Road to SACS Reaffirmation S outhern A ssociation of C olleges and S chools Target: 2012 University of North Alabama Florence, 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 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… ( ) Criteria for Accreditation 400+ “Must” Statements For example: “The institution must define its expected educational results and describe its methods for analyzing the results.”

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

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 where Students Are Central to Success ~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 Compliance Audit 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 Audit Coordinated 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 ( ) –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

Due Dates Compliance Report due – Sept. 10, 2011 Off-Site Review - Nov Focused Report ( six weeks before visit) On-Site Visit - Spring 2012 QEP due to SACS - Dec (six weeks before visit) On-Site Visit - Spring 2012 Response Report - Fall 2012 SACS Decision- December 2012

For More Information Coming soon: UNA SACS/QEP website Compliance Assist! Periodic electronic newsletters Opportunities for input

???QEP???????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 ReynoldsPhil Bridgmon Ext. 4625Ext Compliance?Institutional Effectiveness? Jerri BullardAndrew Luna Ext. 4531Ext. 4221

Remember… We are all in this together!

And… Spring 2012 is sooner than we (may) think!

Thanks! Celia Reynolds SACS Reaffirmation Director