1. 1 SUNO’S PROGRESS TOWARDS REAFFIRMATION OF ACCREDITATION David S. Adegboye, Ph.D. Professor of Biology Associate Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs & SACS Liaison Officer Presented at the Faculty Conference Spring Semester 2007

2. 2 INTRODUCTION  SUNO’s reaffirmation of accreditation is scheduled for year 2010. However, a lot needs to be accomplished well before that date.  Presentations and discussions in Fall 2006 focused on CHALLENGES facing SUNO in the preparation process, e.g. changes in academic programs, new online programs, replacing lost employee credentials, etc…

3. 3  The relevant presentations are available at www.suno.edu, following academic affairs/accreditation links. www.suno.edu  From Spring 2007 onwards, the focus will be on SPECIFIC ISSUES for success in our endeavor.

4. 4  Specifically, in this presentation, I will discuss critical components of the entire process: –The Guiding Documents we are accountable to –Four (4) Requirements for Reaffirmation –Four (4) Critical Internal Documents & Reports –Three (3) types of SACS Reviews –Timelines –Immediate Tasks

5. 5 THE GUIDING DOCUMENTS  Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement  Entire document is available at the SACS website: http://www.sacscoc.org/ The site is accessible through www.suno.edu. http://www.sacscoc.org/ www.suno.edu http://www.sacscoc.org/ www.suno.edu

6. 6  Replaces “Criteria for Accreditation,” which focused on a comprehensive self-study approach used in the program accreditation process.  The new document has a STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES Focus and requires institutions to develop a COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF SOME MAJOR ASPECTS OF THE UNIVERSITY.

7. 7  Foundations of relationship with SACS: –Referred to as “a relationship in which all parties agree to deal honestly and openly with their constituencies and with one another.” –“…evidence of intentionally withholding information, deliberately providing inaccurate information to the public, or failing to provide timely and accurate information to the Commission will be seen as the lack of a full commitment to integrity…” INTEGRITY

8. 8  Institutions are expected to: –dedicate themselves to enhancing the quality of their programs and services within the context of their missions, resources, and capacities; –create an environment in which teaching, public service, research, and learning occur; –be engaged in an ongoing program improvement and be able to demonstrate how well it fulfills its stated mission. COMMITMENT TO QUALITY ENHANCEMENT

9. 9  Handbook for Reaffirmation of Accreditation  73-page document  Also available at: http://www.sacscoc.org/ http://www.sacscoc.org/  Contents –An Overview of the Process –Compliance Certification –Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) –Review of the Institution –Appendices (see next slide)

10. 10 Appendices  Compliance Certification Form  Responsibilities of the Accreditation Liaison  Examples of Narratives for the Compliance Certification  Suggested Documentation and Methods for Reporting Compliance Status  List of Other Relevant Documents Available on the Web Page of the COC.

11. 11 REQUIREMENTS FOR REAFFIRMTATION OF ACCREDITATION  Compliance with the Principles of Accreditation – integrity and quality enhancement  Compliance with Core Requirements  Compliance with Comprehensive Standards  Compliance with Additional Requirements Related to Title IV Programs (Federal Requirements)

12. 12  In all, there are 73 criteria to be explicitly considered  Less than the 250 plus “must” statements in the old criteria.

13. 13 INTERNAL DOCUMENTS  Annual Institutional Profiles  Compliance Certifications  Focused Report  Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)

14. 14 TYPES OF REVIEW  Off-site Peer Review  Review the Compliance Certification documentation and other standard documents provided  Chair plus 7 to 8 members  Concerns raised in “Focused Reports” should be addressed by the institution before on-site review

15. 15  On-site Review  Primary role is to review the acceptability of the QEP and determine whether the institution has the ability to implement it  Three (3) day visit

16. 16  Review by the Commission on Colleges (COC)  The Committee on Criteria and Reports, the Executive Council, and the body of Commissioners  Final evaluation based on the Reaffirmation Report and the Institution’s Response

17. 17 TIMELINES A typical last 2-year Schedule for a 2006 Review (University of Central Florida) Orientation of Leadership Team By June 2004 Compliance Certification Due By August 2005 Off-site Peer Review Conducted By November 2005 Quality Enhancement Plan (and Focused Report) Due Six weeks in advance of site visit On-site Peer Review Conducted By March/April 2006 Review by Commission on Colleges December 2006

18. 18 IMMEDIATE TASKS  Identify Accreditation Liaison – DONE David S. Adegboye, Ph.D. Professor of Biology Associate Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs

19. 19 2.Establish the Leadership Team - DONE SUNO SACS Leadership Team Members  Dr. David S. Adegboye, Associate Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs & Liaison Officer, Chair  Dr. Henry Mokosso, Dean, College of Arts & Sciences  Dr. Igwe Udeh, Dean, College of Business  Dr. Mary Minter, Dean, College of Education  Dr. Beverly Favre, Dean, School of Social Work  Dean, Graduate Studies Program  Dr. Lisa Mims-Devezin, Associate Dean, College of Arts & Sciences  Mr. Chauncey H. Cammon, Sr., Interim Director of E-Learning Program

20. 20 SUNO SACS Leadership Team Members (Continued)  Dr. Brenda L. Jackson, Director, Title III  University Librarian  Mr. Edmond Cummings, Director, Information Technology  Dr. Williams Belisle, Director for Research & Strategic Initiatives  Mr. William Guillory, Jr., Director of Institutional Effectiveness, Planning, & Evaluation  Dr. Frank Martin, Coordinator, AASCB Accreditation  Dr. James Takona, Coordinator, NCATE Accreditation  Dr. William Stewart, Coordinator, CSWE Accreditation  Dr. Joseph Bouie, Faculty Senate President  Mr. Chester Pichon, Student Representative, Undergraduate  Ms. Monterra Robinson, Student Representative, Graduate

21. 21  Dr. Frank Martin - Professor of Economics, Chair  Dr. Beverly Favre - Dean, School of Social Work  Dr. Igwe Udeh - Dean, College of Business and Public Administration  Dr. Lisa Mims-Devezin - Associate Dean, College of Arts & Sciences  Dr. Brenda Jackson - Director, Title III Programs  Mr. Wesley Bishop, J.D. – Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs 3.Establish the Compliance Certification Task Force- DONE

22. 22 4.Establish the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Task Force- DONE  Dr. Rose Duhon-Sells – Professor of Education and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs  Dr. Adnan Omar – Professor of Computer Information Systems/Management Information Systems Chair  Dr. James Takona – Associate Professor of Education/Assessment Coordinator  Dr. Sudipta Das – Associate Professor of History/Chair, Department of Arts & Humanities  Dr. William Belisle – Director, Research and Strategic Initiatives

23. 23 5.Establish the Student Learning Outcomes Task Force- DONE  Dr. Mary Minter – Professor of Education and Dean, College of Education  Mr. William Guillory, Jr. – Coordinator, Institutional Research, Planning, and Evaluation  Ms. Ada Kwanbunbumpen – Coordinator, Testing/Assessment  Mr. Chauncey Cammon, Jr. – Interim Director, E-learning

24. 24  Continued Training of Employees  Pre-Compliance Certification Readiness Audit  Develop a Compliance Certification Initial Model  Identify and Develop a QEP Focus  Develop Technology Support Capability  Identify Compliance Certification and QEP Support Services  Develop SACS Evaluator Experience

25. 25  Dr. Victor Ukpolo – Chancellor  Dr. David S. Adegboye - Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/SACS Liaison  Dr. Mary Minter – Dean, College of Education/Co-Chair Student Learning Outcomes Taskforce  Dr. James Takona – Assessment Coordinator/NCATE Coordinator, College of Education  Dr. Frank Martin – Chair, Compliance Certification Taskforce  Dr. William Stewart – Associate Professor/School of Social Work Representative  Ms. Evelyn Harrell – Assistant Professor/College of Arts & Sciences Representative  Mr. William Guillory – Coordinator, Institutional Research  Ms. Ada Kwanbunbumpen – Coordinator, Testing & Assessment SUNO Participants at the 2006 SACS Annual Meeting in Orlando, FL (December 9-12, 2006)

26. 26 CLOSING REMARKS  Highest cited ON-SITE standard requirements: 1.Faculty Credentials 2.Institutional Effectiveness 3.General Education Requirement 4.Learning Outcomes 5.Resources  Transcripts re-submission by January 2007 – Faculty, Administrators & Directors