Orientation to SACS Reaffirmation:

Role of the Leadership TeamDr. Constance Ray

Vice President, Institutional Research, Planning, & Effectiveness

What is SACS Reaffirmation about? Southern Association of Colleges and

Schools (SACS) regional accreditation Commission on Colleges accredits

higher education institutions in 11 southern states

Provides for peer review process to ensure quality

Takes place every 10 years Threshold of eligibility for receiving

federal funds Threshold of eligibility for program

accreditation

What does it signify?

Mission appropriate to higher education

Sufficient resources, programs and services to accomplish and sustain mission

Clear educational objectives consistent with mission and degree offerings

Successful in achieving stated objectives

What is the Reaffirmation Process?

The Principles of Accreditation provide for:

Institution Compliance Certification—16 Core Requirements; 56 Comprehensive Standards; 3 Responsibilities; 7 Federal Requirements

Commission Off-Site Peer Review of Compliance Certification

Institution Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)

Commission On-Site Peer Review of QEP

Commission Commission Review of Results and Judgment

Institution makes the case for compliance for each◦ Core Requirement◦ Comprehensive Standard◦ Federal Requirement

Case is supported with documentation, relevant data, and an explanatory narrative

Non-compliance judgment on Core Requirement results in automatic sanction

The Compliance Certification

Degree-granting Authority Governing Board Chief Executive Officer Institutional Mission and

Effectiveness Continuous Operation Program Length and Content General Education Degree Program Course Work Adequate Faculty Learning Resources and Services Student Support Services Financial and Physical Resources Acceptable QEP

Core Requirement Areas

Mission, Governance and Effectiveness

Educational Programs Faculty Library and Learning Resources Student Affairs and Services Financial Resources Physical Resources

Comprehensive Standard Areas

CR 2.12 – includes an institutional process for identifying key issues emerging from institutional assessment and focuses on learning outcomes and/or the environment supporting student learning and accomplishing the mission of the institution

CS 3.3.2 – demonstrates institutional capability; includes broad-based involvement; and identifies goals and a plan to assess their achievement

Acceptable QEP

Not be large Include individuals with skills, knowledge,

and authority to lead total institutional effort

Include, at least, the President, Provost, accreditation liaison, and faculty representative

Manage and validate the internal institutional assessment of compliance to ensure integrity of process and documents

The Leadership Team should:

Coordinate and manage the internal review process, including developing structure and timelines

Send 4 members to SACS orientation in June 2011 Oversee review of compliance and documentation of

evidence Develop Focused Report (addresses concerns of off-

site review) Oversee development of QEP Ensure University community is engaged and informed Oversee arrangements for on-site visit Ensure appropriate follow-up activities

Leadership Team Responsibilities:

Reaffirmation TimelineDate Action

Jan 2010 Pre-planning activity completed

Feb 2010 Leadership Team & QEP Topic Selection Team (TST) established

Mar 2010 Leadership Team and TST hold initial meetings

Sept 2010 Compliance Certification Team established

Dec 2010 Team Members attend SACS Annual Meeting in Louisville

Mar 2011 QEP Topic approved by Leadership Team

Apr 2011 QEP Development Team appointed

Sept 2012 Compliance Certification submitted to SACS; QEP vetted by campus community and refined

Nov 2012 Off-site review results received; write Focused Report

Dec 2012 QEP approved by Board of Trustees

Jan 2013 QEP submitted to SACS

Mar 2013 On-site Visit by SACS

Key ConcernsRequirement or Standard

Compliance Area

2.8 Adequacy of full-time faculty

2.5 Institutional effectiveness

2.12 Acceptable QEP based on key issues emerging from student learning assessment results

3.2.10 Administrator evaluations

3.3.1.1 Student learning improvement based on assessment results

3.3.2 Acceptable QEP; broad-based involvement, goals, and assessment plan

3.4.3 Admissions policies published

3.4.7 Consortial relationships/contractual agreements

3.5.4 Terminal degrees of faculty (25% rule at baccalaureate level)

3.7.1 Faculty competence/credentials/transcripts

3.12 Substantive change

Questions?