Transcript SACS Re-accreditation Process

A College Tale
Or. . . The story of how one
college survived the SACS-un
invasion
Once upon a time in a land not so far
away, a small college stood amidst
peanut fields and cow pastures.
The SACS-uns demanded that the
college meet their requirements for
accreditation or cease enrolling
students.
Fortunately, the efforts of the
inhabitants succeeded in satisfying the
SACS-uns, and the invaders returned
to their lair, leaving the inhabitants free
to continue enrolling students in their
exemplary educational programs.
Ten years passed,
and , lo, the
governing body once
again appeared on
the horizon. The
SACS-uns sent a
courier with the
message that their
demands had
changed and that the
process for meeting
those demands
would differ from that
of olden days.
. . . The college
embarked on
the quest to
comply with
the
requirements
of the
governing
body. And,
thus, our tale
begins. . . .
SACS Re-affirmation
Process
An Overview
LEADERSHIP TEAM
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sue Baum
Tammy Bunyan
Jean Bynum
Betty Cully
Leslie Gibson
Scott Smith
Susan Steck
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sam Covington
Wanda Flowers
Kathy Haynes
Judy Snyder
Judy Miller
Linda Gordon
Stafford
Thompson
LEADERSHIP TEAM
• Oversees the Compliance
Certification process
• Provides leadership, organization,
and inspiration in developing the
Quality Enhancement Plan
Key Elements of SACS
Review
• The Principles of Accreditation (2
major components)
• The Compliance Certification
• The Quality Enhancement Plan
Compliance Certification:
The Principles of
Accreditation
• Comprehensive Standards
– 12 general statements that focus
on outcomes;
– a broad review of the institution;
– not intended to be redundant.
Compliance Certification
(cont’d.)
• Core Requirements - focus on
institutional processes for accomplishing
outcomes
– Institutional Mission, Governance, and
Effectiveness
– Programs (Educational Programs, Faculty,
Library, Student Affairs and Services)
– Resources (Financial and Physical
Resources)
– Federal Mandates (Title IV Funds)
Compliance Certification
(cont’d.)
• The institution’s response to the
Core Requirements and
Comprehensive Standards
• Indicates compliance, noncompliance, or conditional
compliance
• Accompanied by documents to
verify compliance
The Quality Enhancement
Plan
• Developed as a
course of action
for improvement in
student learning
and achievement
• Based on a
thorough analysis
of the
effectiveness of
the learning
environment
Quality Enhancement Plan
• Does not exceed 75 pages of
narrative
• Intended to be an outgrowth of
the institution’s planning and
evaluation process
• Supplements the institution’s
planning and evaluation process
The Peer Review Process
• College prepares
and submits
Compliance
Certification
• Off-Site Review
Committee reviews
the report and
advises On-Site
Committee
regarding
compliance issues
The Peer Review Process
• College prepares
and submits its
QEP
• The On-Site
Committee visits
the college to
review progress on
QEP and address
compliance issues
Overview of Team Visit
Previous vs. Proposed
• Size of Team : 11-15
• Length of Stay: 4
days
• Opening reception
and dinner
• Focus of Team:
Comprehensive
Review of
accreditation
requirements
• Size of Team: 5 - 7
• Length of Stay: 3
days
• No opening
reception or dinner
• Focus of Team:
Quality
Enhancement Plan;
other issues as adv.
by off-site team
Overview of Team Visit
Previous vs. Proposed
• Individual
• Selected group
interviews day 2 only
interviews days 2
and 3 of visit
• Committee Chair
delivers exit report to
• Team delivers exit
President on day 3
report to
President on day • Chair assembles
4 of visit
team’s assessment
of compliance and
• Chair edits team
QEP
report
Pilot Institutions
• October 2000,
eight institutions
began process
under proposed
guidelines
• Representative of
all types of
institutions:
private and public,
2-year and 4-year
• Submitted
Compliance
Certification in
September 2001
• Quality
Enhancement Plan
in January 2002
• Visit Feb. - April
2002
Timeline (Unofficial)
• September 2002 - Commission
on Colleges notifies institution of
reaffirmation visit in 2004;
provides dates for submission of
reports
• September 2003 - Compliance
Certification due to COC
Timeline (cont’d.)
• September 2003 - Off-site team
reviews Compliance Certification
• January 2004 - Quality
Enhancement Plan due to COC
• February - April 2004 On-site
team visits institution
• September 2004 - Institutional
response to on-site visit due to
COC
Timeline (cont’d.)
• November-December 2004 COC
review to determine reaffirmation
• January 2005 - Continued
monitoring of QEP
SACS Annual Meeting
7 - 10 December 2002
• San Antonio,
Texas
• Focus on changes
in process as
recommended
following pilot
program
• Final word on
reporting process
For more information, visit
www.sacscoc.org
. . . And the saga continues
Watch for the best-selling
sequel, “The Quality
Enhancement Plan”