1. Proving Faculty Credentials for SACSCOC Danita McAnally and Edie Carter February 2010 NOTE: This PowerPoint will be posted at Assessment & Development’s web location.

2. OVERVIEW 1. Who are the SACSCOC reviewers? 2. What do they expect? 3. At AC, who is responsible for ensuring that faculty credential files meet the expectations for SACSCOC? 4. What and how do we enter or update Faculty Roster forms in the electronic database? 5. What needs to be in the HR official files?

3. REVIEWERS  Who are the reviewers for SACSCOC? Peer Reviewers - volunteers who are employed at other community colleges similar in size to Amarillo College Off-Site Reviewers – review 4 other community colleges while reviewing AC’s Compliance Certification; only information is the electronic report; NO contact with AC via email, phone or in person; some reviewers maybe from Texas On-Site Reviewers – respond only to issues remaining from Off-Site Team, Focused Report + focus on QEP; have only an afternoon to check on faculty credentials and the other issues; no reviewers from Texas All reviewers must sign Ethical Obligations for Evaluators statement Follow the Principles of Accreditation and Handbook for Review Committees Faculty credential reviews are lead by reviewers who have served on previous review committees.

4. REVIEWERS What do the reviewers for SACSCOC expect? Principles of Accreditation Comprehensive Standard 3.7.1: The institution employs competent faculty members qualified to accomplish the mission and goals of the institution. When determining acceptable qualifications of its faculty, an institution gives primary consideration to the highest earned degree in the discipline. The institution also considers competence, effectiveness, and capacity, including, as appropriate, undergraduate and graduate degrees, related work experiences in the field, professional licensure and certifications, honors and awards, continuous documented excellence in teaching, or other demonstrated competencies and achievements that contribute to effective teaching and student learning outcomes. For all cases, the institution is responsible for justifying and documenting the qualifications of its faculty. (See Commission guidelines “Faculty Credentials.”) (Faculty competence)

5. RESPONSIBILITY OF WHO AT AC? Each instructional division must ensure that each INSTRUCTOR OF RECORD (faculty member’s) credentials prove that the faculty is qualified to teach the assigned courses – VPAA – INSTRUCTIONAL DEANS – DIVISION CHAIRS DEPARTMENT CHAIRS PROGRAM COORDINATORS PROGRAM DIRECTORS

6. RESPONSIBILITY OF WHO AT AC? What will Edie Carter, Internal Reviewer of Faculty Credentials, be reviewing? Does the faculty member’s Faculty Roster form in the electronic database meet SACSCOC expectations? Does the faculty member’s HR official file meet SACSCOC expectations by proving the electronic form’s documentation? What will Edie do if either or both of these are NOT met for a particular Instructor of Record? She will notify the Division Chair and appropriate Dept. Chair, Program Coordinator or Program Director with the problem and specific deadline for corrections. If the corrections are not made by her deadline, she will notify the VPAA.

7. EXPECTATIONS  Major Premise – “Burden of Proof” falls on Amarillo College to demonstrate that each faculty member is qualified to teach the discipline area.  Two places where proof of faculty qualifications (credentials) are reviewed: 1 st – electronic form within the Faculty Credentials database - Reviewed by Off-Site Team in April 2012 2 nd – official personnel file in HR office If electronic form is found questionable or unsatisfactory, reviewed by On-Site Team in October 2012.

8. EXPECTATIONS 1 st – electronic forms (Faculty Roster) within the Faculty Credentials database – reviewed by Off-Site Reviewers

9. EXPECTATIONS 1 st – electronic forms (Faculty Roster) within the Faculty Credentials database Jon, Need to insert a sample AC faculty roster form here. Danita Amarillo College Faculty Roster

10. EXPECTATIONS 2 nd – Human Resources (HR) official file Key items that are reviewed by SACSCOC On-Site visitors: Any documentation that is cited in the electronic database (Faculty Roster forms) including  Official transcripts  Official copies of licensures/certifications  Print copies of any cited employer letters  Print copies of any cited honor and awards  Print copies of any cited competencies & achievements that contribute to effective teaching and student learning outcomes. Should be organized in the same order as the database references.

11. EXPECTATIONS What do the reviewers for SACSCOC expect? Principles of Accreditation Comprehensive Standard 3.7.1: The institution employs competent faculty members qualified to accomplish the mission and goals of the institution. When determining acceptable qualifications of its faculty, an institution gives primary consideration to the highest earned degree in the discipline. The institution also considers competence, effectiveness, and capacity, including, as appropriate, undergraduate and graduate degrees, related work experiences in the field, professional licensure and certifications, honors and awards, continuous documented excellence in teaching, or other demonstrated competencies and achievements that contribute to effective teaching and student learning outcomes. For all cases, the institution is responsible for justifying and documenting the qualifications of its faculty. (See Commission guidelines “Faculty Credentials.”) (Faculty competence)

12. EXPECTATIONS What are the SACSCOC guidelines?

13. EXPECTATIONS  What are the SACSCOC “requirements” for faculty qualifications?  NOT requirements – just guidelines  Burden of proof is on Amarillo College  Basic guidelines stated in Comprehensive Standard 3.7.1  Expectations of CS 3.7.1 – employ competent faculty qualified to accomplish institutional mission  The College must determine what the best faculty qualifications for a particular position are  Greater flexibility due to guidelines rather than requirements means greater opportunity to employ/assign best qualified faculty. (Not best credentialed but best qualified)  Greater flexibility also means greater responsibility on Amarillo College to “make its case.”

14. EXPECTATIONS  What are the SACSCOC guidelines?  Any faculty member teaching even ONE course which may transfer: Master’s in the discipline OR Master’s with at least 18 graduate credit hours in the discipline being taught EXAMPLE: Instructor of Record for ENGL 1301: Master’s in English OR Master’s in Education with at least 18 graduate credit hours in English Must list: each degree granting institution, course rubric, credit hrs. for at least 18 grad hrs. Best to identify EXACT # of graduate hours in the discipline rather than just say 18 grad. hrs. for every faculty member.

15. EXPECTATIONS Amarillo College Faculty Roster

16. EXPECTATIONS Amarillo College Faculty Roster

17. EXPECTATIONS  What are the SACSCOC guidelines?  Any faculty member teaching courses that do NOT transfer but count toward an associate in applied science degree should have At least an associate degree in the discipline Identify specific years of work experience in the discipline by the company and position title Specific certifications or licensures held EXAMPLE: Instructor of Record for AUMT 1316: Associate’s degree in Automotive Technology and 3 years of work experience as Service Mngr. at Gene Messer Ford Lincoln 2 years of work experience as Automotive Technician at Mondini Automotive 4 years of work experience as Automotive Technician at Carr Automotive ASE certification and expiration in the electronic database with print copy in HR file. NOTE: All four of these need embedded links to documentation that proves the faculty member had this experience (i.e. resume include dates, letters from employers, license and expiration date).

18. EXPECTATIONS Amarillo College Faculty Roster

19. EXPECTATIONS  What are the SACSCOC guidelines?  Any faculty member teaching courses that do NOT transfer but count toward a certificate (no AAS degree courses) should have At least a certificate in the discipline Identify specific years of work experience in the discipline by the company and position title Specific certifications or licensures held EXAMPLE: Instructor of Record for WIND 1300: Associate’s degree in Renewable Energy: Wind and 4 years of work experience as Supervisor of Wind Technicians at Cielo Wind 1 year of work experience as Wind Technician at Cielo Wind NOTE: All both of these need embedded links to documentation that proves the faculty member had this experience (i.e. resume include dates, letters from employers, current license).

20. EXPECTATIONS  What are the SACSCOC guidelines?  Any faculty member teaching developmental education courses should have At least a degree in the education discipline Specific certifications or licensures held EXAMPLE: Instructor of Record for RDNG 0301: Baccalaureate degree in Education-Reading and Teaching licensure or certification in the electronic database & HR file. NOTE: This needs to be an embedded link to current licensure or certification and expiration date.

21. EXPECTATIONS Amarillo College Faculty Roster

22. EXPECTATIONS What if faculty member needs more justification than aforementioned? DEVELOP A FACULTY CREDENTIAL PORTFOLIO & INCLUDE IN ELECTRONIC DATABASE FACULTY ROSTER FORM What is a faculty credential portfolio?  Resume or Vita  Primary consideration to highest earned degree but other graduate or undergraduate degrees may be more appropriate to the teaching discipline  Matrix of courses taught with outcomes identified  Matrix links education and experience of the faculty member to specific outcomes by course  Embedded links to documentation (i.e. employer letters, specific samples of creative work, honors or awards, testimonial letters from experts in the disciplines or faculty at universities where students from the faculty member have transferred, and/or research and publications)

23. EXPECTATIONS Amarillo College Faculty Roster

24. EXPECTATIONS

27. PROVING EXPECTATIONS PRESENTING THE CASE - Comprehensive Standard 3.7.1  Amarillo College is responsible  Instructional divisions hold primary responsibility  Electronic database of Faculty Roster forms  Complete  Accurate  Extremely Important  Documentation and justification are necessary Presentation is important. Think it through and prove it well.

28. EXPECTATIONS

32. PROVING EXPECTATIONS PRESENTING THE CASE – Comprehensive Standard 3.7.1 (cont.)  Course learning outcomes and qualifications in the Matrix must be clearly connected  Make information user-friendly  Embedded link to specific course syllabi within Faculty Roster forms – strongly recommended.  Embedded links to specific faculty member’s proof of qualifications is expected.  Evidence does not always speak for itself (Be sure presentation is clear.)

33. Lessons Learned from Previous SACSCOC Reviews 1.Most institutions have many follow-ups because of Comprehensive Standard 3.7.1 (Faculty Credentials) 2008 TRACK – A (associate degree) institutions: Off-Site Reviews – #1 issue – 82% non-compliance (ONLY SEE ELECTRONIC FILES) Submitted Focused Report (2 nd Chance to get Comp. Cert. right) – only one month to reply On-Site Reviews – #2 issue – 51% received recommendations (large percentage and the institution will be placed on warning or probation) Compliance & Reports Committee/Board of Trustees – Monitoring Follow-up – #4 issue – 13%

34. Lessons Learned from Previous SACSCOC Reviews 2. The following items need much more attention at AC: 1 st : Entry & update of electronic database of Faculty Roster forms AC Instructors of Record Fall 2009 = 445 FT = 206 PT = 239 Estimate 460 faculty files to be entered or updated 2 nd : Within the electronic database – justifications connecting faculty qualifications and course outcomes need a sentence or paragraph which summarizes the link

35. Lessons Learned from Previous SACSCOC Reviews 2. The following items need much more attention at AC (cont.): 3 rd : Embedded links within the database of the Faculty Roster forms. Providing  Easy access to portfolio of faculty qualifications including resume/vita, sample of work, external supporting documents/testimonies, etc.  Identified course outcomes linked to aforementioned documentation  Matrix/narrative connecting qualifications and outcomes  Easy access to source documents

36. Lessons Learned from Previous SACSCOC Reviews 2. The following items need more attention at AC (cont.): 4 th : HR OFFICIAL FILES – Be sure that all documents referenced in electronic database are in the HR file  Up-to-date copy of licensure or certificate  External supporting documents (e.g. testimonial letters)  Copy of honors or awards  Specific samples of creative work  Proof of superior performance on student learning outcomes NOTE: Be sure that all of these are easily found behind the Transcripts tab of the HR official file.

37. REAFFIRMATION TIMELINE

40. FACULTY CREDENTIALS TIMELINE September 30, 2010: Office of IR will do “data dump” for all instructors of record in Fall 2010 plus corresponding divisions, departments, & courses (top of Faculty Roster forms + 1 st & 2 nd columns) December 15, 2010: Each Instructional Division must add or update information in 3 rd & 4 th columns for all faculty who taught that semester January 2010-2011: Compliance Certification written based on Faculty Roster forms to date; VPAA writes or supervises this section of the report

41. FACULTY CREDENTIALS TIMELINE September 30, 2011: Office of IR will do “data dump” for ALL Instructors of Record in Fall 2011 plus corresponding divisions, departments, & courses (top of Faculty Roster forms + 1 st & 2 nd columns) December 15, 2011: Each Instructional Division must add or update information in 3 rd & 4 th columns for those faculty who taught in the past year January & February, 2011: Finalize & publish Compliance Certification March 15, 2011: SUBMIT to SACSCOC

42. QUESTIONS: ENTERING & UPDATING ELECTRONIC DATABASE 1. When do you want the training for Assistants to be held? March 2010? April 2010? May 2010? June 2010? September 2010? 2. Would you like a refresher training session on this information sometime in Sept. 2010?

43. QUESTIONS? Contact Information: Danita McAnally, Dean of Assessment & Development dlmcanally@actx.edu 37-5495 Edie Carter, Internal Reviewer of Faculty Credentials elcarter@actx.edu 371-5335 Mark Hanna, Director of Compliance Certification mlhanna@actx.edu 371-5401 © 2010