1 Preparing for SACS “Where Do We Go From Here?” Presentation at Southern University at New Orleans September 28, 2006 Shanna Estay Little Coordinator for Accreditation & Program Review Southern University System

2 SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “Self Regulation” Philosophy (1) Self-Regulation through Accreditation Embodies a Traditional U.S. Philosophy That a Free People Can and Ought to Govern Themselves Through a Representative, Flexible, and Responsive System. (2) Emphasizing Processes and Resulting Outcomes, Accreditation Relies on Integrity, Thoughtful and Principled Judgment, Rigorous Application of Requirements, and a Context of Trust.

3 SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “Self Regulation” (3) Based on Reasoned Judgment, the Process Stimulates Evaluation and Improvement, While Providing a Means of Continuing Accountability to Constituents and the Public. (4) The COC Expects Institutions to Dedicate Themselves to Enhancing the Quality of the Programs & Services Within The Context of Their Mission, Resources, and Capacities, and to Create an Environment in Which Teaching, Public Service, Research and Learning Occur. Philosophy

4 Principles of Accreditation “Foundations for Quality Enhancement” Criteria for Accreditation Principles & Philosophy of Accreditation Core Requirements (12) Comprehensive Standards (53) Federal Mandates (8)

5 Principles of Accreditation “Foundations for Quality Enhancement” Core Requirements: Establishes “Entry” Level Requirements For an Institution Seeking Continued Accreditation. Institutions Must Demonstrate Compliance With all Twelve Requirements. Core Requirement 12: The Institution Has Developed an Acceptable Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) and Demonstrates The Plan Is Part of An Ongoing Planning and Evaluation Process. Criteria for Accreditation

6 SUS/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “Quality Enhancement Framework” The Principles of Accreditation attests to the commitment of the Commission on Colleges to: the enhancement of the quality of higher education the proposition that student learning is at the heart of the mission of all institutions of higher learning

7 SUS/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “Quality Enhancement Framework” The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) is a component of the accreditation process that reflects and affirms both of these commitments. Developing a QEP as part of the reaffirmation process is an opportunity and an impetus for an institution to enhance overall institutional quality and effectiveness by focusing on an issue or issues the institution considers important to improving student learning.

8 Principles of Accreditation “Foundations for Quality Enhancement” The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) is a Carefully designed and Focused Course of Action Designed to Improve Student Learning Quality and Institutional Credibility. The Plan Must be Implemented Over a Time Period and Demonstrating The Following: - Planning - Implementation - Evaluation - Recommendations - Reporting - Communication - Inclusiveness - Collaborations The Quality Enhancement Plan

9 SUS/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “Quality Enhancement Framework” The QEP describes a carefully designed and focused course of action that addresses a well-defined topic or issue(s) directly related to enhancing student learning. Student learning is defined broadly in the context of the QEP and may address a wide range of topics or issues but, in all cases, the goals and evaluation strategies need to be clearly and directly linked to improving the quality of student learning. In order to ensure that the QEP is implemented, the institution integrates it into its ongoing planning and evaluation process.

10 SUS/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “Quality Enhancement Framework” At the time of the on-site review, the Commission expects an institution to have in place all components that are characteristic to any workable plan: 1.a focused topic (directly related to student learning) 2.clear goals 3.adequate resources in place to implement the plan 4.evaluation strategies for determining the achievement of goals 5.evidence of community development and support of the plan

11 Principles of Accreditation “Foundations for Quality Enhancement” Compliance Certification – Documents SUNO’s Response to - Core Requirements (11) - Comprehensive Standards (53) - Federal Mandates (8) Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) – Documents SUNO’s Response to Core Requirement 12 SACS Deliverables

12 Principles of Accreditation “Foundations for Quality Enhancement” n Paradigm For QEP Development Environmental Scan Assessment of Student Learning Definition of Product Core Values Value Added Action for Change (Quality Emphasis)

13 SUS/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “Institutional Effectiveness” Strategic Planning / Vision 2020: Vibrant Balanced Economy With a Well-Educated Workforce & Improved Life Quality. Institutional Operational Plans: Establish Annual Performance Targets and Reporting Strategic Goal Attainment Activities. Institutional Effectiveness Plans: Establish Annual Performance Targets For Organizational Units SACS/QEP(s): Linking Institutional Units Into the Strategic Planning/Reporting & Reaffirmation Process. Performance Budgeting: Cost Maximization & Resource Utilization. Emphasis: Cost Avoidance, Cost Liabilities & Cost Effectiveness.

14 SUS/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “Establishing Accountability” n Five Levels of Accountability 1. Policy Accountability Selection of policies pursued/rejected. 2. Program Accountability Goal achievement. 3. Performance Accountability Efficient operations. 4. Process Accountability Using adequate process, procedures, or measures in performing actions required. 5. Probity/Legal Accountability Spending funds in accordance with approved budget and legal requirements.

15 SUS/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “Data Driven Assessments” Core Data Systems Statewide Student Profile System (BOR) IPEDS Performance Based Budget Planning & Reporting Enhanced University Assessment Capability Perception Based Surveys Knowledge, Skills & Abilities ( Pedagogy) Development of Core Indicators Outcome Assessment Quality of Academic Experience Post Baccalaureate Specialization Employment Earnings Evaluations n n n n n n n n n

16 SUS/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “Performance Reporting” QEP Reporting: Performance/Process Accountability Criteria: Measure of service accomplishments (output and outcome indicators) Measures relating service efforts to service accomplishments (efficiency and cost-outcome indicators) Explanatory Information (Data Quality Measurements ) Relevance Timeliness Understandability Consistency Comparability * Reliability l l

17 SUS/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “Quality Enhancement Framework”  improve the educational experience of your students  reinvigorate faculty & staff  demonstrate that Administration, Academic Affairs, & Student Affairs share common goals  demolish campus silos  strengthen partnerships with the community  create competitive applications for new funding opportunities Embrace the QEP as an Opportunity to:

18 SUS/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “Quality Enhancement Framework” Student Learning Outcomes Reflect Changes in Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes, and/or Values Attributed to the Collegiate Experience. Student Learning Outcomes

19 SUS/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “Quality Enhancement Framework” Cognitive Outcomes  Demonstrable acquisition of specific knowledge and skill.  What do the student know that they didn’t know before.  What can they do that they couldn’t do before.

20 SUS/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “Quality Enhancement Framework” Affective Outcomes  How has their college experience impacted student’s  Values  Goals  Attitudes  Self-concepts  World views

21 SUS/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “Quality Enhancement Framework”  All outcomes measures should be linked to the student’s college experience.  The outcome also should be measurable  How do you measure the Student learning outcome? DOCUMENTATION  Testing (State and/or interdepartmental).  Surveys or some fact finding instrument

22 SUS/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “ QEP Topic Selection” n Quality Enhancement Focus SLO Originating From IE Process Inclusiveness Topic Selection-Data Driven Organizational Buy In (Faculty/Stakeholders) Within Institutional Resource Capability Measurable Impact On Student Learning

23 SUS/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “ QEP Topic Selection” n Performance/Process Variables Affecting SLO Increase Licensure Pass Rates Improve Student Writing Enhance Course Relevancy Improve Parking Increase Salaries Shorten Registration Process

24 SUS/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “ QEP Topic Selection” n Indirect Relationship to SLO Improve Technology Access Enhance Library Holdings Enhance Faculty Advisement Increase Student Retention Increase Graduation Rates Increase Completer Earnings

25 SUS/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “ QEP Topic Selection” n Demonstrate Evidence Development of Enhancement Process Inclusiveness Topic Selection & Related Issues Generated Results Measurable Process Improvements

26 SUS/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “ QE Collaborative Model” Review Area: Student Registration 1. Strategic Goal: Student Access/Enrollment 2. Review Context: Reporting Integrity 3. Program Area: Enrollment Mgt./Ac. Affairs 4. Benchmarks: Statewide Student Profile Sys. 5. Govt. Oversight: BOR,OPB,OLA & Federal 6. SACS Standards: 2.5, /

27 SUS/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “ QE Collaborative Model” Organizational Units: Problem Resolution Assessment of Process Variables Pre-Enrollment Trends Inter-organization Coordination Class Enrollment Trends Financial Aid Eligibility Class Withdrawal/Acquisition Optimal Class Purging Payment Verification Status Advisor Certification Mandated Student Census Lockdown 14/7 Post SSPS Adjustments Enrollment Management Policies/Procedures

28 SUS/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation “ QE Collaborative Model” Develop Quality Initiatives 1. Proactive Pre-Registration Initiatives 2. Strengthening IE Planning Process 3. Involvement of Internal Auditor 4. Enhancing Policies/Procedures 5. Continued Process Improvement

29 How Can We Achieve Reaffirmation ? Communication Cooperation Trust Mutual Respect “A Willingness to Change”