road to sacs reaffirmation s outhern a ssociation of c olleges and s chools target: 2012 university...
TRANSCRIPT
Road to SACS Reaffirmation
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
Target: 2012
University of North AlabamaFlorence, Alabama
April 27, 2009
In Your Opinion…
If UNA could focus on doing just one thing
to improve
student learning,
what should it be?
SACS Reaffirmation
Where have we been?
Where are we going?
…And HOW?
Brief History
1895 - Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) began
1934 – UNA first accredited by SACS
2002 – UNA last reaffirmed as Level IV institution (Bachelor’s, Master’s, Education Specialist degrees)
2012 – Next Reaffirmation
Significance of SACS Accreditation?
Signifies that the institution:
(1) has an appropriate mission
(2) has sufficient resources, programs, & services to accomplish mission
(3) maintains clear educational objectives consistent with mission, appropriate to degrees, and that indicate success in achieving those objectives
Back in the Dark Ages…(2000-02)
• Criteria for Accreditation
• 400+ “Must” Statements
For example:
“The institution must define its expected educational results and describe its methods for analyzing the results.”
2000-02 SACS Self-Study
Steering Committee
Subcommittees: • Purpose of the Institution• Institutional Effectiveness• Undergraduate Program• Graduate Program• Distance Learning, Continuing
Education• Faculty Issues• Library/Information Technology• Student Development & Athletics• Administration/Advancement• Financial Resources• Physical Resources
2000-02 Reaffirmation Process
• Massive Campus-wide Survey(s)
• Large Supporting Documents (Hard Copy)
Collection
• Large on-Campus Review Team
• Follow-up Report
Times they are a-changin’…
SACS is whereStudentsAreCentral toSuccess
~Dr. Belle S. Wheelan
President, SACS Commission on Colleges
SACS Expectations• Demonstrate how well institution fulfills
stated mission• Commitment to student learning and
achievement (Student Learning Outcomes)
• Commitment to quality enhancement through continuous assessment and improvement
• Documented quality and effectiveness of all programs and services (Assumption: IE
processes are mature and incorporated throughout university)
Principles of Accreditation (2008 interim ed.)
• Overarching principle of Integrity
• Policies/Procedures – Written – Approved – Published– Accessible– Implemented– Enforced
• Two-pronged process, two committee structures
Not Just Every 10 Years…• 2 Annual Institutional Profiles:
– General Information/Enrollment Data– Financial Trends and Stability
• Substantive Change Reports• Compliance Certification
(Reaffirmation Report from Off-Site Committee)
• Focused Report• Quality Enhancement Plan
(On-Site Review Committee Report)
• Response to On-Site Recommendations• Five-Year Report/Impact of QEP Report
Two Primary Reports Required
ComplianceAudit
• Snap-shot of past/present
• Submitted September 2011
• Reviewed by Off-Site Committee
Quality Enhancement
Plan (QEP)
• Proposed Plan for Future
• Submitted 6 weeks prior to On-Site Visit
• Reviewed by On-Site Committee
Organizational Structure
SACS Leadership Team• President• Vice President for Academic Affairs/Provost• Vice President for Business & Financial Affairs• SACS Reaffirmation Director• Compliance Certification Team Co-Chairs• Quality Enhancement Plan Team Chair• Faculty Representatives
Orientation for “Class of 2012” Leadership Teams, Atlanta, June 2010
UNA’s SACS Leadership Team
• Dr. Phil Bridgmon (QEP)
• Dr. Jerri Bullard (Compliance Certification)
• President Cale (Co-Chair)
• Dr. Greg Carnes (Faculty Representative)
• Dr. Sandra Loew (Faculty Representative)
• Dr. Andrew Luna (Compliance Certification)
• Ms. Celia Reynolds (Reaffirmation Director, Co-Chair)
• Dr. Steve Smith (VPBFA)
• Dr. John Thornell (VPAA/Provost)
Compliance AuditCoordinated by:
Compliance Certification Team• Documents compliance with Principles
– 15 Core Requirements– 64 Comprehensive Standards– 7 Federal Requirements– SACS/COC Policies (Substantive Change,
etc.)
• Electronic report with links to specific supporting documentation (manuals, minutes, policies, examples)
Example of Principle(Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1)
“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:
– Educational programs, to include student learning outcomes
– Administrative Support Services– Educational Support Services– Research with its educational mission– Community/Public service within its educational mission
Areas of Concern 1992 Reaffirmation
Institutional Effectiveness• Adequacy of Planning/Evaluation Process• Inclusion of Student Outcomes in Goals of Academic
Departments• Procedures for Evaluating Achievement of Student
Outcomes• Demonstrated Use of Evaluation Results to Improve
Programs, Services, Operations• Procedures to Assess Student Performance, Including
Feedback and Follow-up
1992 (continued)
• Link Budgeting Process to Planning and Assessment
Faculty Issues• Faculty Role in Curriculum• Faculty Credentials, including terminal degrees• Official Transcripts on File• Faculty Compensation- Based on Stated
Criteria/Annual Reviews Based on Criteria• Clear, published Promotion/Tenure Policies
1992 (continued)
• Adequate Faculty; policies for assignments• System of Faculty Evaluation; Use Results for
Improvement
Advising• Structure/Resources for Effective Student
Advisement
Physical Facilities• Comprehensive Safety Plan; Evaluation of Plan• Current Master Plan
2002 Recommendation Areas- Institutional Effectiveness
– Advising
– Needs Assessments prior to Graduate Program Development
– Credentials of Undergraduate Faculty in specific areas (% of faculty with terminal degree)
– Criteria and Procedures for Faculty Evaluation
2002 Recommendations (continued)
– Availability of Job Descriptions for Administrators
– Regular Evaluation of Budgeting Procedure
– Internal Auditing – Comprehensive Safety Plan – Guidelines for Externally Funded Grants
Areas of Most Common SACS Non-Compliance
• Faculty Qualifications
• Institutional Effectiveness
• Quality Enhancement Plan
How are we addressing the Problems?
University Groups– Advising– Faculty Evaluation/Promotion & Tenure– Faculty Credentials– General Education Competencies– Institutional Effectiveness
Addressing Principles?
Readiness Assessment Team– Examining Requirements & Standards– Determining/Assigning Responsibility– Meeting with Groups/Individuals– Assessing Existing Documentation– Requesting Information
Compliance Certification Team
Compliance Assist!
Documenting Compliance
What can YOU do?
• Review departmental/unit/college mission statement, policies, procedures—Are they current, approved, published, implemented, enforced? (If not, create, get approved, publish, implement.)
• Is your area following UNA’s I.E. Guidelines? – Annual report? – Assessment report? – Documentation of results used for decision making? – Budget tied to assessment results?
• Is your academic or educational support unit program preparing for its program review? Have you defined student learning outcomes? Seek help from the Office of Institutional Research, Planning, & Assessment.
• If you offer Distance Education—are learning outcomes being assessed for those students?
• Do DL students have access to appropriate resources—advising, library, technology, etc.
What else?• Do the faculty in your department have
appropriate credentials for teaching assigned courses?
• Are criteria for faculty evaluation clear?
• Are faculty being evaluated consistently? Is there documentation?
• Are administrators being evaluated consistently?
What else?
• Ongoing ASSESSMENT
• Check out SACS website
• Document, Document, Document!
Ask Questions…Get Help
Plan for Future - QEP
Quality Enhancement Plan
– Reflects broad-based process to identify key issues based on institutional assessment
• Must be focused on an area of student learning likely to have significant institutional impact
– Reflects continued broad-based involvement in development/implementation of plan (faculty, staff, students, administrators, alumni)
QEP– Focuses on learning outcomes
– Demonstrates capacity to initiate, implement, and complete QEP (sufficient budget, personnel, etc.)
– Identifies goals and plan to assess achievement
QEP – How do we get there?
QEP Planning Team– Solicit input, study documents, review
other QEPs, etc.
– Assess topics in relation to UNA
– Narrow field; solicit proposals
– Recommend final list topics to Leadership Team
UNA’s QEP Planning Team
• Dr. Lynn Aquadro• Mr. Bart Black• Dr. Phil Bridgmon• Dr. Vagn Hansen• Dr. Linda Lewis• Dr. Chris Maynard
• Dr. Lisa Minor• Dr. Joan Parris• Ms. Celia Reynolds• Ms. Jennifer Holt Smith• Ms. Leigh Thompson• Student Representative
QEP – Second Phase
QEP Development Team• Fully develop five-year QEP to submit to
SACS, including – Research on Best Practices– Timelines (2012-2017)
– Personnel/responsibility assignments – Resource allocation– Comprehensive evaluation plan – Assessment schedule
Recent QEP Topics
• Writing/Communication Skills• Mathematical Skills• Critical Thinking• Information Literacy• Student Engagement• Service Learning/Experiential
Learning• Global Competence
Anticipated Reaffirmation Timeline
General Preparation
Conduct Planning Activities
Form Leadership
Team; Develop Editorial
Guidelines
Leadership Team Meets Regularly;
Approves QEP Topic
Orientation
of Leadership
Team – Atlanta (June 2010)
Leadership Team Meets
Regularly
Leadership Team Approves Compliance Report, Reviews QEP
Leadership Team Approves QEP
Prepare for
On-Site Visit
Review by SACS
Commission On
Colleges
Compliance Preparation
Plan Strategy/
Form Readiness
Assessment Team
Begin Readiness
Audit Process/
Begin Gathering Evidence
Form
Compliance Certification Team/ Fix Problems,
Gather Evidence
Draft Narratives
Continue Work on Compliance Certification
Continue to fix problems
Final Edit/ Approval of Compliance
Report
Compliance Report Due
to SACS
Off-Site Peer
Review Conducted
Prepare Focused Report
Focused Report Due to SACS
QEP Preparation
Plan Strategy
Form QEP Planning
Team/Begin Topic ID Process
Identify QEP Topic
Fully Develop QEP Proposal
Solicit Feedback/
Refine QEP
Edit and finalize QEP
Final Review/
Approval of QEP
QEP
Due to SACS; Begin QEP
Project
On-Site Peer
Review
Respond to On-Site Committee
Report
Fully
Implement 1st Phase
of QEP
Fall 2008 –Spring 2009
Spring 2009 Summer - Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Summer 2010
Fall 2010-Spring 2011
Summer 2011
Sept. 2011 Fall 2011
Six
weeks prior to on-site
visit
Spring 2012
December 2012
2008-09
2009
2010
2011
2012
Due Dates
• Compliance Report due – Sept. 10, 2011
• Off-Site Review - Nov. 2011
• Focused Report (six weeks before visit)
• On-Site Visit -
Spring 2012
• QEP due to SACS -Dec. 2011 (six weeks before visit)
• On-Site Visit - Spring 2012
• Response Report - Fall 2012
• SACS Decision-
December 2012
For More Information
www.sacscoc.org
Coming soon:• UNA SACS/QEP website• Compliance Assist!• Periodic electronic newsletters• Opportunities for input
???QEP????If UNA could focus on just
one thing to improve student learning and/or the learning environment,
what should it be?
Questions?SACS? QEP?
Celia Reynolds Phil Bridgmon
[email protected] [email protected]
Ext. 4625 Ext. 4192
Compliance? Institutional Effectiveness?
Jerri Bullard Andrew Luna
[email protected] [email protected]
Ext. 4531 Ext. 4221
Remember…
We are all in this together!
And…
Spring 2012
is sooner than
we (may) think!
