CAS Across the Divisions

1. CAS Across the Divisions WNY Assessment Consortium

2. Intended Outcomes • Explain the purpose of a division wide program review; • Map assessment process for a division wide program review; • Identify crucial decisions for building a comprehensive program review model using the CAS standards; and • Apply and evaluate the model on participants’ campuses.

3. Why a Program Review? Academic Program Reviews are intended to: • assess the quality andeffectivenessof academic programs, in departments and schools; • stimulate program planningand improvement; • ensure that current and proposed programs are consistent with University-wide strategic priorities; • promote fairness and efficiency in the allocation of academic resources in response to the needs of the entire Boston College community; • support the planning and budgeting processes of the University; • respond systematically and efficiently to requirements for self-assessment from NEASC and other accrediting agencies. Boston College (2010) The Academic Program Review is designed to enhance the educational mission of the University of California, Berkeley, by providing opportunities for programs and departments, and the university as a whole, to assess and improve its teaching and scholarship. We consider each review a rare opportunity for the unit and the campus to take a comprehensive look at the unit, to evaluate its opportunities and challenges, and to assess its future. Such a review process allows the campus to pursue exciting new paths of inquiry and discovery, sustaining excellence while also in each scholarly area. University of California at Berkley (2011) Decision: Do we need to do a division wide program review?

4. CAS • Founded in 1979 • A consortium of 36 professional organizations • Constituency of over 100,000 • Member associations send representatives to the CAS Board of Directors • Consensus-oriented, collaborative • Focused on quality programs and services for students • Guide practice by student affairs, student development, and student support service providers (Ellis, 2009) “CAS provides a powerful framework for us to assess our efforts and to make changes based on a national model of effective programming and services.“ -Bonita C. Jacobs, Executive Director , National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students, University of North Texas

5. CAS Mission • Establish, adopt, and disseminate unified and timely professional standards to guide student learning and development programs and services • Promote assessment and improvement of higher education programs and services through self-study • Establish, adopt, and disseminate unified and timely professional preparation standards for the education of student affairs practitioners, and to promote the assessment and improvement of graduate preparation programs • Advance the use and importance of professional standards • Develop and provide materials to support the use of standards • Promote and encourage a focus on quality assurance • Promote inter-association effortsto address these issues

6. Uses of the CAS Standards • Measures of program and service effectiveness • Institutional self-studies • Preparation for accreditation • Design of new programs and services • Staff development • Academic preparation • Credibility and accountability

7. Self-Regulation & Self-Assessment • Self-regulation relies on the willingness and capacity of the organization to: • examine itself meticulously, faithfully, and reliably • assemble the pertinent results of that examination into coherent reports that constituents can comprehend and use

8. CAS Resources • 42 functional area standards (pub. in 6th edition, 2006) • Reviewed and revised regularly • General standards contained within every other set of standards • Contextual statements for each area • CAS Statement of Shared Ethical Principles • CAS Characteristics of Individual Excellence • Self-Assessment Guides, with instructions and training • Decisions: • Is CAS the right tool for us? • Should we do a single year program review or space it over several years?

9. CAS Terminology • SAG • Functional area • Standard • Represent indispensable requirements of practice • Are achievable by any and all programs of quality • Appear in bold print • Use auxiliary verbs “must” and “shall” • Guideline • Clarify and amplify standards • Guide enhanced practice beyond essential functions • Appear in regular (non-bold) type • Use verbs “should” and “may”

10. CAS Standards Format • The CAS SAG: A Self-assessment Guide • Translates CAS standards into an effective workbook format • Promotes program self-assessment and development • Informs on program strengths and weaknesses • Supports professional staff development • Leads to enhanced student learning and development 14 Component Parts (or Domains) • Mission • Program • Leadership • Human Resources • Ethics • Legal Responsibilities • Equity and Access • Diversity • Organization and Management • Campus and External Relations • Financial Resources • Technology • Facilities & Equipment • Assessment & evaluation • Decisions: • What functional areas should be included? • Should each functional area assess all 14 parts?

11. Knowledge Check

12. CAS Reveiw Process Basics • Department Level Self Assessment • Determine and know the standards for their functional area • Gather evidence • Send summary review to Self-Study Team • Create action plans (after review is complete) • Self-Study Review Team • Reviews summaries & evidence • Gather additional evidence if necessary • Writes report • External Review • Not an employee • Broad experience in functional areas and assessment • Decisions: • Do we need an external reviewer? • Who should be on the review team?

13. The Self-Study • Who completes the self-assessment? • How will you standardize self-study assessments? • How will you train people completing the self-assessment? • Should you have a general editor? Decision: How will you manage consistency in quality?

14. Types of Evidence The self-assessment is not complete until relevant data and related documentation are in place to support the raters’ judgments. PROGRAM DOCUMENTS: • Mission statements; purpose and philosophy statements • Staff manuals; policies & procedures statements ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS: • Organization charts; staff profiles • Financial resource statements & budgets • Annual reports STAFF and STUDENT ACTIVITY REPORTS: • Resumes; professional activity • Service to other programs, departments, or community • Portfolios, developmental transcripts, resumes • Reports of student service RESEARCH & EVALUATION DATA: • Needs assessments and self-studies • Program evaluations Decision: How will we share documents? Brainstorm: Where can we find evidence or information?

15. Establishing a Self-Study Team • How many members? • 5-8? • How select? • “experts” or adversaries? • Department reps • Students? • Volunteers, assigned? • Faculty? • Who chairs? • How trained • What will they do? • Establish team ground rules • Establish inter-rater reliability • Decide whether to include guidelines or other measures that go beyond the standards • Gather and analyze relevant quantitative/qualitative data • Individuals rate each and every criterion measure • Obtain additional documentary evidence if required to make an informed team decision • Complete the assessment, ratings, and action planning • Compile and review results, and create an overarching Action Plan • Decision: • Do we need an chair or co-chairs? • If so, who and what will their duties entail? Decision: How will define the rating scale?

16. Judging Performance • Each team member needs: • A complete copy of teach SAG with guidelines we have selected for rating • Access to all documentary evidence • What happens when an individual standard does not apply to your situation? • Coalescing into a single review (from many voices to one voice): • How: single or group activity? • How will conflict be managed? • How deal with personal feelings (i.e. low ratings of a person who is on the committee?) Decisions: If you use teams to review each functional area SAG, how do they score criteria – individually & average or consensus?

17. The Reports • What reports should you have? • Exec Summaries • Final Report • Action Plans • Who should write the report? • Who should give feedback on the draft? • How judgmental should the report be?

18. Expectations • What is a reasonable timeline? (see attached sample) • How will management work within and across divisions? • How long should we expect departments to have to develop an action plan? • How will we follow-up on this review?

19. Implementation Discussions • Are we ready for a program review? Is it the right process for us? • What should our process look like? • What are barriers to implementation on our campus? • How do we get buy in at an administrative level, at the department level? • What resources do we have, do we need? • What other questions do we have?

20. Presenter References • Ellis, T. (2009). CAS standards and self-assessment in higher education. Washington, DC: Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. • Garrett, D., Henry, C., Lange, D. (2009). CAS standards: Program review and organizing a division-wide assessment. 2009 CAS Annual Symposium. Dr. Kerry Lynn Levett Associate Vice President of Student Affairs Finger Lakes Community College 585-785-1284 levettkl@flcc.edu