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 One 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 or task force 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, project 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 One will revisit the prescribed inventory on Educational Effectiveness, since these indicators are embedded in the University’s assessment program. Further, Group One will “outline the philosophy, scope, design, operation, and results of the review and then evaluate the assessment program…” (
Institutional Proposal, page 8). To conclude its work, Group One will write a reflective essay that focuses on two issues: 1) to what extent there have been broad, University-wide engagement and improvement actions concerning student learning outcomes as a result of the program, and 2) what evidence can be provided to support the conclusions” (
Institutional Proposal, page 8). Group One will make recommendations for future actions relative to the link between evaluation and assessment and institutional actions.
TOP TIMEFRAME The work of Group One is tied directly and deliberately to Preparatory Review Group Six. The
CHARGE described above is concrete documentation of assessment results and practice, a focus already central to the University’s Assessment Committee. The reflective essay should be completed by October 2, 2006, in order to be processed by the WASC Steering Committee later that semester. The entire University community will review the final draft of the Educational Effectiveness Review during the spring semester (2007), and final edits will be made by the Steering Committee. The Educational Effectiveness Review will be submitted to WASC no later than 12 weeks prior to the Site Visit (set for the fall of 2007).
TOP CALENDAR There are some critical dates that you should bear in mind in the work of Group One. 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 |
August 31, 2005 |
| First Meeting of Group One |
Early October, 2005 |
| Evaluate PLNU’s Assessment Process and Discuss Issues |
Nov. 2005-Feb., 2006 |
| Conclude Recommendations for Action |
March 1, 2006 |
| Submit a Preliminary Draft of the Relective Essay to the WSC |
September 1, 2006 |
| Submit the Reflective Essay Final Draft to the WSC |
October 2, 2006 |
TOP LENGTH OF THE PROJECT REPORT The Educational Effectiveness Review Report is limited to 50 pages of text (single spaced), exclusive of exhibits and appendices. Final reports to the WASC Steering Committee, therefore, should be succinct (8-10 pages; 15 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 Educational Effectiveness Review Report document.
TOP FURTHER SUGGESTIONS The WASC Steering Committee may communicate specific issues or concerns to the group or task force.
TOP