State University-Fullerton.
2. The 2012 Self-Study requirement for reaccreditation included proof of Std. 18: Administrative
Provision of both a narrative and verifying documentation that the program is in compliance with Std. 18, specifications b, f, and g. This current Self-Study only provided documentation that the program was in compliance with Std. 18-Specification- b,f, and g. However, the documentation did not provide a narrative that the program is in compliance with Standard 18-specification b,f, and g.
3. The 2012 self-study requirement for reaccreditation included proof of Standard 21-
Field Experience-explanation and documentation of how students are monitored in the field by performing, at minimum one site visit per quarter or semester. The evidence of at least one site visit per quarter or semester is not evident in this Self-Study. There is a statement in field documents that state, “25% of approved agencies are visited each semester.” Another statement in field documents state “site visits occur as needed”.
4. The 2012 self-study recommendation (but not required by the standards) asks for: “clarify on
course syllabi, the link between course objectives/outcomes and the CSHSE Standard
and specification(s) that apply.” This information was not clearly outlined in the current self-
study. (See bullet #2 below).
Related to Standards:
Standard 4c: It appears that the program has a comprehensive assessment plan and engages in program evaluation every 5 years. However, the information shared with the public does not appear to meet the standard. The weblink provided: (http://hhd.fullerton.edu/HUSR/Accreditation.htm) includes three information items:
HUSR Assessment Plan
California State University, Fullerton CSHSE Self-Study (no date)
Link to CSHSE Website
The link does not include examples of program effectiveness obtained through formal program evaluation as required in Speficication b (e.f., student satisfaction, agency feedback. enrollment trend, graduate placement data, quality improvement information, grade point average, student performance on standardized examinations such as the HS-BCP (Human Services Board Certified Practitioner) credential, program completion data, etc.).
There was a general concern from all readers regarding Standards 11-20. The 2012 Self-Study “recommendation (but not required by the standards)” asked for “clarify on course syllabi the link between course objectives/outcomes and the CSHSE Standard and specification(s) that apply.” This information was not clearly outlined in the current Self-Study. The courses that met the Standards were identified in the Self-Study; however, the narrative and direction to supporting documents regarding how the courses met the Standard(s) were not evident. Insufficient evidence was provided to show that the standard was met. The syllabi provided were vague. There was no evidence that the linked syllabi with the standards. Listing the course text, assignments, or activities that matched each standard in each class, and making those connections more clear, would have strengthened this self-study.
Overall quality of the Self-Study:
There were quite a few spelling errors, and spacing/font issues were evident throughout.
Follwing is the CSHSE policy related to this decision:
Tabling Accreditation/reaccreditation consideration because the Self-Study is incomplete, and there is not sufficient information to make a decision:
Accreditation/Reaccreditation consideration is tabled because the self-study is incomplete, and there is not sufficient information to make a decision.
1. Accreditation/Reaccreditation consideration is tabled by a majority of the readers. A majority of the self-study readers have independently determined that the self-study does not provide adequate evidence of compliance with the Standards and Specifications or that the previoius CSHSE requirements for reaccreditation have not been sufficiently addressed. (CSHSE Reader/SiteVisitor Pooicy and Procedure, A.6.0-A.6.4).
a. The Vice President of Accreditation (VPA) in consultation with the Lead Reader and Regional Director, notified the program of the additional evidence required to demonstrate compliance with the Standards and Specifications.
b. Upon notification by the Vice President of Accreditation, a program is given 90 days to work with the Regional Director to achieve compliance. Supporting documentation will be submitted to the VPA, The Regional Director and each reader.
c. The Lead Reader makes a recommendation for further action to VPA.
If the information is not received within 90 days, the program must reapply for accreditation.
In keeping with this policy, the above information needs to be submitted to all the readers that the original self-study was sent to by within 90 days of receipt of this letter. If the additional information is received on or before that date, and satisfies these requirements, it is possible that a site visit could be scheduled prior to the June 5-7, 2017 CSHSE Board meeting. If that proves to be impossible the program accreditation decision would need to be tabled until 10/17 CSHSE Board meeting.
Please reach out to your Regional Director: Dr. Yvonne Chase should you need help or clarification. I will also be available to assist you .
Sincerely yours,
Laura W. Kelley
Laura W. Kelley, Ph.D.
CSHSE -Vice President of Accreditation.