A. CAC Leadership

Adjunct Accreditation Director

• Art Price

2012-13 Executive Committee

• Chair – Barbara Price (Editor 2)
• Past Chair – Harold Grossman (Editor 2)
• Chair-Elect – David Cordes (Editor 2)
• Vice-Chair, Operations – Stan Thomas (Editor 1)
• Public Member – Sylvia Alexander  

Five members-at-large

• James Aylor (Training, Editor 1)
• Bill Dixon (Training, Editor 1)
• Jim Leone (Documents, Editor 1)
• Lois Mansfield (Documents, Editor 1)
• Judy Solano (Criteria, Editor 1)

B. CAC Exit Statement Format

The exit statement for each program must follow the format described on page 9 of the document “C061 PER – Program Evaluator Report”. The format is patterned after the Draft Statement format. If there is only one PEV for the program, this exit statement will cover the entire Draft Statement section for the program. If there is more than one PEV for the program, this exit statement contains only what the PEV reads during the exit meeting (including all or nothing about the program). Text will be copied from the PEV exit statement sections and pasted into the PAF to be left with the institution.

Note that for CAC there can be at most one each of deficiency, weakness, and concern per criterion. A shortcoming may have multiple factors that contribute to the shortcoming.

 

C. CAC Draft Statement/Exit Meeting Statement Format

Example Draft Statements can be found in the PEV Workbook. Note that the team chair will compose the institutional overview as well as the summary section, and the program sections will be taken from the PEV exit meeting statements. As indicated previously, if there is only one PEV for a program, the PEV will provide the entire exit meeting statement for the program. If two PEVs draft different parts of the exit meeting statement for a single program, the team chair will merge the exit statement sections composed by the two PEVs. In all cases, the Draft Statement findings must be consistent with—preferably identical to—the exit meeting statement and the PAF.
 

D. Application and Interpretation of CAC Criteria

As mentioned in Module 2 of this JIT training, there are significant changes in the criteria for the 2011-12 accreditation cycle. The following selected comments may be useful in applying the new criteria on your visit this cycle.

Comments on Criterion 1:

• The criterion no longer contains the phrase “Students can complete the program in a reasonable amount of time,” however Criterion 8 requires an environment in which student outcomes can be attained.
• The requirement that students must have ample opportunity to interact with their instructors is no longer in this criterion, although “student interaction” is referenced in Criterion 6.

Comments on Criterion 2:

• The word “published” has replaced “documented.”
• Note that the word “measurable” is no longer in the criterion.
• The constituencies (e.g., faculty, students, alumni, employers) must be involved in reviewing and revising the PEO’s.
• The PEO’s should be published somewhere in addition to the self-study itself, ideally in a manner that makes them available to the program’s constituencies.
• What if the PEO’s really sound like outcomes instead of objectives? If PEO’s are not PEO’s as defined in the criteria, there is a Criterion 2 shortcoming.
• What if PEO’s are ambiguous or reflect outcomes retooled to apply after graduation? Use team judgment – do they meet the intent of the Criterion?

Comments on Criterion 3:

• Note that “measurable” is no longer in the criterion.
• The SO’s must prepare students to attain the PEO’s. That is, the important relationship is between SO’s and PEO’s.
• For CAC each program is expected to define its own outcomes – it is acceptable for a program to use any of attributes (a)-(i) as its outcomes, but not necessary.
• If an attribute (a)-(i) is not a program outcome, then the program must demonstrate how students are enabled to attain it.
• If one of (a)-(i) is included in a program outcome, then the assessment process should be able to demonstrate whether or not students are enabled to attain it.
• If you identify a shortcoming in Criterion 3 then your written description of the finding should make it clear whether or not any of (a)-(i) serve as the program’s student outcomes. This clarification will be of benefit to all readers and editors of your statement.
• Remember that Criterion 3 says that the program must enable students to attain certain characteristics; it doesn’t demand that all students attain them.

Comments on Criterion 4:

Must assess the extent to which the outcomes and objectives are being attained. Appropriate assessment for outcomes usually implies:

• Measures based on actual student performance for outcomes
• A priori establishment of performance goals, but those goals are not necessarily quantitative.

Appropriate assessment for objectives usually implies:

• Collection of data relative to the achievement of each objective
• Surveys are frequently used.
• A priori establishment of performance goals, but those goals are not necessarily quantitative
• No requirement that program improvements have been made.
• But the results of evaluations must be systematically utilized as input for continuous improvement.

The use of data/ideas from sources other than the assessment of objectives and outcomes achievement can also be used to improve the program.

Comments on Criterion 6:

• The words “current and active” have been removed.
• The faculty responsibility has been changed from managing the curriculum to implementing a program of study that fosters the attainment of student outcomes.

E. The IS Environment

PEV’s evaluating programs under the IS Program Criteria should review the requirement of the IS Environment. These requirements are described in document “C087 IS Environment Advisory” contained in the PEV Workbook.

Please complete this short survey. Your feedback is important. Thank you!