Wasc handbook of accreditation

The Commission encourages school improvement through a process of continuing evaluation and recognizes institutions through granting accreditation to the schools that meet an acceptable level of quality in accordance with the established criteria. World Braille Day serves as a symbol of honor for the Braille system that has helped educate the visually impaired for decades. January 4 is internationally observed as World Braille Day to commemorate the birthday of French educator Louis Braille.

We look forward to continuing our commitment of continuous school improvement and collaboration in Wishing all our schools and members of the WASC community a wonderful winter break! Department of Education, the appropriate state licensing or authorizing agency, and the public upon request, if an institution:. If the Commission finds the institution is no longer in compliance with the Standards, the Commission will determine the appropriate action to be taken.

In implementing this policy, the Commission relies on other accrediting bodies and state agencies to inform the Commission of their actions so that the Commission can undertake the review specified in this policy. Applicants for eligibility with the Commission shall provide information on any actions by a recognized accrediting association within the past five years. In addition, the Commission requires candidate and accredited institutions holding accredited or candidate status from more than one U.

Department of Education recognized accrediting body to keep each accrediting body apprised of any change in its status with one or another accrediting body. Skip to content Handbook of Accreditation Revised November The Handbook The WSCUC Handbook of Accreditation is intended to serve a variety of readers: representatives of institutions accredited by the Commission and those seeking accreditation; chairs and members of review teams; those interested in establishing good practices in higher education; and the general public.

Commission Code of Good Practice and Ethical Conduct In carrying out its functions, the WASC Senior College and University Commission has established a code of good practice and ethical conduct that guides its relations with the institutions it serves and with its internal organization and procedures.

The Commission maintains a commitment to: Apply with good faith effort its procedures and standards as fairly and consistently as possible. Provide means by which institutions and others can comment on the effectiveness of the accreditation review process, standards, and policies, and to conduct ongoing and regular reviews to make necessary changes.

Provide institutions and the general public with access to non-confidential information regarding Commission actions and opportunities to make informed comment in the development of commission policies see Public Access to the Commission Policy.

Encourage continuing communication between the Commission and institutions through the accreditation liaison officer position at each institution. Maintain and implement a conflict of interest policy for members of review teams, members of the Commission, and Commission staff to ensure fairness and avoid bias.

Provide institutions a reasonable period of time to comply with Commission requests for information and documents. With respect to the accreditation review process: Emphasize the value and importance of institutional self-evaluation and the development of appropriate evidence to support the accreditation review process. Conduct reviews using qualified peers under conditions that promote impartial and objective judgment and avoid conflicts of interest.

Arrange for interviews with administration, faculty, students, and governing board members during the accreditation review process. Respond in writing to final team reports on issues of substance. Appear before the Commission when reports are considered. Receive written notice from Commission staff as soon as reasonably possible after Commission decisions are made.

Appeal Commission actions according to published procedures. Request a written response from an institution or refer a matter to the next review team when the Commission finds that an institution may be in violation of the Standards or policies. If the Commission requests the institution to respond and the Commission deems such response inadequate, Commission staff may request supplemental information or schedule a fact-finding visit to the institution.

The institution will bear the expense of such a visit. Permit withdrawal of a request for initial accreditation at any time prior to final action by the Commission. Withdraw accreditation or candidacy as provided in the Accreditation Handbook. The Status of Accreditation The status of accreditation indicates that an institution has fulfilled the requirements for accreditation established by this Handbook.

This means that the institution has: Demonstrated that it meets the Core Commitments. Conducted a self-review under the Standards, developed and presented indicators of institutional performance, and identified areas for improvement.

Developed approved institutional reports for accreditation that have been evaluated by teams of reviewers under the relevant institutional review processes. Demonstrated to the Commission that it meets or exceeds the expectations of the Standards. Committed itself to institutional improvement, periodic self-evaluation, and continuing compliance with the Standards, policies, procedures, and decisions.

Core Commitment to Student Learning and Success Institutions have clear educational goals and student learning outcomes. Core Commitment to Quality and Improvement Institutions are committed to high standards of quality in all of their educational activities. Core Commitment to Institutional Integrity, Sustainability, and Accountability Institutions recognize that the public has entrusted them with the critical responsibilities of upholding the values of higher education and contributing to the public good.

Standards of Accreditation The Standards of Accreditation consist of four broad, holistic statements that reflect widely accepted good practices in higher education. Guidelines Where Guidelines are provided, they assist institutions in interpreting the CFRs by offering examples of how institutions can address a particular Criterion for Review. Standard 1: Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives The institution defines its purposes and establishes educational objectives aligned with those purposes.

Standard 2: Achieving Educational Objectives through Core Functions The institution achieves its purposes and attains its educational objectives at the institutional and program level through the core functions of teaching and learning, scholarship and creative activity, and support for student learning and success. Guidelines: Student learning outcomes are reflected in course syllabi.

Standard 3: Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Ensure Quality and Sustainability The institution sustains its operations and supports the achievement of its educational objectives through investments in human, physical, fiscal, technological, and information resources and through an appropriate and effective set of organizational and decision-making structures.

Standard 4: Creating an Organization Committed to Quality Assurance, Institutional Learning, and Improvement The institution engages in sustained, evidence-based, and participatory self-reflection about how effectively it is accomplishing its purposes and achieving its educational objectives. The Interim Report Committee IRC reviews interim reports and supporting documents, following up on recommendations that have been made in a Commission action letter or previous interim report.

Federal regulations and Commission policies require prior approval of institutional substantive changes in degree programs, methods of delivery, and organizational changes. The Institutional Review Process This section is designed to assist institutions as they address the Standards for reaffirmation of accreditation.

Institutional consultations: Institutions should arrange on-campus or remote consultations, at their cost, with their WSCUC staff liaison. In addition, the WSCUC liaison is available to meet on-site with groups and individuals involved in the self-study process. Together, the team and staff liaison will clarify subsequent steps and strategies for the review.

These may include, for example, how the institution will organize for the review, how various constituencies will be involved, and what resources will be required. What does the institution perceive as its strengths and challenges based, for example, on internal planning and evaluation? How does the institution demonstrate its contribution to the public good? How did the institution prepare for this review?

Who was involved? What was the process? How did this work connect with existing priorities and projects? What theme s , if any, will be discussed and where in the report do they appear?

What perspectives did different constituencies contribute? What was learned from completing this worksheet? What issues and areas of improvement emerged? What plans are in place to address areas needing improvement? What resources, fiscal or otherwise, may be required?

What does it mean for a graduate to hold a degree from the institution, i. For each degree level offered, what level of proficiency is expected? What is the overall student experience? How do these outcomes flow from the mission? CFRs 1. How are these degrees evaluated to assure that the degrees awarded meet institutional standards of quality and consistency?

CFRs 2. What will be done as a result? What resources will be required? What knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes should students possess when they graduate with a degree from the institution? What are the key learning outcomes for each level of degree? For graduate programs, how are graduate level outcomes developed? How do these outcomes align with CFR 2. How are these standards set, communicated, and validated? When is learning assessed in these areas e. How are teaching and learning improved as a result of assessment findings?

What is the evidence? CFRs 4. How is student success defined accounting for both completion and learning , given the distinctive mission, values, and programs offered, and the characteristics of the students being served?

What has been learned about different student subpopulations as a result of disaggregating data? What can be learned from them? In what ways does the institution need to improve so that more students are successful?

What is the timeline for improvement? How will these goals be achieved? How does the institution compare to other institutions that are WSCUC accredited or to their own peer or aspirational benchmarks?

How have the results of program review been used to inform decision making and improve instruction and student learning outcomes? How have assessment protocols, faculty development, choices of instruments, or other aspects of assessment changed as a result?

CFR 4. How effectively does it support and inform institutional decision-making, planning, and improvement? How well does it support assessment of student learning? CFRs 3. What systems and processes are in place? How deeply embedded are these initiatives in institutional systems and culture? What evidence can be put forward? How are decisions about levels of support made? How is support maintained even in times of constrained resources?

For the more distant future? How is the institution anticipating, planning for, and adapting to such changes? What one or two themes would advance institutional priorities and add value to the accreditation review? What is the timeline, what evidence and metrics will show progress, and what resources financial, human, other will be required? Exhibits Exhibits are attached to the institutional report and support the narrative.

Interactions with the Review Team Throughout the institutional review process, representatives of the institution interact with review team members and WSCUC staff. The Offsite Review The focus of the Offsite Review is to make preliminary findings based upon the institutional report and supplementary documents. The Thematic Pathway for Reaffirmation The Thematic Pathway for Reaffirmation TPR eliminates the Offsite Review while maintaining an institutional report — the result of one or more unique themes chosen by the institution that are explored during its self-study.

Grant Candidacy or Initial Accreditation See the How to Become Accredited Manual Candidacy: The institution must demonstrate that it meets all of the Standards at a level sufficient for Candidacy and has a clear plan in place to meet the Standards at a level sufficient for Initial Accreditation. Defer Action Deferral is not a final decision.

Reaffirm Accreditation Reaffirmation of accreditation occurs at the completion of the Institutional Review Process or when an institution is taken off of a sanction. Issue a Formal Notice of Concern This action provides notice to an institution that, while it currently meets the Standards, it is in danger of being found out of compliance with one or more Standards if current trends continue.

Sanctions Under U. The Commission has determined that it will grant an extension for good cause only under exceptional circumstances and only when the following criteria are met: The institution must have demonstrated significant accomplishments in addressing the areas of noncompliance during the period under sanction, AND The institution must have demonstrated at least partial compliance with the Standard s cited, and, for any remaining deficiencies, demonstrate an understanding of those deficiencies, and readiness, institutional capacity, and a plan to remedy those deficiencies within the period of extension granted by the Commission.

In determining whether these criteria have been met, the Commission will also consider whether: The quality of education provided by the institution is judged to be in compliance with the Standards at the time of the extension, AND The Commission has evidence of any new or continuing violations of Standard 1 regarding institutional integrity, AND The Commission has evidence of other reasons or current circumstances why the institution should not be continued for good cause.

Issue an Order to Show Cause An Order to Show Cause is a decision by the Commission to terminate the accreditation of the institution within a maximum period of one year from the date of the Order, unless the institution can show cause as to why such action should not be taken.

Withdraw Candidacy or Accreditation A decision to withdraw candidacy or accreditation is made by the Commission when an institution has been found to be seriously out of compliance with one or more Standards. Summary Sanctions for Unethical Institutional Behavior If it appears to the Commission or its staff that an institution is seriously out of compliance with Standard One Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives in a manner that requires immediate attention, an investigation will be made and the institution will be offered an opportunity to respond on the matter.

If the Commission concludes that the institution is seriously out of compliance due to unlawful or unethical action it may: Sever relations if the institution has applied for, but has not yet been granted, candidacy or accreditation; or If the institution is a candidate or accredited, either: issue an Order to Show Cause why its candidacy or accreditation should not be withdrawn at the end of a stated period; in an extreme case, sever its relationship with the institution by denying or withdrawing candidacy or accreditation; or Apply less severe sanctions as deemed appropriate.

Commission Review Process for Institutions on Sanction Institutions that are placed on Warning, Probation, or Show Cause, or for which applications for accreditation are denied, may request a review of this decision according to the following procedures. If the institution desires a review of the Commission action, it shall file with the President of the Commission a request for a review under the policies and procedures of the Commission.

This request is to be submitted by the chief executive officer of the institution and co-signed by the chair of the governing board. Requests for review by an institution in a multi-college system shall also be signed by the chief executive officer of the system.

The fee for the review process shall accompany the request. The institution may not introduce evidence that was not received by the Commission at the time it made the decision under review. It is the responsibility of the institution to identify in the statement of reasons what specific information was not considered, or was improperly considered, by the visiting team or the Commission and to demonstrate that such acts or omissions were a material factor in the negative decision under review.

No person who has served as a member of the visiting team whose report is subject to review shall be eligible to serve on the review committee.

The institution will be provided opportunity to object for cause to any of the proposed review committee members. After giving the institution this opportunity, Commission staff will finalize the membership of the review committee. Within a reasonable period of time after the review committee has been selected, the President of the Commission will schedule a meeting of the review committee at a location separate from the institution and Commission offices.

No assurance can be made that the review committee process will take place in time for the review to be included on the agenda of the next Commission meeting. Prior to the meeting of the review committee, the committee members will review available information. If additional information is needed, the chair of the review committee may request such information from the chief executive officer of the institution, Commission staff, or the visiting team, before, during, or after the meeting of the review committee.

The review will be investigative and designed to determine if any of the grounds for review cited by the institution are valid. Commission staff other than the WSCUC liaison for the contested Commission action will assist the review committee as needed. The Committee may interview, among others, Commission readers, the chair or members of the previous visiting team, and the Commission staff member who supported the team visit.

Outside legal counsel is not permitted to attend or be present in meetings with the review committee without consent of the review committee chair. If allowed to be present, legal counsel will not be allowed to conduct any part of the proceedings but will be permitted to advise institutional representatives as needed.

The review committee should open and close its meeting with the chief executive officer or other institutional representatives by attempting to ascertain whether or not the institution has any complaints about any aspect of the review process. The Commission office shall provide the review committee with documents that were available to the Commission at the time of its action. The review committee is only allowed to consider evidence that was available to or known by the Commission at the time of its taking action.

No new evidence or information relating to actions or events subsequent to the date of the Commission action is to be presented or considered by the review committee. The review committee shall prepare a report that states the reasons for the Commission action, identifies each reason advanced by the institution in its request for review, and, for each reason, evaluates the evidence that the institution has presented in support of its request for review.

In addition, the review committee may evaluate additional evidence that, in its opinion, is relevant to its recommendation to the Commission. The report shall state only findings of fact and not consider or cite any evidence relating to facts or events occurring after the date of Commission action.

In a confidential letter to the Commission, the review committee will recommend whether the Commission decision that is under review should be affirmed or modified. This recommendation of the review committee to the Commission will not be disclosed to the institution being reviewed. The recommendation is not binding on the Commission.

The review will be placed on the agenda of an upcoming Commission meeting, for consideration by the Commission. Prior to the Commission meeting, a reader meeting will be conducted by conference call or in person where the chief executive officer of the institution and a limited number of institutional representatives will be invited to discuss the review committee report with those Commissioners designated as readers. The chair of the review committee will also be invited to participate in the call.

Discussion at this reader meeting will be confined to the report of the review committee referred to in The Commission readers will report the substance of this meeting to the Commission when it meets.

With equity at its core—success for all students—WSCUC pursues excellence through rigorous accreditation standards applied flexibly, empowering all its member institutions to achieve their missions. WSCUC shares information on its innovative accreditation program by developing and sharing resources for its member institutions and those seeking accreditation.

Key Indicators Dashboard KID presents detailed trend and comparative information on WSCUC-accredited undergraduate institutions in a clear, easy to use format that is available to the public. This innovative resource displays information from federal data sets and presents multiple years of metrics and trend data, along with comparisons based on national and WSCUC averages.

However, the input from comments, along with other forms of information, will be considered as the team undertakes its work and develops recommendations to the institution. The team is not able to meet individually with members of the campus community, so please do not use the email account to request private appointments. Muriel C. Close Navigation Screen. Return of the Pack Stay Informed.

Confidential WSCUC Email WSCUC understands that not everyone who may wish to participate can attend these meetings, and has therefore established a confidential email account to give everyone the opportunity to communicate with the team.