Transcript Slide 1

St. Petersburg College:
Fifth Year Interim Report
Dr. Julia Pet-Armacost
Dr. Robert L. Armacost
SACSCOC Steering Team
March 1, 2013
Overview





FYIR requirements
How is SPC doing?
Who is the reviewer?
Critical success factors
What makes a good narrative?
March 1, 2013
Fifth Year Interim Report for SPC
2
SPC Fifth Year Interim Report



Mini-compliance certification
Due: September 15, 2013
Part III: 17 standards




Two Core Requirements
Six Comprehensive Standards
Nine Federal Requirements
Part V: QEP Impact Report
March 1, 2013
Fifth Year Interim Report for SPC
3
How Are You Doing?




Seven months from submission
Very complete initial drafts
No obvious fatal flaws that can’t be fixed
GOOD WORK!
March 1, 2013
Fifth Year Interim Report for SPC
4
What’s Next?




Narratives not perfect
One chance to provide evidence
Must be sufficient to demonstrate compliance
Communication challenge
March 1, 2013
Fifth Year Interim Report for SPC
5
CR 2.8--Sufficient faculty
X
CR 2.10--Student services
X
CS 3.2.8--Administrative and academic officers
CS 3.3.1.1--Institutional Effectiveness
X
CS 3.4.3--Admissions policies
CS 3.4.11-Academic program coordination
X
CS 3.11.3--Physical facilities
X
CS 3.13.a--Other agencies
CS 3.13.b--Complaint procedures
X
CS 3.13.4--Distance learning
X
FR 4.1--Student achievement
FR 4.2--Program curriculum
FR 4.3--Publication of policies
FR 4.4--Program length
FR 4.5--Student complaints
FR 4.6--Recruitment materials
FR 4.7--Title IV program responsibilities
FR 4.8.1--Student authentication
FR 4.8.2--Privacy
FR 4.8.3--Charges
FR 4.9--Definition of Credit Hours
X
March 1, 2013
Fifth Year Interim Report for SPC
5 – ready for SACS
review; most
likely will be
considered in
compliance
4 – nearly ready
for SACS review;
has a few minor
issues to
address/correct
3 – has some
minor and/or a
few major issues
to
address/correct
2 – has several
major issues to
address/correct
Standard
1 – has many
major issues to
address/correct;
most likely will
be considered
out of compliance
Standards Requiring Attention
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
Communicate To Whom?





Review team
Experienced reviewers for specific standards
Reviewing documents from multiple institutions
Expecting to easily see evidence
Do not intend to look for evidence to make your case for
you
March 1, 2013
Fifth Year Interim Report for SPC
7
Review Teams


Reviewers are your peers
Reviewers will probably read your document on their
laptops while sitting in their living rooms in Mississippi,
Texas, Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina






Possibly slow internet connections
They still have a day job
May not read the entire report
May be from “Missouri”
Reviewers will vary in their interpretation of the same
evidence
Incomplete evidence will lead to interpretations based
only on reviewer’s experience
March 1, 2013
Fifth Year Interim Report for SPC
8
Critical Success Factors






Address every element in the standard and only
address the elements in the standard
Organize the content and use subtitles related to the
elements in the standard
Keep each narrative as self-contained as possible
Try to avoid language that is specific to your institution
Remember that integrity is key
KISS principle
March 1, 2013
Fifth Year Interim Report for SPC
9
SACSCOC Guidance for Reviewers
http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/ANALYZING%20A%20CASE%20FOR%20COMPLIANCE
_SEPT2010%20_2_.pdf (October 2010)

Narrative statement


Rationale


Clear and concise statement of the reason(s) for the assertion
regarding the institution’s perception of compliance with the
requirement
Evidence—at least three of the following


Statement is focused solely on the requirement and addresses
each of the components of the requirement
Reliable, current, verifiable, coherent, objective, relevant,
representative
Evidence-based analysis of compliance

March 1, 2013
Addresses all aspects of requirements in coherent, concise and
focused manner
Fifth Year Interim Report for SPC
10
SACSCOC Guidance for Reviewers
http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/ANALYZING%20A%20CASE%20FOR%20COMPLIANCE
_SEPT2010%20_2_.pdf (October 2010)

Overall judgment of case for compliance




March 1, 2013
It directly addresses all aspects of the requirement
The evidence provided is sufficient
The analysis provided is sufficient
The case is coherent
Fifth Year Interim Report for SPC
11
Policies and Procedures--Guidance


Applies whether SACSCOC-mandated or internal SPC
policy or procedure
Policy or procedure




March 1, 2013
Is in writing and has been approved through appropriate
institutional processes
Is published in appropriate institutional documents accessible
to those affected by the policy or procedure
Is implemented and enforced by SPC. If you have never had to
apply the policy (e.g., removal of a Trustee), say so.
See http://www.sacscoc.org/policies.asp
Fifth Year Interim Report for SPC
12
What Makes a Good Narrative?

Start with a brief summary/abstract






Do not repeat the standard
Briefly describe the evidence that shows why you are in
compliance
Make it usable for the reviewer to cut and paste into her report
Do not use future tense—it shouts “NONCOMPLIANCE”.
Do not make the reviewer have to search for evidence
to make the case for you.
Make sure that you address each point in the
requirement or standard.
March 1, 2013
Fifth Year Interim Report for SPC
13
What Makes a Good Narrative?





Consider using an outline to structure the narrative to
create the story line.
Consider using a format with appropriate headings to
direct the reviewers focus.
Include references whenever you make an assertion.
Only include references that are needed to support the
narrative—no extra uncited references.
Use relevant excerpts from references



March 1, 2013
Include relevant content in the narrative
Put a box around it in the attachment
Do not force the reviewer to search through the whole
reference to find the relevant information
Fifth Year Interim Report for SPC
14
What Makes a Good Narrative?

Do not use superlatives (e.g., outstanding program)
without evidence. This is not a PR marketing document.





It is better to be modest and direct
Do not challenge the reviewer to find unsubstantiated claims
Do not include material that is not directly relevant to
the standard. If you raise it, it is fair game for the
reviewer to find problems.
Be PARISMONIOUS. Use as much relevant narrative
as needed to make the point, but do not include more.
Limit the use of acronyms.
March 1, 2013
Fifth Year Interim Report for SPC
15
What Makes a Good Narrative?





Read each reference carefully. There may be some
content that you did not intend to share.
The reviewers do not know anything about how higher
education works in Florida.
If you are not in compliance or partial compliance, say
so and present an action plan.
Use the spelling and grammar checkers.
Have someone else review your narrative.
March 1, 2013
Fifth Year Interim Report for SPC
16
Questions and Discussion


More to follow in individual sessions
Thank you and good luck on your accreditation journey.
???
March 1, 2013
Fifth Year Interim Report for SPC
17