Skip to main content Skip to main navigation Skip to footer content

WSCUC Accreditation

Feedback on WSCUC Worksheet

As part of the WSCUC re-accreditation process, Fresno State will submit this worksheet with our institutional report. Your contributions and feedback are critical to ensuring we submit a comprehensive list of all university efforts demonstrating compliance with Commission Standards.

The current WSCUC Standards outlined below serve as the basis for judgments by the WSCUC review teams and the Commission. Each Standard is set forth in broad terms that are applicable to all institutions. Under each of the four Standards are two or more major categories that make the application of the Standard more specific and Criteria for Review (CFRs), which identify and define specific applications of the Standard. 

The evidence that we already have for the worksheet can be accessed here.  If you have additional evidence that relates to any of the CFR, please upload it below.  Please submit this evidence by February 28, 2025.

We welcome all feedback and contributions!

WSCUC Standards

STANDARD 1: Defining Institutional Mission and Acting with Integrity

The institution defines its mission and establishes educational and student success objectives aligned with that mission. The institution has a clear sense of its essential values, culture, and distinctive elements, and its contributions to society and the public good. It promotes the success of all students and makes explicit its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. The institution functions with integrity and transparency.

Institutional Purposes

Criteria for Review
Examples of Evidence
1.1 The institution’s mission and other statements of purpose are appropriate for an institution of higher education and clearly define its essential values, culture, and ways the institution contributes to society and the public good. Institution webpage for Mission Statement or other statements of institution purpose.
1.2 Consistent with its purposes and character, the institution defines and acts with intention to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion in all its activities, including its goal setting, policies, practices, and use of resources, across academic, student support, and co-curricular programs and services. Diversity, equity, and inclusion policy(ies), plans, statements, and/or activities. Human resources policies. Student, staff, and/or faculty handbooks.

 

Integrity and Transparency

Criteria for Review
Examples of Evidence
1.3 The institution operates with integrity and transparency in its operations, and truthfully and clearly represents its academic goals, programs, requirements, services, and costs. Institution webpages or factbook. Course or program catalog where relevant information occurs.
1.4 The institution maintains appropriate operating policies and business procedures including timely and fair responses to complaints and grievances. Student, staff, and/or faculty handbooks. Policies regarding operations, student conduct, financial aid refunds, etc. (Marketing and recruitment and student complaint policies are covered in federal requirements forms.)
1.5 The institution treats faculty, staff, administrators, and students equitably by adhering to its published policies and procedures. Student, staff, and/or faculty handbooks. Policies regarding operations, student conduct, financial aid refunds, etc. (Marketing and recruitment and student complaint policies are covered in federal requirements forms.
1.6 The institution maintains, publishes, and adheres to policies on academic freedom. Academic Freedom Statement. Faculty handbook.
1.7 The institution communicates about important issues with its constituents. Institution webpage or other sample communications.
1.8 The institution is committed to honest and open communication with the Commission and to undertaking the accreditation review process with seriousness and candor. The institution abides by Commission policies and procedures and informs the Commission promptly of any matter that could affect the accreditation status of the institution.

 Cover page signed by the CEO accompanying the institutional report indicating adherence to WSCUC expectations.

 

STANDARD 2: Achieving Educational Objectives and Student Success

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. The institution demonstrates that these core functions are performed effectively by evaluating valid and reliable evidence of learning and by supporting the success of every student.

Degree Programs

Criteria for Review
Examples of Evidence
2.1 The institution’s degree programs are appropriate in content, educational objectives, and standards of performance relevant to the level of the degree. All degrees are defined in terms of entry requirements and levels of student achievement necessary for graduation. List of professional accreditation agencies. Marketing and recruitment materials. Institution webpages or factbook. Course or program catalog.
2.2 Degree programs engage students in an integrated course of study of sufficient breadth and depth. These programs ensure the development of core and professional competencies relevant to the level of the degree. Program descriptions and requirements. Webpage(s) or one page description of breadth requirements, general education program, and/or professional competency requirements.
2.3 The institution clearly identifies and effectively implements student learning outcomes and expectations for achievement. These outcomes and expectations are reflected in and supported by academic programs, policies, and curricula, and provide the framework for academic advising, student support programs and services, and information and technology resources. Program descriptions and requirements. Academic advising webpage(s).
2.4 The institution conducts periodic reviews of its degree programs. The program review process includes analysis of student achievement of the program’s learning outcomes. Program Review webpage(s) showing process and outcomes. Three to five examples of program reviews from a representative sample of degrees.

 

Faculty

Criteria for Review
Examples of Evidence
2.5 The institution has faculty with the capacity and scale to design and deliver the curriculum and to evaluate, improve, and promote student learning and success. Numbers and qualifications of faculty and relationship to numbers of students (see WSCUC KID, as appropriate). Up to one page description about why the faculty are sufficient to meet the CFR.
2.6 The faculty exercise effective academic leadership and act consistently to ensure that the quality of academic programs and the institution’s educational purposes are sustained. Faculty governance committees, bylaws, and/or policies.
2.7 The faculty are responsible for creating and evaluating student learning outcomes and establishing standards of student performance.

Assessment webpage(s). Up to one page description of assessment infrastructure indicating role of faculty.

 
2.8 The institution has clear expectations for faculty research, scholarship, and creative activity that are commensurate with the mission and degree portfolio. Policies related to faculty research, evaluation, promotion, and tenure.

 

Student Learning and Performance

Criteria for Review
Examples of Evidence
2.9 The institution demonstrates that graduates consistently achieve stated learning outcomes and standards of performance. Faculty evaluate student work in terms of stated learning outcomes. Three to five examples of assessment reports evidencing student achievement from a representative sample of degrees.
2.10 The institution demonstrates that students make reasonable progress toward and complete their degrees in a timely manner. Retention and disaggregated graduation data for at least four years (see WSCUC KID, as appropriate).
2.11 The institution monitors and analyzes the success of its students following graduation. Post-graduation outcomes data (see WSCUC KID, as appropriate). Job and/or graduate school placement data. Alumni survey results and analysis.

 

Student Support

Criteria for Review
Examples of Evidence
2.12 The institution ensures that all students understand the requirements of their academic programs and receive timely, accurate, and complete information and advising about academic requirements. Advising webpage(s). Up to one page description of advising at the institution.
2.13 The institution offers student support and co-curricular programs and services sufficient in nature, scope, and capacity to promote all students’ academic, personal, and professional development. Student programs and services webpage(s). Student survey results regarding services. Up to one page description of a sample of student support and co-curricular programs and services.
2.14 The institution assesses the effectiveness of its student support and co-curricular programs and services and uses the results for improvement.
 		 Three to five examples of reviews from a representative sample of student support and co-curricular programs and services.

 

STANDARD 3. Assuring Resources and Organizational Structures

The institution achieves its educational and student success objectives through investments in human, physical, fiscal, technology, and information resources within appropriate organizational and decision-making structures, and consistent with its explicit commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Faculty, Staff, and Administrators

Criteria for Review
Examples of Evidence
3.1 The institution employs faculty, staff, and administrators sufficient in scale, professional qualifications, and background to achieve the institution’s educational and student success objectives, to propose and oversee policy, and to ensure the integrity of its academic, student support, and co-curricular programs and services and administrative processes. Number and characteristics of full time and part time faculty, staff, and administrators (see WSCUC KID, as appropriate). Hiring policies. Up to one page description about why personnel are sufficient to accomplish objectives.
3.2 Faculty, staff, and administrator recruitment, hiring, and orientation practices and workload expectations are aligned with institutional mission and priorities. The institution examines the extent to which its climate supports faculty, staff, and administrators and acts on its findings. Recruitment, hiring, and workload policies. Campus climate survey results and analysis. Up to one page description of how institution examines its climate.
3.3 The institution provides professional development and evaluation for faculty, staff, and administrators. Faculty, staff, and administrator policy, manual or handbook. Professional development webpage(s).

 

Fiscal, Physical, Technology, and Information Resources

Criteria for Review
Examples of Evidence
3.4 Resource planning and development include realistic budgeting, enrollment management, and diversification of revenue sources. Resource allocation is aligned with evidence-based educational and student success objectives consistent with operational and strategic planning. Up to one page description of budget process reflecting level of integration and alignment of resources and objectives. Current and prior year(s) budget(s) (planned vs. actuals) aligned with enrollment.
3.5 The institution is financially stable and has resources sufficient to ensure long-term sustainability. The institution has unqualified or unmodified independent financial audits.

Financial audits for last two years. Prior year, current year, and next year budgets.

 
3.6 The institution provides physical, technology, information, and other resources sufficient in scope, quality, currency, and kind to support the work of its faculty, staff, administrators, and students. Up to one page description of sufficiency of physical, technology, information, and other resources.

 

Organizational Structures and Decision-Making Processes

Criteria for Review
Examples of Evidence
3.7 The institution operates with appropriate autonomy governed by an independent board or similar authority that is responsible for mission, integrity, and oversight of planning, policies, performance, and sustainability. The governing board selects and evaluates the chief executive officer. Board policy, bylaws, or similar that defines the relationship with supported or affiliated entities and defines responsibilities of members.
3.8 The board members have a range of backgrounds, knowledge, and skills to carry out their responsibilities. Board members' names and affiliations with committee assignments. Board minutes for the last two years.
3.9 The institution has sufficient and qualified leadership capacity at all levels, characterized by integrity, appropriate responsibility, high performance, and accountability. Webpage(s) showing leadership organization, structure, function, etc. Up to one page description of how leadership is evaluated.
3.10 Data are regularly and systematically disseminated internally and externally, and analyzed, interpreted, and applied in institutional decision-making. Institutional research webpage(s). Up to one page description of how data are used in institutional decision-making.
3.11 The institution’s organizational structures and decision-making processes are clearly defined, consistent, and transparent, support effective decision-making and risk management, and place priority on sustaining institutional resilience and educational effectiveness. Organizational chart(s). Up to one page description of risk-management studies, plans, implementation, and/or analysis.

 

STANDARD 4. Creating an Institution Committed to Quality Assurance and Improvement

The institution engages in sustained, evidence-based, and participatory reflection about how effectively it is accomplishing its mission, achieving its educational and student success objectives, and realizing its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. The institution envisions its future in light of the changing environment of higher education. These activities inform both institutional planning and systematic evaluations of educational effectiveness.

Quality Assurance Processes

Criteria for Review
Examples of Evidence
4.1 The institution employs comprehensive quality assurance processes in both academic and non-academic areas and uses the results to improve institutional operations. Academic and non-academic quality assurance and evaluation webpage(s). Up to one page description of quality assurance infrastructure and improvement results.
4.2 The institution collects, analyzes and acts on disaggregated student outcomes data including retention and graduation rates. Student achievement webpage(s). Retention and disaggregated graduation data for at least four years. IPEDS Outcome Measures disaggregated by freshmen and transfer students (see WSCUC KID, as appropriate).
4.3 The institution examines the extent to which its climate supports student success and acts on its findings. The institution regularly assesses the characteristics, experiences, and performance of its students and uses this evidence to improve student success. Recent climate survey results and analysis. Up to one page description of how climate is assessed and results used.
4.4 The institution has institutional research capacity, scope, and coordination consistent with its purposes and characteristics. Institutional research webpage (s). Up to one page description of institutional research capacity.

 

Institutional Improvement

Criteria for Review
Examples of Evidence
4.5 The institution demonstrates improvement based on the results of inquiry, evidence, and evaluation. Three to five examples of improvements that arose from quality assurance practices.
4.6 The institution, with significant faculty involvement, engages in continuous inquiry into the processes of teaching and learning, and the conditions and practices that ensure that the institution’s standards of performance are being achieved. Teaching and learning webpage(s). Up to one page description of how faculty are involved in the use of assessment results to improve student learning and success.
4.7 The governing board engages in self-evaluation and development. Board by-laws. Up to one page description of how the board is self-evaluated and engages in development activities.
4.8 The institution periodically engages its stakeholders in reflection and planning processes based on the examination of evidence. Through these processes it assesses the institution’s strategic position, articulates priorities, examines the alignment of its purposes, core functions, and resources, and defines the future direction of the institution. Strategic plan or webpage(s) describing planning process that incorporates these elements. Up to one page description of how designated stakeholders are engaged/involved.