PREPARING FOR THE SACSCOC CANDIDACY COMMITTEE VISIT Presented By Claudette H. Williams

General Overview Review of the SACSCOC accreditation process Composition of the Candidacy Committee Assignment of committee members Draft Schedule Information/feedback management Expectations for accommodating a successful institutional accreditation review

Review of the SACSCOC Accreditation Process Submission of the Application Acceptance of the Application Authorization of a Candidacy Committee On-site Candidacy Committee visit C&R and Commission Board reviews Possible Outcomes Next steps - depending on outcome

Composition of the Candidacy Committee Six committee members, including the Committee Chair One Commission staff representative The Committee Chair manages the review process The Commission staff gives guidance to the committee to ensure that the Principles of Accreditation are observed throughout the review process Commission staff is NOT part of the decision making process and does not conduct interviews. Nevertheless, information which is brought to the attention of the Commission staff can be shared with the committee if it relates to the Principles of Accreditation or could have a bearing on the review and outcome.

Composition of the Candidacy Committee Candidacy Committee members usually represent the following areas: Academic Affairs – usually two, one of which is a senior level academic administrator, and the other could be a veteran faculty member or faculty administrator Administrative Affairs – usually a chief financial officer Student Affairs – usually an expert at the dean or higher level Library and Information Resources – usually a library director Institutional Effectiveness – usually an IE expert at the director or higher level The committee chair is one of these individuals, is a veteran evaluator, and has been trained both as an evaluator and as a committee chair.

Usual Primary Committee Assigned Response Reader/Writer by Standard Committee Members Principle/Standards Assigned for Review Principle/Core Requirements Comprehensive Standards Federal Requirements Chair 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Academic Affairs 2.6, 2.71, 2.7.2, 2.7.3, 2.7.4, 2.8, 3.5.1, 3.7.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.9 Institutional Effectiveness 2.4, 2.5 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.2, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.1.4, 3.3.1.5, 4.1, Student Affairs 2.10 4.3, 4.5, 4.8.2, Librarian 2.9 4.6, CFO 2.11.1, 2.11.2 4.7, 4.8.1, 4.8.3

Usual Secondary Readers Committee Members Principle/Standards Assigned for Review Principle/Core Requirements Comprehensive Standards Federal Requirements Academic (2) 2.7.3, 2.7.4, 2.8, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.4, 3.5.1, 3.7.1 4.9 Institutional Effectiveness Student Affairs 3.3.1.3 4.6, 4.8.1, 4.8.3 Librarian 2.10 3.3.1.5 4.3, CFO 3.3.1.2 All reviewers are required to review each standard, regardless of whether or not they are officially assigned to review the standard; but will not be responsible for developing the response to standards to which they are not assigned. This is to ensure a committee decision and not one of individuals.

The Candidacy Committee has been authorized; so ….

Expectations for accommodating a successful institutional accreditation review Continue to demonstrate and document compliance with the accreditation standards Review the Application in its entirety and pay focused attention to standards that relate to your duties and responsibilities Ensure that improvement in quality is evident, especially in institutional effectiveness standards Continue to maintain supporting documentation to ensure the demonstration of compliance on an ongoing basis

Expectations for accommodating a successful institutional accreditation review Ensure faculty, staff and students understand that they should not try to answer questions that are not in their area of expertise or responsibility Suggest that, when in doubt, interviewees refer the interviewer to the more informed and appropriate respondent Caution faculty, staff and students not to volunteer irrelevant information or provide information about which they were not asked Focus on the goal of the review – not on things which were not identified by the Commission staff to be issues Ensure that your unit members emulate your example in being prepared well for the on-site visit

Expectations for accommodating a successful institutional accreditation review Ensure that you have the most current and accurate information to respond to questions If you are aware of information changes, please inform OIER immediately SACSCOC requires all information to be in English and expect English will be the method of communication when they are on the campus or are interacting with representatives of the university It is very important that in the presence of a committee member, English is the only language that is spoken

Expectations for accommodating a successful institutional accreditation review Foster a positive and supportive attitude among colleagues Integrity matters: make that clear and be the one to model this The committee is not here to hear complaints; therefore no complaints of any type should be made. Individuals who have complaints on any matter should use the appropriate channels in place at the university. Caution interviewees that interviewers can ask leading questions that could yield negative responses; therefore they should listen carefully to the question and respond objectively and in keeping with AURAK’s application information.

Expectations for accommodating a successful institutional accreditation review The AURAK COMMUNITY MUST PRESENT AN INFORMED, POSITIVE, AND UNITED FRONT

POSSIBLE DRAFT SCHEDULE Day One 8:00 am – 10:30 am: Visit branch campuses, off-campus site(s) and distance education offering(s); selected team members (if applicable) 11:00 am – 12:30 pm: Committee orientation and working lunch (Location: hotel workroom) 12:30 pm – 1:00 pm Committee travels to campus 1:15 pm – 1:45 pm Meet and greet session with institution’s Leadership Team (light refreshments available). Host president and Committee chair will facilitate introductions plus an overview of college/university (president)and committee’s work (chair) (Location: TBD)

POSSIBLE DRAFT SCHEDULE Day One (Cont.) 2:00 pm – 5:00 pm: Committee meets with appropriate university representatives to examine the standards being reviewed 5:15 pm – 5:45 pm: Committee travels to hotel 6:00 pm – 7:00 pm: Committee meets in Executive Session to assess progress and review next day’s schedule/focus (Location: Hotel Workroom) 7:15 p.m. Dinner (Location: TBD) 9:00 p.m. Committee members work independently as needed (Location: Hotel workroom)

POSSIBLE DRAFT SCHEDULE Day Two Breakfast on your own 8:00 am – 8:30 am: Committee travels to campus 8:30 am – 12:00 pm: Committee continues to investigate compliance with the standards through interviews and the review of documents 12:00 pm – 1:15 pm: Executive session and light working lunch – assessment of progress and updating assigned narratives for report 1:30 pm – 2:15 pm: Committee meets with governing board representatives (required) (Location: TBD)

POSSIBLE DRAFT SCHEDULE Day Two (cont.) 2:30 pm – 3:00 pm: Committee Chair/SACSCOC Staff meet with President & Liaison 2:15 pm – 3:45 pm: Committee completes interviews and data gathering related to standards 3:45 pm – 4:15 pm: Committee travels to hotel 4:30 pm – 6:00 pm: Committee meets in Executive session to complete draft report and exit conference plans(Location (Hotel workroom) 6:30 pm – 8:30 pm Dinner (Location: TBD)

POSSIBLE DRAFT SCHEDULE Day Three Breakfast on your own 7:45 am – 8:15 am: Committee reviews draft report and exit conference details (Location: Hotel workroom) 8:30 am – 9:00 am: Committee travels to institution 9:00 am – 9:15 am: Committee Chair and SACSCOC Staff meet with President & Liaison 9:30 am: Exit Conference – All Committee members and university personnel as determine by the President (Location: TBD) 10:00 am: Committee departs

Information/feedback management Following the Visit: Based on the questions asked, you can learn what the reviewer is trying to find out and increase your own knowledge on the subject matter. Reviewers may want to share some of the practices they have at their institution. Learn from them, but do not feel you must utilize and apply their practices. Every institution’s culture is different and what may be applicable in one setting may not be applicable in another setting. Use new knowledge for improvement as appropriate and applicable. Remember the impact of change depending on the type and nature of the change. Therefore do not rush to change.

Information/feedback management Internal: Do not spread negativity in any form. This wastes time and energy, and decreases morale and productivity. Use feedback for improvement. Seek assistance from knowledgeable individuals. Share concerns with the QA Division that have immediate effect on meeting accreditation requirements.

Expectations for accommodating a successful institutional accreditation review Ensure your team is onboard, are well informed, and know expectations for success Be an Accreditation Success Torch Bearer Monitor activities to ensure all compliance requirements are met Ensure faculty and staff have read the IE standards in addition to standards that relate to their duties and responsibilities Ensure IE requirements are applied in keeping with the IE Model and schedule of activities Review and give feedback to strengthen AOPs prior to approval and submission

Expectations for accommodating a successful institutional accreditation review Ensure faculty and staff are familiar with the standards that relate to their duties and responsibilities, have read the Application, and are able to respond to relevant questions that: Seek verification of information Seek clarification of information Require information that was omitted Attitude matters: We all need to project a positive attitude to accreditation, its review, requirements, and process. Accreditation requires everyone’s involvement. It is not about a unit or a program. It is about the institution’s ability to demonstrate compliance with acceptable standards in higher education.

Expectations for accommodating a successful institutional accreditation review NB “Accreditation” emerged as a review of higher education institutions and programs to assure and improve academic quality. “Assuring quality” is about affirming threshold effectiveness of colleges and universities; “improving quality” is about affirming that performance improves over time. To this day, accreditation remains owned, operated and funded by higher education. Accreditation is intended to be a collegial, formative, aspirational and trust-based activity among faculty, administrators, students, boards and the public, bringing out the best in higher education and part of moving colleges and universities forward.” CHEA Board Members Guide to Accreditation– May 2016