution, cross-institutionally or use it as a framework within the accrediting process. Teams will also pilot its use as a framework during the review.

DQP Pilot - Interested InstitutionsUniversity of Hawai’i System – Multiple Foci• Cross-system• Cross-institutional with

other Hawai’i and South Pacific schools

• Individual campus based

Small Faith-based Institutions• The Master’s College• Point Loma Nazarene

University• Marymount College• Holy Names University

UC Santa Cruz Brandman UniversityUniversity of San Diego CSU FresnoUniversity of LaVerne Occidental CollegeAshford University California Lutheran UniversityHawai’i Pacific University Academy of Art UniversityNational University CSU East bayVanguard University

Providing Feedback

• Public Comment on the Web at http://wascsenior.uservoice.com

• Direct, written comments to jworchel@wascsenior.org

• Oral presentation at the Commission Public Hearing on November 3 from 10 am – 12 pm. Register at http://wascpublichearing2011.eventbrite.com/

Thank youDownload the QR Scanner, take a picture of the barcode, and get connected

to the comments webpage.

35