SACRAO FEBRUARY 8, 2016 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK STEVEN M. SHEELEY VICE PRESIDENT Accreditation Update

Overview of Topics Policies  Quality and Integrity of Undergraduate Degrees  Advertising, Student Recruitment, and Representation of Accredited Status  Institutional Obligations for Public Disclosure Competency-based Programs Joint and Dual Awards Internationalization  School of Record Dual-Credit High School Sites

Policy Update

Quality and Integrity of UG Degrees d%20Integrity%20of%20Undergraduate%20Degree s.pdf (February 2012) d%20Integrity%20of%20Undergraduate%20Degree s.pdf Courses “intended” for transfer must meet consistent curricular and faculty qualifications Coursework accepted for transfer (even if not intended) must meet consistent curricular/faculty standards Institutional transcript can no longer “bundle” or “block” transfer credit

Advertising, Student Recruitment, and Representation of Accredited Status (June 2014) Transparent and honest recruitment and advertising Official Publications  Admissions requirements for all types of students  General Education requirements and “pathway” Student recruitment (international?) Clear and correct representation of accreditation status

Institutional Obligations for Public Disclosure bligationsPublicDisclosure.pdf (June 2014) bligationsPublicDisclosure.pdf Information that is:  Complete  Accurate  Timely  Accessible  Clear  Sufficient

MPETENCYBASEDEDUCATIONPOLICY.PDF Competency/Direct Assessment

Definitions Competency: A competency is a clearly defined and measurable statement of the knowledge, skill, and ability a student has acquired in a designated program. Competency-Based Educational Programs: A competency-based educational program is outcome- based and assesses a student’s attainment of competencies as the sole means of determining whether the student earns a degree or a credential. Such programs may be organized around traditional course- based units (credit or clock hours) that students must earn to complete their educational program, or may depart from course-based units (credit or clock hours) to rely solely on the attainment of defined competencies.

Definitions Direct Assessment Competency-Based Educational Programs (also referred to in this policy as direct assessment programs): Federal regulations define a direct assessment competency-based educational program as an instructional program that, in lieu of credit hours or clock hours as a measure of student learning, uses direct assessment of student learning relying solely on the attainment of defined competencies, or recognizes the direct assessment of student learning by others. The assessment must be consistent with the accreditation of the institution or program using the results of the assessment. Hybrid Direct Assessment Competency-Based Educational Programs (also referred to in this policy as hybrid programs): A hybrid competency-based educational program combines course- based competencies (clock and credit hours awarded) with non- course based competencies (no clock or credit hours awarded).

Substantive Change? Organized around traditional course-based units (credit or clock hour) – No Direct Assessment of student learning/attainment of defined competencies – Yes (also need US DOE approval) Hybrid combination of course-based (credits) with non course-based (direct assessment; 50% or more) - Yes

Foundational Obligations Report initiation and seek approval Identify the institution’s educational contribution  Expand students’ knowledge  Assist students’ documentation of prior learning to demonstrate attainment of competencies Ensure integrity  Accreditation is not transferable  Institutional Control

Structure and Coherence Clearly defined competencies and learning outcomes Clearly defined academic program  Beginning, middle, and end  Mechanism for monitoring student progress, both competencies and credential General education component for UG programs Unified body of knowledge, not just discrete units

Assessment Demonstrate program effectiveness  Outcomes, data, program improvement  Probably can’t “roll these in” as is often the case with other “modalities” Mechanism for determining equivalence  To credit/clock hour coursework  Academic achievement and rigor

Academic Quality Qualified faculty – design, regular engagement, and assessment Awarding the credential – institutional contribution  UG – at least 25%  GR – at least 33% Academic policies  Transcript documents competencies and equivalencies  Contracts (CS 3.4.7)  Academic and student support  Fees and compliance with Title IV

Procedures Prior Approval  Notification  Appendix B to policy – screening form; SACSCOC response regarding need for prospectus Prospectus (4/15 or 9/15) SACSCOC Board of Trustees review and approval Substantive Change Committee’s visit within six months of implementation SACSCOC BoT review of Committee’s report and institutional response

TSINVOLVINGDUALANDJOINTAWARDS.PDF Joint and Dual Academic Awards

Definitions Dual: An agreement by two or more institutions to grant dual academic awards is one whereby students study at two or more institutions and each institution grants a separate academic award bearing only its name, seal, and signature(s). Joint: An agreement by two or more institutions to grant a joint academic award is one whereby students study at two or more institutions and the institutions grant a single academic award bearing the names, seals, and signatures of each of the participating institutions.

Types of Partnerships A SACSCOC member institution and partner institutions that are all SACSCOC accredited A SACSCOC member institution and at least one partner institution that is accredited by a USDOE- recognized accreditor other than SACSCOC A SACSCOC member institution and at least one partner institution that is not accredited by a USDOE-recognized accreditor

Philosophical Issues SACSCOC accreditation is not transferable  Member institution is responsible for integrity  Disclaimer statement (in the policy)  Use of SACSCOC logo or suggestion that the non-member institution’s program is “accredited” by SACSCOC Ensure percentages of coursework offered by member institution  UG – at least 25%  GR – at least 33% Quality of coursework and transparency on transcript

Salient Prior Questions How will you maintain control over academic quality?  Faculty  Course content  Student learning outcomes How will you ensure appropriate support?  Library/learning resources  Academic and student support Will you be offering more than 50% of the coursework at a “new” off-campus site?

Substantive Change Refer to the Joint/Dual Agreement policy first, then crosswalk to Substantive Change policy Don’t confuse this type of agreement for collaborative academic awards with other consortia or contracts No matter what these agreements are called on your campus, ensure that material you send to SACSCOC only refers to “joint” or “dual” programs, following the definition(s) in the policy Don’t hesitate to confer with your SACSCOC VP

Consortial/Contractual Arrangements CS – The institution ensures the quality of educational programs offered through consortial relationships or contractual agreements, ensures ongoing compliance with the Principles, and periodically evaluates the consortial relationship/contractual agreement against the mission of the institution.

Consortium Formal agreement between two or more institutions Usually involves cross- or concurrent registration Agreement bypasses/overrides home institution’s transfer policies and procedures Only “control” over the quality of coursework is ensured through the agreement Substantive change requires notification by all member institutions (including signed copy of the consortial agreement) prior to implementation

Contractual Agreement Member institution enters into a contractual relationship with another institution or service provider to deliver the course (all aspects) Only control over quality of the coursework is provided by contract Transcripted as member institution’s course Substantive change requires notification (including copy of the signed contract) prior to implementation

Typically not included Dual enrollment for high school students (could be sub change for new off-campus site) Transfer-articulation agreements Clinical affiliation agreement Student teaching agreement Internship/externship

State Authorization

Overview National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (nc-sara.org) Rule currently not being enforced by US-DOE States are enforcing, however No place – currently – for institutions to report or accreditation committees to review May become policy (CS ) or Federal Requirement, but not until resolved at the DOE level

Internationalization

Salient Questions Off-campus instructional site?  Curriculum over 50% of an educational program?  Online modality?  Institutional control (admissions, faculty, etc.)?  Appropriate academic/student support? Student readiness  Academic and language  Cultural and emotional Accreditation is not “transferable”

School of Record Study abroad, often via consortial relationship Regionally-accredited institution (US) transcripting credit from international partner(s)  NCA/HLC guidelines are very helpful! ( Processes/guidelines-school-of-record.html) Processes/guidelines-school-of-record.html  Receiving institution responsible for quality and equivalency of work recorded on transcript – due diligence (faculty, rigor, content, etc.)  Careful with accreditation statement

Dual-Credit High School Sites

Salient Issues Recent trend of overwhelming demand from policy-makers, particularly at state level Few, if any, issues when student comes to you and takes a seat in your classes Off-campus instructional site (over 50% of any educational program being offered – exclude HS students taking online courses) Institutional control  Faculty  Admissions  Curriculum  Grading Appropriate access to academic and student support services FERPA