Both Sides Now SACS’ New Accreditation Process Karen Helm Accreditation Liaison Director, University Planning and Analysis North Carolina State University April 15, 2005

Multiple Vantage Points Old process Criteria review New process –Directed reaffirmation for 2004 –Off-site committee –On-site committees

Acknowledgments Ephraim Schechter Jeff Scroggs Will Kimler Carol Smith Fellow travelers

New Process Adopted in 2002 –First class “graduated” in 2004 –Continuing to evolve Revised standards (Principles) Two documents –Compliance Certification –Quality Enhancement Plan Two committee reviews –Off-site –On-Site

After the Campus Review On-Site report reviewed by Criteria and Reports (C&R) Committee of COC C&R recommends accreditation and follow-ups as appropriate COC Executive Committee reviews recommendations for consistency COC makes final decisions

Organizing for Reaffirmation

Leadership Team Members: Chancellor, Provost (chair), Accreditation Liaison, faculty leader, administrative leader Charges –Organize teams –Communication to campus –Review and approve compliance report –Review and approve QEP –Organize site visit

QEP Team Co-chaired by faculty member and administrative staff Started same time as Compliance Team Some overlap with Compliance Certification

Compliance Team Co-chaired by faculty member and administrator (Accreditation Liaison) Members: administrators responsible for areas covered by SACS requirements (AVP level), and limited faculty Charge: draft and integrate reports, recommend compliance judgment, recommend changes where needed for compliance, draft response to off-site team as needed

Institutional Effectiveness Compliance Team Co-chaired by faculty and administrator (University Assessment Director) Members: assessment professionals in major academic and administrative divisions Charge: draft compliance reports related to planning and assessment; recommend compliance judgment, recommend changes where needed for compliance, draft response to off-site team as needed

Staff Functions Coordinating all activities (Accreditation Liaison) Administrative and web development (AL’s administrative assistant) Editors Analysis (Institutional Research staff) Temporary help as needed

Schedule April 2002Selected QEP topic, appointed Leadership Team May 2002Attended SACS training session June 2002Appointed other teams Aug 2002Trained Compliance Team, developed report guidelines Feb 2003SACS staff visit (optional but worth it) Apr-May 2003Distributed draft compliance reports to campus June 2003Leadership Team reviewed compliance drafts July 2003Final editing of compliance reports Aug 2003Submitted Compliance Certification to SACS Sept 2003Circulated QEP draft to campus Oct 2003Off-Site review of Compliance Certification Executive approval of QEP implementation budget Jan 2004Completed QEP Feb 2004Mailed QEP and follow-up reports to SACS March 2004On-Site SACS visit Dec 2004Accreditation reaffirmed

Compliance Certification Sort the standards according to responsibility Subteams for overlapping standards, e.g., institutional effectiveness, library and learning resources, academic policies implemented by multiple units Provide standard format early: level of detail, references Motivate members

Compliance Certification (cont) Interpreting and applying standards –Best practices vs. sufficient –SACS’ invitation to apply standards according to mission –Our first drafts: aspirational, puffy –Our final reports: sufficient Fix problems as soon as you find them

Compliance Certification (cont) Writer/editor Review of standards took 3 months –Each “chunk” moved through multiple stages at different times, speeds –Suggest VP level review before Compliance Team review

Assessment Compliance Diversity across campus –Different programs and services –Different approaches and values –Different levels of achievement –Non-uniform documentation Borrowed North Central ’ s rubric to summarize progress

Development of a culture Continuous process –big stick with a big milestone Challenge: balance SACS reporting with the nurturing needed to foster this style of assessment Leads To Lack of sustainability

Strategies for Efficiency Assign each standard to the responsible office; don’t overload a single person Use subgroups to coordinate overlapping reports Establish uniform reporting guidelines Appoint an editor to save authors’ and committee’s time Use the web to allow multiple levels of evidence for readers with different interests and styles Use the web to distribute and finalize drafts Parallel reviews of drafts, not sequential

Strategies to Enhance Value Set explicit goals for the compliance review in advance Develop explicit strategy for what performance level constitutes compliance Involve faculty for institutional perspective and conscience Visit with Commission staff in mid process Keep the campus informed Use it as a snapshot of institutional health Use it to learn about other units

Strategies to Enhance Value (contd) Set explicit goals for the compliance review in advance Develop explicit strategy for what performance level constitutes compliance Involve faculty for institutional perspective and conscience Visit with Commission staff in mid process Keep the campus informed Use it as a snapshot of institutional health Use it to learn about other units

Strategies to Facilitate Compliance Review Remember this is a written exchange Take advantage of the web’s richness to address multiple levels for a variety of readers Get straight to the point: What is the basis for your compliance? Prepare focused reports Keep links alive between submission and Off- Site Committee meeting, and from On-Site mailing through visit

Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Plan for institutional improvement in an area of strategic importance to the institution SACS’ criteria for QEPs –Focus: significant issue, related to student learning –Capability: commitment, resources –Assessment plan –Broad-based involvement in its development

Criteria for selecting a topic (SACS) Related to student learning Addresses a strategic issue, related to ongoing planning and evaluation Comprehensive, institutional in scope Capability to implement Commitment to implement

Criteria for selecting a topic (NC State) Productive for the university Sponsoring unit needs to have capacity and commitment for 5-7 years Addresses graduate education as well as undergraduate One topic is better than two Can be evaluated clearly Does not drop compliance red flags

Process for selecting a topic General conversations with deans, faculty, and others General themes fleshed out by small groups –Focus –Value –Possible strategies –Lead unit –Disadvantage More focused conversations with deans, faculty Formally approved by Deans Council, University Council

Our Choice: Learning in a Technology-Rich Environment (LITRE) Builds on a strength Potential for leadership Relevant to both undergraduate and graduate education Widespread, grassroots faculty involvement and success Strong interest among deans Links student learning and new building program

LITRE Ongoing, empirical inquiry First initiatives include course-based projects and out-of-classroom learning projects Faculty grants for new projects Each project assessed for impact on student learning Results disseminated and used to direct future investments

Assessment of LITRE LITRE Assessment Committee Project specific Periodic overview of results across projects Results used to stimulate innovation, improve programs and services, policy analysis, planning, and budgeting Scholarship of teaching and learning

QEP Challenges Planning from concept to budget allocation takes time and multiple approval cycles What communicates well inside might not outside Project versus process

Using the Web Allowed for multiple levels of detail for a variety of users Excellent vehicle for campus communication Morphed into site for SACS review Freezing the site

Expenses (from 5 Institutions) Direct costs from a special SACS budget (excluding in-house contributions) ranged from $10k to $315k –Personnel costs (e.g., release time, temporary support or editor) account for the difference In-house contributions were significant and largely personnel –Liaison spends 3 years, full or part-time –Core of 4 or 5 do most of the work –Assessment and IR staff engaged for a year –Deans, associate deans, AVPs involved for several months

Expenses (contd) Project costs other than personnel –Compliance review $3 to 5k (including $2400 fee for off-site review) –QEP preparation $1.5 to 5k –On-site visit $9 to 14k QEP implementation costs can be significant –range from $100 to 560k/yr –3 years to permanently

Lessons Learned The new process continues to evolve Stay in touch with others in your class, SACS staff, and colleagues Help SACS understand that a 100% participation standard does not lead to sustainability in assessment Communication in the new process is different: more written, web –Assessment documentation QEP is a big opportunity Greatest expense is in QEP implementation, not reaffirmation