This is not your grandfather’s re-accreditation process. January 7, 2009

 A new term to reflect both a philosophical re-orientation and new procedures.  Emphasizes renewal and reinvigoration of an existing commitment.  Reaffirmation is an ongoing initiative, not an episodic project.  Suggests that concerns with quality and standards spring from the institution itself rather than being imposed from outside.

 The process is judged by peers.  The process is based on institutional integrity.  The process is a demonstration of the institution’s commitment to quality enhancement.  The process focuses on student learning.

 Accreditation was once based solely on strict compliance with a set of standards that uniformly applied to all institutions.  Now accrediting organizations recognize institutional differences and ask whether the institution is consistent in its mission, its action, and its student outcomes.

 Institutional assessment plans must be regularly applied and measure progress in meeting program goals.  Special emphasis is given to tracking and enhancing student learning outcomes.

 Compliance in measuring up to minimum expectations is still part of reaffirmation.  But, expectations are no longer precisely quantified. They’re interpreted in light of each institution’s unique mission.  And, institutions must now demonstrate commitment to regular self-assessment and continuous planned improvement with a five-year report required of all institutions.  Create and sustain an environment that enhances student learning.

 Compliance Certification  Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)

 An off-Site Review Committee considers the institution’s Compliance Certification.  A separate On-Site Review Committee (7+ members) visits the campus primarily to address the institution’s QEP.

Self-study and external review focused on past and present actions as well as mission & policies

HHow well have we implemented the ideals of the Principles of Accreditation? 12 C ore Requirements 58 Comprehensive Standards 7 Federal Requirements  N Narrative responses explain our degree of compliance and site evidence to support these claims

 Very few standards are defined in specific numerical or percentage terms.  They reflect more concern with quality than with quantity.  Underlying reasons and desired outcomes are as important as policies and practices.

The number of full-time faculty members is adequate to support the mission of the institution. The institution has adequate faculty recourses to ensure the quality and integrity of its academic programs. …It meets the comprehensive standard for faculty qualifications.

 Old expectation: faculty credentials should be appropriate for the department in which the person has an appointment.  New expectation: faculty credentials must be appropriate and adequate for each course the person teaches.

1. Leadership Team 2. Compliance Certification Committee Subcommittees: A. Core Requirements B. Institutional Mission & Governance and Administration C. Institutional Effectiveness

D. Educational Programs/ Undergraduate Programs and Faculty E. Student Affairs and Services F. Resources and Federal Requirements Note: Subcommittees B – F are focusing on Comprehensive Standards

 Collection of Master course syllabi  Faculty rosters & transcripts  Academic program assessment reports focused on student learning outcomes  Strategic planning reports focused on institutional & unit missions & goals  Revised College Catalog

TRACDAT - Used to develop plans and report outcomes at all administrative levels. - Academic program assessment of student learning outcomes. - Will help integrate and align strategic planning down to the unit level.

 1. Assessment of Effectiveness  2. Evidence of Planning  3. Continuous Improvement  4. Adequacy of Resources  5. Quality of Educational Programs  6. Qualifications of Faculty and Staff

 Now – committee work is beginning.  May 15, 2009 committee work concludes; all analyses submitted to the report writer.  November, 2009 final review/editing of the draft.  March 15, 2010 – Compliance Certification is submitted  May 12, 2010 – Off-Site Review of Compliance Certification  July 30, 2010 – follow-up Focused Report is submitted, if needed.

“To accomplish great things, we must dream as well as act.” Anatole Francis

In SACS’s terms:  a carefully designed and focused course of action  addresses a well-defined topic or issue(s)  related to enhancing student learning or the learning environment  a simple plan narrow in scope

 desired changes in knowledge, skills, behavior, or values that result from a college experience  not limited to classes & curricula  achieved from interactions with staff and peers as well as faculty

 A proposed QEP may extend, modify, redirect, or strengthen initiatives already underway.  A QEP should “complement the institution’s ongoing, integrated, planning and evaluation process.”  A QEP should be based on best practices identified through a complete literature search.

 Beverly Bugay  Jack Caddell  Lindsey Gainer  Lynn Gray  Desha Hill  Iris Hobson  Kay Lynn Moran  Deborah Welch Special thanks…

SACS warned us!  “The first, and most difficult, step is topic identification.”  Select a narrow do-able project reflecting TJC’s special interests, strategic priorities, and available resources.

 Externally: ◦ QEP projects nationwide ◦ CCSSE results  Internally: ◦ TJC mission statement & strategic plan ◦ TJC student graduation survey results ◦ TJC student evaluation results ◦ TJC focus group reports (faculty, administrative staff, professional staff, retirees, students)

 Narrowed potential topics to a short list and conducted a survey.  Survey results ◦ 336 respondents,  333 were faculty and staff + 3 board members  61.7% response rate from the 540 college employees.

Highest ranked potential topic areas  enhancing the advising process  improvement of critical thinking and logic

SACS warned us!  The topic selection process may take many twists and turns…shifting focus over time. ◦ Campus interviews ◦ Survey comments ◦ Anecdotal evidence ◦ Data that demonstrates evidence to support the QEP topic

 reflect a consensus of key campus constituencies.  involve “significant commitment from the entire institutional community.” This is not a committee project… it is a campus project.

 Get involved  Faculty & staff involvement  Discussion Forums  Solicitation of current research data on related topics  Solicitation of student learning outcomes  Student involvement  Survey  Student Senate

 Fall 2009 – SACS Staff Advisory Visit ◦ First deadline…proposal  July 30, 2010 – QEP is submitted to SACS. ◦ Full report  Fall 2010 – SACS Review Team on campus.  Spring 2011 – Prepare final follow-up response.  2016 – 5 year QEP Evaluation Report

You have spoken… we are still listening!

SACS announces reaffirmation decisions: June 2011 SACS Annual Meeting Atlanta, Georgia

SACS web sites