Getting Ready for SACS-COC Reaffirmation: Needs, Processes and Strategies

1. 2008 Getting Ready forSACS-COC Reaffirmation:Needs, Processes and Strategies Dr. Harriott Calhoun, Jefferson State Community College hcalhoun@jeffstateonline.com Dr. Glenna Brown, University of Alabama at Birmingham Glenna@uab.edu Dr. Alan Hargrave, Samford University adhargra@samford.edu

2. Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement PRINCIPLES OF ACCREDITATION: FOUNDATIONS FOR QUALITY ENHANCEMENT Commission on Colleges Southern Association of Colleges and Schools 2008 Interim Edition Approved by the College Delegate AssemblyDec. 2001;revised Dec. 2006;revised Dec. 2007. 2008 Interim Edition available at: http://www.sacscoc.org/principles.asp

3. When changes are adopted… Institutions are responsible immediately for compliance with new requirements, regardless of where they are in the reaffirmation process.

4. Core Requirement 2.5(Institutional Effectiveness) The institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that: 1. incorporate a systematic review of institutional mission, goals, and outcomes; 2. result in continuing improvement in institutional quality, and 3. demonstrate that the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission.

5. Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1 (Institutional Effectiveness) The institution identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of the results in each of the following areas:

6. Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1 (Institutional Effectiveness) 3.3.1.1 – Educational programs, to include student learning outcomes, 3.3.1.2 – Administrative support services, 3.3.1.3 – Educational support services, 3.3.1.4 – Research within its educational mission, if appropriate, 3.3.1.5 – Community/public service within its educational mission, if appropriate.

7. Comprehensive Standard 3.5.1(General Education Competencies) The institution identifies college-level general education competencies and the extent to which graduates have attained them.

8. A Current SACS Emphasis Student leaning outcomes are a current emphasis both in compliance and in the QEP.

9. Regarding Student Learning Outcomes The institution must be in compliance with: • CS 3.3.1.1 (outcomes for educational programs, including student learning outcomes) and • CS 3.5.1 (college-level general education competencies) The QEP is intended to take the institution beyond compliance.

10. Components of the Institutional Review 1. Compliance Certification that is truthful, accurate and complete. 2. Quality Enhancement Plan that is: • focused on improving student learning & • developed with significant participation by the institution’s academic community.

11. Review by the Commission 1. Off-Site Peer Review Committee • Reviews 2 - 3 similar institutions • Does not review the QEP 2. On-Site Peer Review Committee • Finalizes issues of compliance • Evaluates acceptability of the QEP • Provides consultation regarding the QEP

12. With the new processes there are implicit assumptions that institutions will have: • A high commitment to institutional integrity and professional responsibility; • Honest and candid self-assessment; • Planning and evaluation processes that are mature (fully implemented and on-going); • A focus on enhancing institutional quality and improving student learning; • Processes that are continuous rather than episodic every 10 years.

13. Compliance Certification • Used by the institution to present its compliance with each Core Requirement and Comprehensive Standard • Includes supporting documentation for determination of compliance in each area • No prescribed way of presenting “case for compliance” • Presented electronically, as much as possible

14. Suggestions for Completing Compliance Certification • Involve those responsible for the particular function • Be efficient and thorough (truthful, accurate, complete) • Take immediate corrective actions when needed • Develop clear, succinct, but convincing narrative • Provide documentation that establishes a pattern of evidence

15. The Process for Gathering Evidence For each Core Requirement and Comprehensive Standard: • What/where is the evidence that the Requirement/Standard is met? • How will evidence be gathered,stored, and presented to SACS?

16. Sources of Evidence • College Catalog • Organizational charts • Bylaws of the governing board • IE documents, including clear descriptions of IE processes • Documentation of student learning outcomes and results • Faculty credentials/qualifications

17. Sources of Evidence (continued…) • Faculty handbook • Minutes of meetings • Documentation of off-campus/distance learning programs and the faculty/staff and learning resources that support them • Policies and procedures (also evidence they are implemented) • Data – institutional and comparative

18. Sources of Evidence (continued…) • Student handbook • Financial audits, management letters, financial aid audits and other relevant financial statements for current and recent fiscal years. • Minutes of governing board, institutional committees, etc.

19. Resource Manual for the Principles of Accreditation Provides for each Requirement and Standard: • Rationale • Relevant questionsfor consideration • Sample documentation

20. CR 2.5: …on-going, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes… • Description of processes • Documentation of on-going, regular, and systematic processes • Evidence of support for mission and goals • Allocation of resources (people & time) • Linkage to budget • Broad-based involvement • Use of results

21. Evidence must be: • Reliable • Current • Verifiable • Orderly and logical • Objective • Relevant • Representative (not an isolated case)

22. Compliance Expectation The expectation is that most issues of compliance can be determined by the Off-Site Review Committee, thus access to evidence of compliance is critical.

23. Documentation must be accurate and complete Most common problem areas: • Institutional Effectiveness • Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes • Faculty Credentials

24. Faculty Credentials Tip 1: Start early! • Evaluate the quality of the data that you have in your HR system and take immediate corrective action when documentation is incomplete and/or inadequate. • Develop the display that will be used for off-site review.

25. Faculty Credentials (continued…) Tip 2: Use multiple rounds of review. • Department/discipline • School/division • Institution

26. Faculty Credentials (continued…) Tip 3: Institutional mandate that there will be no exceptions and no excuses regarding official transcripts and formal documentation of any alternate credentials.

27. Faculty Credentials (continued…) One proactive approach:No job offer without official transcripts (or documentation of alternate credentials) on file.

28. Faculty Credentials (continued…) Tip 4: Display for review should include: • person • course • term • credentials Remember: Qualifications are linked to the course taught.

29. Faculty Credentials (continued…) Problems: • Defining “faculty” • Assuring credentials when someone is teaching who is not “faculty” Final determinations are based on professional judgment.

30. The Focused Report Institutions may (translation: you really want to) submit a Focused Report in response to issues of compliance that were identified by the Off-Site Committee. Focus: …to concentrate, i.e. to focus one’s attention on a single (or few) issues/concerns/topics.

31. The Focused Report The Focused Report addresses the findings of the Off-Site Review Committee by providing updated or additional documentation for those Requirements or Standards with which the committee: • found the institution to be in non-compliance, or • did not review (except for the QEP).

32. The Focused Report Should: Respond specifically to the issues identified in the Off-Site Committee comments. Don’t just repeat louder the same things that were in the initial compliance report. Provide convincing documentation. Remember: Non-Compliance at this stage usually means you have not yet convinced the reviewers of your compliance.

33. The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) “The QEP is the heart and soul of the accreditation process.” Warren Self V.P. for Academic Affairs Radford University speaking at the Dec. 2003 SACS Evaluator Training

34. The Quality Enhancement Plan “By definition, the QEP describes a carefully designed course of action that addresses a well-defined and focused topic or issue related to enhancing student learning.”From: The Quality Enhancement Plan The QEP is about pressing beyond simple compliance into real improvement.

35. CR 2.12: The Quality Enhancement Plan The institution has developed an acceptable Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) that: (1) includes a broad-based institutional process identifying key issues emerging from institutional assessment, (2) focuses on learning outcomes and/or the environment supporting student learning and accomplishing the mission of the institution, (3) demonstrates institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP, (4) includes broad-based involvement of institutional constituencies in the development and proposed implementation of the QEP, and (5) identifies goals and a plan to assess their achievement.

36. Where to Start Hot off the press: The Quality Enhancement Plan. • Also known as theQEP Handbook • A step by step guide tothe development and presentation of your QEP • There is an outline for theQEP to serve as a guidebut the content is all yours! March 4, 2008 THE QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN Copy will be includedin the Future RevisedHandbook for Reaffirmation of Accreditation 2007

37. Ownership of the QEP While you need broad support, someone must “own” the process. You need a champion. The champion needs to cultivate a sense of shared ownership of the product. The ideal QEP is “owned” by everyone at the institution.

38. Selection of the QEP Topic In order to enhance educational quality and improve student learning, what are the most important changes that your school should make in what students learn and/or how they learn it? • It’s about learning!!! • It should play to yourinstitutional identityand mission.

39. QEP Presentation Outline I. Executive Summary II. Process used to develop the QEP III. Identification of the topic IV. Desired student learning outcomes V. Literature review and best practices VI. Actions to be implemented VII. Timeline VIII. Organizational structure IX. Resources X. Assessment

40. The Quality Enhancement Plan The narrative should explain how the plan: • Is broadly participatory (both in design and execution), • Complements the institution’s on-going planning and evaluation processes, • Is focused on issues critical to enhancing educational quality and student learning, • Allocates adequate human and financial resources to develop, implement, and sustain the plan, • Has potential for broad impact and implications for the future of the institution.

41. On-Site Evaluation of the QEP Handbook for Reaffirmation ofAccreditation, pp. 27-28. 1. Focus of the Plan 2. Institutional Capabilityand the Initiation andContinuation of the Plan 3. Assessment of the Plan 4. Broad-based Involvementof the Community See also pp. 33-36 of the Handbook for Review Committees.

42. QEP Lead Evaluators/Consultants: • Are nominated by the institution but invited by SACS. They can come from outside the region. • Serve in a consulting role, along with other members of the On-Site Committee, during the on-site visit. The institution cannot contact/consult them after the visit. • Have writing responsibility for the QEP part of the Committee Report. Remember: The entire Committee agrees on recommendations.

43. Evaluation of the QEP The QEP should reflect the best research and thinking that the institution can produce but the institution should be open to consultation/guidance from the On-Site Committee to: • strengthen the plan, • improve chances for successful implementation, and • improve potential that student learning will increase. Warren Self, speaking at the Dec. 2003 SACS Evaluator Training.

44. In both Compliance and the QEP: Respond to requirements specifically and thoroughly in narrative and documentation.

45. Consult COC Resource Documents PRINCIPLES OF ACCREDITATION: FOUNDATIONS FOR QUALITY ENHANCEMENT Commission on Colleges Southern Association of Colleges and Schools 2008 Interim Edition The Quality Enhancement Plan2007 March 4, 2008 THE QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN Copy will be includedin the Future RevisedHandbook for Reaffirmation of Accreditation 2007 The Principles of Accreditation:Foundations for Quality Enhancement2008 Interim Edition Handbook for Reaffirmation of Accreditation2nd Printing Handbook for Review CommitteesSecond Edition Resource Manual for the Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement www.sacscoc.org

46. Questions? Dr. Harriott CalhounJefferson State Community Collegehcalhoun@jeffstateonline.com Dr. Glenna BrownUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamGlenna@uab.edu Dr. Alan HargraveSamford Universityadhargra@samford.edu