1. Reaffirmation of Accreditation 101
Gadsden State Community College
Professional Development
January 3, 2017
Dr. Richard A. Dobbs

2. GOALS Understanding the basics of accreditation
Understanding the structure of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC)
Understanding SACSCOC Peer Review Events
Understanding the Our Reaffirmation Process
What’s Been Done … and Looking Ahead!!

3. TYPES OF ACCREDITING AGENCIES
Regional Agencies
Accredit all aspects of an institution of higher education in specific regions
National Agencies
Accredit institutions of higher education that have a single focus irrespective of location
Specialized or Professional Agencies
Accredit programs within institutions
Nationals: TRACS, Bible colleges
Specialized: Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing; National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Sciences; NAEYC (Nat. Ass. For Edu. Of Young Children

4. REGIONAL ACCREDITATION PURPOSES
Improve quality throughout the institution [Enhancement function]
Assure the public that institutions meet established standards [Accountability function]
Serve as a “gate-keeper” for federal financial aid
Always some tension between these two functions
Gate-keeper role was not especially sought, but is a huge factor in terms of our processes and procedures. Title IV … from 1965!

5. SIX REGIONAL ACCREDITING ASSOCIATIONS
~235
~115
1000+
500+
799
~350
North Central – HLC – is largest.
International:
Costa Rica
Dubai
Mexico

6. SACSCOC Number of Accredited Institutions by State (as of January 2016)
Total = 799 72 50
112 63 50 83 32 54
162 39
States – not just population, but organizational decisions – e.g., use of branch campuses, way public systems operate, structure of CCs especially. 76 6

7. Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions
C-RAC
Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions
President or director of each of the regional accrediting agencies
Work toward consistency in standards and application; united public and legislative message
These folks are the “Face” of accreditation to the Government!

8. Oversight of Commission Activities
Review by U.S. Department of Education based on recognition standards
Recommendation by DOE to National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) (Appointed group of educators and public members)
NACIQI makes recommendation to recognize or not recognize an accrediting agency to US Secretary of Education
In addition to DOE, many accreditors are also recognized by CHEA: Council for Higher Education Accreditation

9. Mission Statement of SACSCOC
The mission of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges is to assure the educational quality and improve the effectiveness of its member institutions.
This is our “short form” statement, and is essentially the second sentence of a longer statement.

10. Mission Statement of SACSCOC
The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges is the regional body for the accreditation of degree-granting higher education institutions in the Southern states… It serves as the common denominator of shared values and practices among the diverse institutions in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Latin America and other international sites approved by the Commission on Colleges that award associate, baccalaureate, master’s, or doctoral degrees. The Commission also accepts applications from other international institutions of higher education.

11. Core Values of SACSCOC Integrity Continuous Quality Improvement
Peer Review/Self-regulation
Accountability
Student Learning
Transparency
Core Values in process of being fleshed out with operating definitions.

12. Characteristics of Accreditation
Voluntary
Earned and renewable status
Membership determines standards
Related to institutional purpose and mission
Self-Regulation
Requires institutional commitment
Based on peer review
Driven by integrity

13. College Delegate Assembly Committees on Compliance and Reports
SACSCOC Structure
College Delegate Assembly
CEO’s of Member Institutions
Board of Trustees
77 Members
Appeals Committee
12 Members
NOTE: This is covered in a later slide
Exec Council: 1 from each state, one public, 1 chair
Board: 33 level 2-6 (minimum 2 each state)
22 level 1 (at least 1 each state)
10 at-large (mainly academic)
1 at large international
11 public members
Executive Council
13 Members
Committees on Compliance and Reports
64 Elected and
Other Appointed Members

14. College Delegate Assembly
799 member institutions each with one vote on:
Electing Trustees
Electing Appeals Committee & hearing officers
Electing SACSCOC rep to SACS Board
Changes to accrediting standards
Changes to dues structure
CEO of a member institution has the vote but may appoint someone else from the institution to vote for him/her
Meets once per year at the Annual Meeting in December

15. SACSCOC Board of Trustees
77 persons (called Trustees)
Three institutional representatives from each state (33)
One public member from each state (11)
Thirty-three at large representatives from member institutions (33)
Represent public and private institutions
Represent all levels of member institutions
Meet twice a year in June and in December
Include presidents, other administrators, faculty from member institutions.

16. PEER REVIEW????
Who are these Peer Reviewers/Evaluators? Extreme Views of Reviewers!! Are they Out to Get Us?? Or are they Pushovers??
Often when we hear EVALUATION …. It sounds like someone is “out to Get us!!” ;)

18. Some critics say the Review might not be Tough Enough??

20. Peer Review
You are the peers that volunteer to serve on all SACSCOC committees
You are the peers that use your professional judgment to determine an institution’s compliance with the Principles of Accreditation
Try to match institution; careful about conflict of interest; no one from institution’s state

21. Peer Review Events Decennial Review – Reaffirmation
Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee
On-Site Reaffirmation Committee
SACSCOC Board of Trustees
Fifth-year Interim Review
Compliance with selected standards
QEP Impact Report
Substantive Change
Program expansion (significant departure) at approved level
Level change
Merger/consolidation/acquisition
New off-campus instructional site
Examples of our Recent Substantive Changes??

22. Questions??? So, Any Questions? Any Comments …
Something New/Interesting You Learned?

23. Where Are We In the Process?
We are in the Decennial Review 2017 Class!
Holy $#*&… it’s 2017!!! ;)
Compliance Certification Report
What is it?

24. Compliance Certification
This is Where We Make Our Case!!
Section 1: The Principal of Integrity
Institution operates with integrity in all matters
Section 2: Core Requirements
12 Requirements (16 Sections)
Section 3: Comprehensive Standards
16 Standards(61 Sections)
Section 4: Federal Requirements
9 Requirements (12 sections)

25. Core Requirements
Core Requirements are basic, broad-based, foundational requirements that an institution must meet to be accredited with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC). They establish a threshold of development required of an institution seeking initial or continued accreditation by the Commission and reflect the Commission’s basic expectations of candidate and member institutions. In order for an institution to maintain accreditation in good standing; that is, without sanction, an institution must maintain compliance with all Core Requirements.

26. Comprehensive Standards
Comprehensive Standards are specific to the operations of an institution, represent good practice in higher education, and establish a level of accomplishment expected of all member institutions. The Comprehensive Standards set forth requirements in the following four areas: (1) institutional mission, governance, and effectiveness; (2) educational programs; (3) resources; and (4) institutional responsibility for Commission policies.

27. Federal Requirements
The U.S. Secretary of Education recognizes accreditation by SACS Commission on Colleges in establishing the eligibility of its accredited institutions to participate in programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, as amended, and other federal programs. Federal statutes include mandates that the Commission review an institution in accordance with criteria outlined in the federal regulations developed by the U.S. Department of Education.

28. Many Thanks!! Before We Move ON … Much Thanks to: Steering Committee
Writing Teams
IE Office/Staff (Pam and her Team)
Any Others who have contributed!! (IT, Cabinet, etc.)

29. What’s Ahead for GSCC Complete and Submit Compliance Certification
Final Reviews/Edits: January-February
2017Submit to SACS/COC in ATL: Feb. 24!
Visit Team Working!

30. Role of Off-Site Review Committee
Evaluate the Compliance Certification
Work Remotely First … then Meet in ATL
Cluster of 3 Institutions
Composition
The Off-Site Review Committee Report
Compliance
Non-Compliance
Did Not Review
Not Applicable

31. Focused Report and QEP Focused Report This is Also When We Submit QEP
Our Response to any Compliance Issues
Mini-Compliance Certification
Only Standards Marked Non-Compliant or Did Not Review
Only Non-Compliant Parts of Standards
This is Also When We Submit QEP
4-6 Weeks Prior to On-Site Review (Sept.)
SACS VP Visit Late May

32. Role of On-Site Review Committee
Completing Review of Compliance Certification
Non-Compliant and DOE Requirements
Addressing the Quality Enhancement Plan
CR 2.12 and CS 3.3.2
Visiting All Campuses/Sites
Composition
Minimum 7 Members:
Could be larger … Finances, Observer, etc.

33. On-Site Review Committee
3-Day Visit: October 10-12!!
Logistics! Travel, Housing, Food, etc.
Visit Committee, TBA!
They Will Talk to People: Faculty/Staff/Students!
Conducting the Exit Conference
Presents any Recommendations (hope for short Conference!!)
On-Site Review Committee Report
Response (If Needed)

34. Overview of the Reaffirmation Process
Institution
SACSCOC
Compliance Certification
Off-Site
Committee
Focused Report,
QEP
On-Site
Committee
Response
Report
C&R Committee,
Executive Council,
Board of Trustees

35. Overview of the Reaffirmation Process
Institution
SACSCOC
C&R Committee,
Executive Council,
Board of Trustees
Response
Report
C&R Committee,
Executive Council,
Board of Trustees
Monitoring Report??
C&R Comm … 3 Options:
1. Reaffirmation of accreditation, with or without a Monitoring Report, or with a request for an additional report in five years. C&R Committees request Monitoring Reports on specific standards after determining that compliance has not yet been documented. 2. Denial of reaffirmation, continued accreditation for a maximum of one year, and imposition of a sanction. This action requires a Monitoring Report and may also require the authorization of a Special Committee visit. 3. Removal from membership. This appealable action usually, but not always, follows two years of monitoring.
Repeating the last line, based on BOT action, an “Action Letter” flows to the institution, which may require a monitoring report, etc. …

36. Wrapping Up Why is Accreditation Important??
Who at GSCC is involved in Reaffirmation?
When is the On-Site Visit?
How Can You Help?? (See Handout)
Few Things I’ve learned
Culture of Improvement Should be Goal!!