PREPARING FOR SACS Neal E. Armstrong Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs July 13, 2004

Slide No. 2 July 13, 2004Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs New Criteria Development In 1998 SACS (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools) began revising all aspects of its accreditation requirements, processes, policies, and procedures Culminated in December 2001 with new Principles of Accreditation

Slide No. 3 July 13, 2004Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Old SACS Criteria Lengthy and detailed internal self-study Self-study included university’s response to 462 “must” statements or requirements that had to be met Eight to 10 university committees worked for about one year Visit by member committee to verify findings and resolve questions

Slide No. 4 July 13, 2004Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs New Criteria Reaffirmation instead of reaccreditation Ongoing instead of periodic Accredited institution engages in continual self-assessment and improvement Self-assessment is goal oriented and outcome based

Slide No. 5 July 13, 2004Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs New Criteria The self-study and the 462 “must” statements have been replaced by … Core requirements (12) Comprehensive Standards (53) Federal Mandates (8) These are More broadly stated than before and more flexibility for demonstrating compliance Institutions have more responsibility for demonstrating compliance

Slide No. 6 July 13, 2004Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs New Criteria Reaffirmation requires two documents: Certification of Compliance Documents compliance with Core Requirements Comprehensive Standards Federal Mandates If there is partial or non-compliance, plan for achieving compliance must be submitted Compulsory compliance with Core Requirements Compliance with Federal Mandates prerequisite to qualify for federal programs such as the Guaranteed Student Loan Program

Slide No. 7 July 13, 2004Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs New Criteria Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Required in Core Requirement 12 Focused on improving some aspect of the educational component of the institution that enhances the quality of student learning Represents commitment to Identify an area of improvement Develop a plan to meet specific, measurable goals Engage in ongoing assessment of progress toward completion of plan Impact report submitted 5 years after initiation of the QEP to demonstrate impact on learning

Slide No. 8 July 13, 2004Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Criteria Pertaining to Planning Institutional Effectiveness 2.5 The institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research- based planning and evaluation processes that incorporate a systematic review of programs and services that (a) Results in continuing improvement, and (b) Demonstrates that the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission.

Slide No. 9 July 13, 2004Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Criteria Pertaining to Outcomes Assessment The institution Identifies expected outcomes for its educational programs and its administrative and educational support services; Assesses whether it achieves these outcomes; and Provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of those results.

Slide No. 10 July 13, 2004Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Criteria Pertaining to IT The institution’s use of technology Enhances student learning, Is appropriate for meeting the objectives of its programs, and Ensures that students have access to and training in the use of technology.

Slide No. 11 July 13, 2004Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs The Two-Loop Process Establish Indicators for Outcomes to lead to Achievement of Objectives Determine How Outcomes will be Assessed Determine How Outcomes will be Achieved Determine Outcomes Required to Achieve Objectives Determine educational objectives Input from Constituencies Formal Instruction Student Activities Assess Outcomes Evaluate Objectives

Slide No. 12 July 13, 2004Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs P-D-C-A IN ABET PLAN (individual faculty and Curriculum Comm.) DO (review courses & program & make changes as needed) CHECK (determine effects & document) ACT (Close the Loop w/ CI)

Slide No. 13 July 13, 2004Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs DEMING’S P-D-C-A CYCLE Plan Do Check Act Plan – study process and decide what changes are needed Do – gather data to decide what to change and make changes Check – observe the effects Act – Lessons learned and Closing The Loop

Slide No. 14 July 13, 2004Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Continuous Improvement: False Starts Plan Do Plan Do Plan ? Check ?

Slide No. 15 July 13, 2004Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs ACHIEVING SUCCESS Re-accreditation with no problems Benefits of SACS Accred Now Min Lack of faculty buy-in Leadership Lack of perceived benefits of SACS Accred Leadership Difficult and time-consuming Help available Matrix Implementation Scale

Slide No. 16 July 13, 2004Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Schedule yr RptLeadership Teams Comprehensive Certificate (Self-Study) Off-site Peer Review On-site Peer Review Commission Review Quality Enhancement Plan Stage 1: Preliminary Planning Stage 2: Initiating the Self-Study Stage 3: Conducting the Self-Study Stage 4: Planning for and Receiving the Visiting Committee Stage 5: Preparing for Review and Action by the COC

Slide No. 17 July 13, 2004Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Schedule of Next Reaffirmation Develop program objectives, establish outcomes, develop and implement assessment programs, and show program improvement Leverage existing program accreditation activities Develop capability to support planning and assessment activities 2006 Orientation of Leadership Teams (June 11) 2007 Report addressing Core Requirements, Comprehensive Mandates, and Federal Mandates due September 10 Review by off-site team November Quality Enhancement Plan Due (6 wks before visit) Visit by on-site team in spring (March 9 – April 25) Decision by CoC and SACS at annual meeting (December 5-7)