MEMBERSHIP
TOP THE VALUE OF THIS ASSIGNMENT The new WASC approach to accreditation is an important innovation in higher education. It promises to help us meet our own internally-defined goals by focusing on:
- assisting the institution in its efforts to be accountable for student learning results;
- presenting a balanced view of the institution;
- finding what WASC calls the “Good Catch,” that is, identifying issues that need attention; and
- sustaining a learning-centered culture.
This process at Point Loma Nazarene University will seek to look openly and honestly at the challenge of placing learning as a strategic institutional priority and providing, for us as well as for WASC, a full assessment and appropriate recommendations as befitting a quality Christian institution of higher education.
There is no need to present an ideal institution or seek to protect the University from criticism; this is about a careful analysis that leads to institutional improvement. TOP WEB RESOURCES The University has launched a Web site at
www.pointloma.edu/accreditation containing helpful information for internal and public reference. Though undergoing continual updates, the site currently contains the following items of interest:
- An introductory front page;
- An explanation of the “Accreditation Process;”
- A list of the WASC Steering Committee members;
- A list of all WASC committees and their memberships;
- A Glossary of Terms;
- A link to PLNU’s approved Institutional Proposal (pdf);
- A link to WASC’s 2001 Handbook of Accreditation (pdf); and
- A link to WASC’s Evidence Guide (pdf).
TOP ORGANIZATION Duties of the Chair. The chair, of course, is given the responsibility for convening Group Three at times and places that are possible for the majority of the membership. The chair will communicate the
CHARGE (see below), work through the designated liaison with the WASC Steering Committee (WSC) for further clarification as needed, prepare reports and documents, and meet the project deadline (see
TIMEFRAME and
CALENDAR below). Initially, it may be helpful for the group to read and discuss the general information regarding the reaffirmation of accreditation (“Accreditation Process”) found on the University’s Web site.
Expectations of the Liaison. Every group and task force involved in the reaffirmation process is assigned a liaison from the WASC Steering Committee. Working closely with the chair, the liaison serves to relay questions and clarifications and to provide routine updates and progress reports to monthly meetings of the WASC Steering Committee. The liaison is expected to engage fully in the work of the group or task force but does not have a vote, should one be taken in the course of deliberations.
Work of the Group. The first meeting of the group should include a time for addressing organizational issues, especially the designation of a recorder/secretary. That person will maintain a record of group meetings and create electronic documents as needed. In some cases, chairs may also want to designate a team writer who will be responsible for polishing the narrative report of the group’s work. While it is assumed the conclusions and recommendations of groups and task forces are by consensus, voting on these matters is certainly appropriate when it is determined to be desirable. Minutes of all meetings should be submitted periodically to Keith Bell, Accreditation Liaison Officer and coordinator for the WASC Steering Committee, as well as the final report at deadline.
Off-site Group Members. In an attempt to include participants from the broader University community, faculty and administrators from Arcadia, Bakersfield, Mission Valley, and the Board of Trustees have been assigned to groups and task forces. Whenever possible, special consideration should be given to persons who are not routinely on the main campus when scheduling meetings. It may be necessary to plan meetings that coincide with already-scheduled visits to the Point (Board of Trustees meetings, faculty meetings on Wednesdays, etc.). Normally, members should not be asked to travel to San Diego for the sole purpose of attending a group meeting.
Engagement with the Entire PLNU Community. Since the scope of WASC assignments is broad, it is essential—when appropriate—that non-members become engaged in conversations and in the evaluations being made. For example, when a topic for consideration focuses on an area not well represented in the membership of the group or task force, care should be taken to engage those faculty, staff, and administrators in the PLNU community who are stakeholders.
Dialog with Students. WASC certainly values the input of students. Groups and task forces are encouraged to include them in focus groups and regular meetings whenever the
CHARGE would be met more completely with their special input.
TOP CHARGE Group Three will reference WASC Standards One and Three and write a reflective essay following the guidelines found in the University’s
Institutional Proposal. This document states that evaluative benchmarks called Criteria for Review (CFR’s) will be reformatted into questions to be addressed demonstrating that PLNU meets the respective Standards. In the
Proposal, the University assures the WASC Senior Commission that “Subcommittees of faculty and staff will gather evidence and answer each question, citing any gaps in data collection or concerns that arise regarding institutional practice. They will also make recommendations for improvement. The President, acting on behalf of the WASC Steering Committee, will refer recommendations from all reflective essays to the proper institutional committee, officer, or program for action” (
Institutional Proposal, page 7).
TOP TIMEFRAME The work of Group Three should begin as soon as possible, since WASC Standards One and Three are intensely data-driven and involve the gathering of important quantitative pieces. The reflective essay should be completed by December 1, 2005, in order to be processed by the WASC Steering Committee later that semester. The entire University community will review the final draft of the Capacity and Preparatory Review during the spring semester (2006), and final edits will be made by the Steering Committee. The Capacity and Preparatory Review will be submitted to WASC no later than 12 weeks prior to the Site Visit (set for the fall of 2006).
TOP CALENDAR There are some critical dates that you should bear in mind in the work of Group Three. The group may want to expedite its work and without doubt will want to develop its own timeline, while referencing the following general schedule:
| WASC General Committee Meeting |
September 29, 2004 |
| First Meeting of Group Three |
Early October, 2004 |
| Gather Evidence and Answer CFR’s |
Nov. 2004-Feb., 2005 |
| Conclude Recommendations for Action |
September 1, 2005 |
| Submit a Preliminary Draft of the Relective Essay to the WSC |
October 17, 2005 |
| Submit the Reflective Essay Final Draft to the WSC |
December 1, 2005 |
TOP LENGTH OF THE PROJECT REPORT The entire Capacity and Preparatory Review Report is limited to 35 pages of text (single spaced), exclusive of exhibits and appendices. Final reports to the WASC Steering Committee, therefore, should be succinct (5-7 pages; 10 maximum) with links to supporting evidence whenever possible. It will be the ultimate responsibility of the WASC Steering Committee to edit and synthesize all reports into the final Capacity and Preparatory Review Report document.
TOP STANDARDS ONE AND THREE Group Three is responsible for addressing WASC Standards One and Three by means of questions posed directly from actual Standard language, called Criteria for Review (CFR’s). The Steering Committee has developed key questions not being addressed by any other group in the accreditation process. Listed below are WASC’s formal statements on Standards One and Three, followed by the CFR’s in the form of questions.
STANDARD ONE
[Institutional Purposes, Integrity]
Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives
“The institution defines its purposes and establishes educational objectives aligned with its purposes and character. It has a clear and conscious sense of its essential values and character, its distinctive elements, its place in the higher education community, and its relationship to society at large. Through its purposes and educational objectives, the institution dedicates itself to higher learning, the search for truth, and the dissemination of knowledge. The institution functions with integrity and autonomy.”
STANDARD THREE
[Faculty and Staff; Fiscal, Physical, and Information Resources; Organizational Structures and Decision-making Processes]
Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Ensure Sustainability
“The institution sustains its operations and supports the achievement of its educational objectives through its investment in human, physical, fiscal, and information resources and through an appropriate and effective set of organizational and decision-making structures. These key resources and organizational structures promote the achievement of institutional purposes and educational objectives and create a high quality environment for learning.” TOP CRITERIA FOR REVIEW 1.2 To what extent has the institution developed and begun to use indicators and sources of evidence to determine whether its educational objectives have been achieved?
1.4 To what extent are policies regarding academic freedom widely understood and to what extent do they support a climate of academic inquiry and engagement for all members of the institutional community?
1.6 Does the institution have education as its primary purpose and operate as an academic institution with appropriate autonomy? Is there any history of interference in substantive decisions or educational functions by external bodies, particularly religious bodies, outside the institution’s governance arrangements?
3.2 Does the University employ a faculty with substantial and continuing commitment to the institution sufficient in number, professional qualifications, and diversity to achieve its educational objectives?
3.6 How does the institution assess the continuing adequacy of its information resources and plan for the future to ensure that they are appropriately renewed and (if necessary) altered in size and character?
3.7 To what extent are the institution’s information technology resources sufficiently coordinated and supported to fulfill its educational purposes and to provide key academic and administrative functions?
3.8 In what ways does the institution ensure that its organizational structures and decision processes remain appropriately aligned with its size, complexity, character, institutional purposes, and service to students?
TOP FURTHER SUGGESTIONS The WASC Steering Committee may communicate specific issues or concerns to the Group.
TOP