JERRY LEGGE ALLAN AYCOCK JAN WHEELER \ UGA-GIT discussion May 15,

UGA Timeline 2 Plan to meet compliance challenges Spring 2006 Spring 2008 Compliance Audit Narrative drafting, editing/system development Final drafts/approvals Assemble teams/ chairs: Compliance Leadership QEP Late spring 2008 Su08 Sept 2010 Fall08 Charge Teams Su09 Sp09 Fall09 Su10 Submit CC! Sp10 SACSCOC orientation of leaders Data snapshots

UGA Organization Structure 3  Office of Academic Planning  Clearly charged with responsibility, oversight, staffing  EITS team assigned to support  Leadership Team  n=10, chaired by President, included senior admins  Compliance Team  n=38, selected for area expertise  Document Review Panel  n=5, Associate Deans mostly  QEP Team  n=32, wide campus representation

Academic Planning commitment 4 Estimates of time allocated over two years: Associate Provost – 40% Director of Assessment and Accreditation – 50% Associate Director of Accreditation – 100% Assistant to the Associate Provost – 40% Editor – all of 49% retire-rehire for ~1 year Two graduate assistants – 50% of half-time assignments Office of Institutional Research made reaffirmation a top priority over two years

Technical Support 5 EITS dedicated a small team to reaffirmation and added resources as needed Implemented commercial solution to store and manage faculty activity data (Digital Measures) Designed internal faculty and GTA/GLA credentialing system to produce Faculty Roster Designed internal system to manage planning and assessment data (digital filing cabinet) Designed internal system for the Compliance Certification (static site using HTML, CSS, and JQuery. Coda for HTML/CSS editing and Illustrator and Photoshop for the icons and graphics)

Work Plan 6  Expertise—Compliance Team Large group of campus experts in the specific areas addressed by the Principles (n=38) Chaired by former law school dean currently active in university governance Reported to small SACSCOC Leadership Team (chaired by the president) Working groups for areas needing focused attention

Work plan—working groups 7  Faculty Credentialing  Institutional Effectiveness  Advising  International Programs (drafted appendix)  Distance Education (drafted appendix)  Extended Campuses (drafted appendix)  Substantive Change  Document Review Panel

Work Plan—Process 8  Compliance audit (assemble documentation)  Drafting process (more documentation) Expert in area or working group Resources and consultation with OAP staff  Review process (more documentation) OAP staff, editor, Document Review Panel, Liaison, Leadership Team  Final formatting  Testing/QA/“slamming the doors” Developing compliance narratives

Compliance Certification—Format 9 UGA approach=everything  Submitted a printed, bound, multi-color Compliance Certification (without supporting documents)  USB drive with Compliance Certification and all supporting documents (except Faculty Roster)  Online, password-protected access to Compliance Certification and all supporting documents and selected live web sites

Compliance Certification—Key Design Elements 10 UGA Approach  pdf format for supporting documentation highlighted relevant portion of each supporting document  Footnotes in text with hover feature Linked directly to relevant page of document  Searchable document  Document library  Style guide

BOR roles 11  USG Policies related to compliance  See RACEA crosswalkhttps://sites.google.com/site/raceares ources/accreditation-resources/SACS-Resourceshttps://sites.google.com/site/raceares ources/accreditation-resources/SACS-Resources  Financial Audit  Timing means this will be part of on-site review  BOR representative to meet with on-site committee  Plan ahead

Communicating with campus 12 UGA approach  Focused first on improving the learning environment – compliance with the principles will flow from this  Highlighted the specific improvements made to policy and practice having long-term benefits, for example  Faculty Activity Repository  Academic Planning System  Online syllabi availability  Instructor credentialing process—study abroad faculty, GTAs/GLAs  Archive of useful documentation

Major Compliance Issues: Full time Faculty (2.8) 13 There is no formula for adequacy. How will you make your unique case? What ratios and comparisons will you use? How will you disaggregate the data? UGA approach Definition of full-time faculty and categories of faculty Allocation of responsibilities for teaching, research, and service to individual faculty Support structures for faculty activities Case for adequacy to carry out teaching, research, and service at the institutional level Comparisons of student/faculty ratio with peers Comparison of class size with peers Processes to ensure ongoing adequacy (various review processes) Then data at the college level, the department level, and for each extended campus

Major Compliance Issues: Full time Faculty (2.8)—continued 14 New Challenge Documenting adequacy at the program level How will you define “program?”

Major Compliance Issues: Faculty Credentials for Teaching Activity (3.7.1) 15 How will you establish that every course taught within the relevant time period was taught by faculty qualified to teach that specific course? UGA approach Established a comprehensive instructor of record policy Established required credentials policy for instructors of record Created a credentialing system for ongoing compliance with policies Created a faculty activity repository using commercial software Prepared an electronic faculty roster with electronic access to: Faculty CV Detailed justification when needed Official course description and syllabus Transcript or other evidence of academic qualifications were not available electronically

Final Product—UGA Faculty Roster Faculty & Course databases for rank info, list of all courses taught. FAR—Linked CVs for all faculty UGA Bulletin for detailed course info, master syllabus, & individual syllabus Credentialing System—entered by associate dean; also linked to CV Text added directly into Roster by associate dean (cut & paste from CV) 15

Major Compliance Issues: Substantive Change (3.12.1) 17 How will you document that all substantive changes have been identified and reported to SACSCOC? UGA approach Adopted and communicated internal policy about identifying and reporting substantive changes Maintained record documenting decision-making process for each potential substantive change Maintained record of all substantive changes reported to SACSCOC Presented the policy, the decision making process, and the record in the Compliance Certification

Major Compliance Issues: Institutional Effectiveness—Educational Programs ( ) 18 Will you use a commercial product or an internally developed solution? Will your Compliance Certification present a representative sample of degree/certificate programs or present all programs? UGA approach Created Academic Planning System internally Presented full evidence from a representative sample of programs (assessment plans, student learning outcomes, assessment results, and changes implemented for each program) Defined “representative” Plus provided full online access to Academic Planning System (all programs)

Resources 19 Additional sample forms and process documents are available at: UGA’s Compliance Certification is open and online at: (also in the SACSCOC Resource Room) Also consider:  RACEA on-resources/SACS-Resources on-resources/SACS-Resources

Planning for Compliance 20

Jerry Legge Allan Aycock Jan Wheeler Thank you and good luck