Transcript SACS and LIBRARIES HBCU LIBRARY ALLIANCE CONFERENCE

SACS and The Accreditation Process
Faculty Convocation
Southern University
Monday, January 12, 2009
Presented
By
Emma Bradford Perry
Dean of Libraries
SACS - The Southern Association of
Colleges and Schools includes:
• Over 800 colleges and universities
• 11 states in the Southeastern part of the U.S.
• The 77 members of the Commission on
Colleges consist mostly of Presidents,
Chancellors, Vice Presidents, and Vice
Chancellors. The Commission makes the
final decision on accreditation.
My Experience with SACS
• Under the old standards served on over a dozen teams.
• Two SACS visits under the new standards
• On Site Reaffirmation Committee, College of William
and Mary in Williamsburg, VA - 2007
• On Site Substantive Change Committee, University of
Mary Hardin Baylor in Texas - 2008 ( My sister was
the first African –American faculty at MHB.)
• Elected to the Commission in 2008
• Member of the Commission on Colleges Compliance
and Reports Committee
• Have made 2 presentations at the SACS Annual
Conference
Reaffirmation for Southern
University is scheduled for 2010
Off Site Review November 2009
On Site Review Between January and April
2010
Decision of the Commission – December
2010
There are:
• 12 Core Requirements (2.1 through 2.12) which are the
basic broad based foundational requirements that all
institutions must meet to be accredited such as degree
granting authority, a governing board, etc.
• 53 Comprehensive Standards (3.1 through 3.14.1) which
are more specific to the operation of the institution such as
polices and procedures which are documented and
published.
• 8 Federal Requirements (4.1 through 4.7) which establish
the eligibility of an institution to participate in programs
authorized by the U.S. Department of Education.
Characteristics of a Successful
Compliance Certification
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Candid, forthright, and convincing
Sufficient evidence/documentation
Easily accessible
Comprehensive
Well organized
Well written
User Friendly
Documents which must be
submitted by the Institution to
SACS
•
•
•
•
Compliance Certification Document
Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)
Institutional Profiles
The Focused Report
There are two review committees
Off Site Review Committee is charged with
determining whether each institution is in
compliance with all:
• Core Requirements, except Core
Requirement 2:12 which deals with the
Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)
• Comprehensive Standards
• Federal regulations
The Evaluation of the Off Site Review
Committee is conducted in two phases.
1. The Preliminary Review is completed by individual
committee members prior to the full meeting.
 Each member is assigned a group of institutions similar
in degrees and governance, which is called a cluster.
 Each member writes a brief draft analysis for each
institution indicating whether the institution appears to
be in compliance and the reason for his/her decision.
2. The full Off Site Committee meets in Atlanta to reach
consensus about its finding and develop a report.
The Off Site Committee will make an
assessment as follows:
• In compliance – the Committee determined that
the institution has presented a convincing and
appropriately documented case and meets the
requirement
• Non –Compliance - the institution has not
presented a convincing documented case of
compliance.
Upon reaching a consensus, the Off Site
Committee prepares “The Report of the
Reaffirmation Committee”. When this
report has been completed, the
responsibilities of the Off-Site Review
Committee will have concluded.
The Charge of the On Site
Review Committee is to:
1. Evaluate the QEP to determine compliance with 2.12
(QEP).
2. Review Core Requirements and Comprehensive
Standards which are not in compliance.
3. Make final determination of compliance with all
Standards.
4. Present the committee’s finding and recommendations to
the leadership of the institution at the conclusion of the
meeting.
5. Write a report for the Commission which includes the
committee’s recommendations and observations.
A minimum of 7 members and one SACS
Staff member will serve on the On Site
Committee including:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The Chair
Evaluators in the areas of faculty
Educational programs
Learning or Student Support Services
Institutional Effectiveness
Two additional evaluators for the QEP
Since the primary task of the On-Site
Committee is to conduct an assessment
of the institution’s QEP and to write the
Reaffirmation Report for the
Commission, the Committee must
resolve compliance issues very early in
the on-site visit, usually the first day.
The Acceptability of the QEP
will be based on the following:
1. It is FOCUSED - a significant issue related to student
learning is identified and justifies it’s use for the QEP
2. INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY is clear –provides
evidence that it has sufficient resources to implement,
sustain and complete the QEP
3. ASSESSMENT of the PLAN - the institution must show
that it has the means of determining the success of the
QEP
4. BROAD BASED INVOLVEMENT of the
COMMUNITY – the institution must show that all
aspects of the community (faculty, students, staff
administrators, etc) were involved in the development of
the plan.
The Reaffirmation Report
The On Site Review Committee will write a
report for submission to the Commission.
If the Committee judges that the QEP is
unacceptable and therefore not in
compliance, it will write a recommendation
for Core Requirement 2.12.
There are two exit conferences at
the conclusion of the on site visit
• President, Chair and Commission Staff will
discuss the Committee’s report privately
• Commission staff, the Chair, the Institution
Leadership Team and Members of the On
Site Committee will discuss the
committee’s report.
• Shortly after the on site visit, the Chair will
send a draft report to the Committee
members.
• Within 3 to 5 weeks after the On-Site
Review Committee visit, the Chair will send
the Institution a draft of the committee
report.
The Institution is required to respond to all
recommendations cited in the Report of the
Reaffirmation Committee and this is called
the Focused Report.
The Commission on Colleges
The Commission’s Compliance and Reports
Committee (C&R) will receive and review
Report of the Reaffirmation Committee
2. Response of the institution to the
committee’s report
3. Institution compliance certification
4. QEP
1.
The Executive Council and the full
Commission receives the C&R and will
make a decision regarding the reaffirmation
of the institution’s accreditation and any
follow-up activities required of the
institution. The Commission makes
decisions regarding accreditation status
twice each year – in June and December.
Finally, the top 5 non-compliance
standards for the last 2 years:
Off Site Team
1. Faculty Competence ( 3.7.1)
2. Financial Resources (2.11.1)
3. Academic Program Approval ( 3.4.1)
4. Institutional Effectiveness (3.3.1)
5. College level Competencies (3.5.1)
Top 5 non-compliance standards
for the last 2 years:
On Site Team
• QEP (2.12)
• College Level Competencies (3.5.1)
• Faculty Competency (3.7.1)
• Institutional Effectiveness (3.3.1)
• Academic Program Approval (3.4.1)
Questions ???
Emma Bradford Perry
Dean of Libraries
and
First Librarian to serve as a
Commissioner on the Commission of
Colleges.
Elected for a 3 year term.
http://www.lib.subr.edu