Introduction
The regional accrediting associations that I have chosen are the North Central Association for Colleges and Schools (HLC), and the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). The reason I chose those organizations is that my present home located in San Diego, CA makes me curious as to how WASC operates. HLC was chosen because my future home, and ultimate target for a teaching position, is Bloomington, IN. Indiana is one of the19 states in HLC’s jurisdiction.
This discussion will compare the ways that each association defines, addresses, and approaches an educational institution’s learning assessments program during the accreditation process.
Higher Learning Commission
Defining Learning Assessments
HLC defines learning assessment structure in terms of their stated criteria and core standards. Evidence listed for these core components provides a more detailed definition of learning assessments.
As of 1 January 2013, HLC’s accreditation process will be built on 5 criteria. HLC directly addresses learning assessments in 2 of its 5 accreditation criteria.
Criteria #3- Teaching & Learning: Quality, Resources & Support
Criteria #4- Teaching & Learning: Evaluation & Improvement
Because Criteria 3 and 4 have specific learning assessment applications they alone will be discussed further.
HLC derives Core Components for each of the Criteria. Two Core Components for criteria 3 are specific to student learning assessment: A) The institution demonstrates that the exercise of intellectual inquiry and the acquisition, application, and integration of broad learning and skills are integral to its educational programs. B) The institution provides support for student learning and effective teaching.

For purposes of illustration, evidence examples for these two Core Components (A and B) are:
A1. The institution provides for learning support and preparatory instruction to address the academic needs of its students. It has a process for directing entering students to courses and programs for which the students are adequately prepared. (Accountability assessment.)
A2. The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs. (Improvement assessment.)
B1. The institution has clearly stated goals for student learning and effective processes for assessment of student learning and achievement of learning goals. (Accountability assessment.)
B2. The institution assesses achievement of the learning outcomes that it claims for its curricular and co-curricular programs. (Accountability assessment.)
B3. The institution uses the information gained from assessment to improve student learning. (Improvement assessment.) (“Accreditation Policy”, 2012).

Expectations of Learning Assessments
HLC’s expectations on student learning assessments are high. The Commission integrates aspects of student learning assessment throughout its accreditation process. That being said, “focus on student learning” is one of ten guiding principles for HLC accreditation (“Guiding Values, 2011).
“For the purpose of accreditation, the Higher Learning Commission regards the teaching mission of any institution as primary. Institutions will have other missions, such as research, healthcare, and public service, and these other missions may have a shaping and highly valuable effect on the education that the institution provides. In the accreditation process, these missions should be recognized and considered in relation to the teaching mission.
A focus on student learning encompasses every aspect of students’ experience at an institution: how they are recruited and admitted; costs they are charged and how they are supported by financial aid; how well they are informed and guided before and through their work at the institution; the breadth, depth, currency, and relevance of the learning they are offered; their education through co-curricular offerings; the effectiveness of their programs; what happens after they leave the institution. (p. 1)
Principles/Standards
HLC best demonstrates its principles/standards for student learning assessments through their Academy for Assessment of Student Learning. This academy works with the institution on a 4-year basis on various programs and projects that serve as a way to complete requirements under the HLC accreditation programs: PEAQ and AQIP, and can serve as collecting evidence for accreditation Criteria or Core Component (“Academy, 2011).

Stakeholders/Constituents

Since 1998, HLC has integrated the federal-mandated third party comment process into its regular accrediting processes since the 1997 academic year. HLC requires institutions undergoing comprehensive evaluation (initial or continued candidacy or accreditation) or quality checkup visits to publish basic information about the visit in appropriate publications and invite the public to provide written comments to the HLC. The HLC also receives notices of complaint from the public (faculty, students, and other parties). HLC has established a distinction between individual grievances and complaints that appear to involve general institutional practices. Where a complaint raises issues regarding the institution’s ongoing ability to meet the Criteria of Accreditation, HLC will forward the complaint to the institution and requests a formal response (“HLC Third Party”, 2009).
Recommendations
HLC recommendations from the review boards are reviewed by a decision-making body, such as the HLC Board of Trustees or the HLC Institutional Actions Council (IAC) for either initial accreditation or re-affirmation of accreditations. Then, a decision-making body takes action on the team’s recommendations (PEAQ, 2012).

WASC
WASC was formed in 1962 as a non-profit organization to promote the welfare and development of education in the US Western region. WASC has three accrediting commissions under it: Accrediting Commission for Schools (K-12); Accrediting Commission for Community Colleges and Junior Colleges (also known as “WASC Junior”); and, Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities (also known as “WASC Senior”). WASC Senior will be the primary focal point for this discussion and will be referred to simply as “WASC” (“About WASC”, n.d.).
Defining Learning Assessments
Student learning assessment functions are defined through the Capacity and Preparatory Review (CPR), and the Educational and Effectiveness Review (EER). The primary focus area of CPR is on the institution’s capacity in terms of purpose, integrity, resources, policies, processes, and stability; and, on the institution’s preparation for having a successful EER. The EER’s focus areas are student learning in terms of evidence of educational achievement; and, institutional learning in terms of evidence and actions for improving performance. There are nine suggested examples of accountability and improvements evidence in the CPR area and seven examples in the EER area (“Handbook of Accreditation”, 2008).
Expectations of Learning Assessments
WASC mandates that learning assessment plans should be: * Developed by faculty who are engaged in their design and responsible for their implementation; * Included in multiple tools for assessing student work; * Included in both formative and summative strategies; * Used in multiple assessment measures, beyond GPA; * Incorporated and weighed as both direct and indirect measures (“Handbook of Accreditation”, 2008).
Principles/Standards
WASC’s principles/standards for learning assessments are grounded in the two commitments of institutional capacity and educational effectiveness. With these two commitments always in the forefront, each institution connects more closely to its own distinctive character, its responsibilities, and to its stakeholders. By reaffirming these core commitments, the institution more fully owns both the process and the outcomes of an accreditation review.
To further their standards, WASC employs the WASC Assessment Leadership Academy (ALA). There are four stated goals for ALA attendees: assessment foundations, assessment training and consultations, campus leadership, and scholarship and contribution beyond your campus. The ALA’s mission is to prepare campus professionals with assessment knowledge through forums such as workshops, consultation, and guidance, and to support the scholarship of assessment at their institution, as well as other institutions. The Academy curriculum includes both structured and institutionally-tailored learning opportunities in the assessment of educational effectiveness, and it will address national issues in assessment, accreditation, and accountability. WASC also provides rubrics for program review teams in the student learning area, focusing on areas such as: elements of self-study, planning and budgeting, and feedback on assessment visits (ALA, 2012).
Stakeholders/Constituents
WASC has two established means for receiving comments from third party constituents, including students, employees and members of the public about its member institutions: (1) complaints; and, (2) third-party comment. As a general rule, complaints are written by employees and students who have grievances that draw into question the institution’s adherence to one or more of WASC’s accreditation standards or policies. Third-party comment, on the other hand, tends to consist of more general comments of a substantive nature about a member institution (“WASC Third Party”, 2009).

Recommendations
Although no specific examples of WASC recommendations for learning assessment improvement were noted, it was uncovered that WASC panels are formed for both the CPR and EER. Those panel members sit down with representatives from the institution and discuss panel findings. Accreditation decisions are reached and made public. Decisions can include accreditation approval or denial for initial or reaffirmation, a warning, probation, show cause or termination of accreditation. If there is evidence of areas where the institution has used WASC standards and principles well and if there are any “best practices” that are noteworthy (“Handbook”, 2008).
Summary
Through this complex weaving and structuring, one can see that there are more similarities than differences between HLC and WASC. Although vernacular changes slightly from commission to commission, both have a common purpose for academic assessment and see that it should be identifiable and measured in a way that recommendations can be used to improve the assessment process. Both commissions use a top-down methodology using core beliefs to develop examples of accountability and improvement evidence that the review boards can use to properly assess student learning. Both associations use academe for institutions to be more directly and constantly involved in association-approved workshops, forum, and training for student learning so a culture of assessment can be created through liaison between commission and institution members. Both have formal structures for integrating third party feedback into their processes. One difference is that WASC does address student learning assessments in program reviews as well as institutional reviews through rubrics, where HLC provides more open-ended guidance on accountability and importance evidence and scoring.

References About WASC. (n.d.). About WASC. Structure. Retrieved from: http://www.wascsenior.org/about Academy. (2011). The Higher Learning Commission’s Academy for Assessment Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.ncahlc.org/Information-for-Institutions/academy.html Accreditation Policy. (2012). Policy changes related to criteria for accreditation. Retrieved from: http://www.ncahlc.org/Policy/commission-policy.html ALA. (2012). Assessment Leadership Academy. Retrieved from: http://www.wascsenior.org/ala/overview/ Handbook. (2008). Handbook of Accreditation. WASC Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from: http://wascsenior.org/findit/files/forms/Handbook_of_Accreditation.pdf PEAQ. (2011). Maintaining Accreditation through the Program to Evaluate and Advance Quality. Higher Learning Commission. Retrieved from: http://www.ncahlc.org/PEAQ-Home/peaq.html Purposes of WASC. (2012). Purposes of WASC Accreditation. Retrieved from: http://www.wascsenior.org/about/purposeofaccreditation Student Learning. (2003). HLC Statement on Assessment of Student Learning. The Higher Learning Commission. Retrieved from: http://www.ncahlc.org/Information-for-the-Public/public-information.html WASC Third Party. (2009). WASC Policy on Complaints and Third Party Comment. Retrieved from: http://www.wascsenior.org/findit/files/forms/Complaint_and_Third_Party_Comment_Policy.pdf