Transcript Road to SACS Reaffirmation - University of North Alabama

Road to SACS
Reaffirmation
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
Target: 2012
University of North Alabama
Florence, Alabama
April 27, 2009
In Your Opinion…
If UNA could focus on
doing just one thing
to improve
student learning,
what should it be?
SACS Reaffirmation
Where have we been?
Where are we going?
…And HOW?
Brief History
1895 - Southern Association of Colleges
and Schools (SACS) began
1934 – UNA first accredited by SACS
2002 – UNA last reaffirmed as Level IV
institution (Bachelor’s, Master’s, Education Specialist
degrees)
2012 – Next Reaffirmation
Significance of
SACS Accreditation?
Signifies that the institution:
(1) has an appropriate mission
(2) has sufficient resources, programs, &
services to accomplish mission
(3) maintains clear educational objectives
consistent with mission, appropriate to
degrees, and that indicate success in
achieving those objectives
Back in the Dark Ages…
(2000-02)
• Criteria for
Accreditation
• 400+ “Must” Statements
For example:
“The institution must
define its expected
educational results and
describe its methods
for analyzing the
results.”
2000-02 SACS Self-Study
Steering Committee
Subcommittees:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Purpose of the Institution
Institutional Effectiveness
Undergraduate Program
Graduate Program
Distance Learning, Continuing
Education
Faculty Issues
Library/Information Technology
Student Development & Athletics
Administration/Advancement
Financial Resources
Physical Resources
2000-02 Reaffirmation Process
• Massive Campus-wide Survey(s)
• Large Supporting Documents (Hard Copy)
Collection
• Large on-Campus Review Team
• Follow-up Report
Times they are a-changin’…
SACS is where
Students
Are
Central to
Success
~Dr. Belle S. Wheelan
President, SACS Commission on Colleges
SACS Expectations
• Demonstrate how well institution fulfills
stated mission
• Commitment to student learning and
achievement (Student Learning Outcomes)
• Commitment to quality enhancement
through continuous assessment and
improvement
• Documented quality and effectiveness
of all programs and services (Assumption: IE
processes are mature and incorporated throughout university)
Principles of Accreditation
(2008 interim ed.)
• Overarching principle of Integrity
• Policies/Procedures
– Written
– Approved
– Published
– Accessible
– Implemented
– Enforced
• Two-pronged process, two committee
structures
Not Just Every 10 Years…
• 2 Annual Institutional Profiles:
– General Information/Enrollment Data
– Financial Trends and Stability
• Substantive Change Reports
• Compliance Certification
(Reaffirmation Report from Off-Site Committee)
• Focused Report
• Quality Enhancement Plan
(On-Site Review Committee Report)
• Response to On-Site Recommendations
• Five-Year Report/Impact of QEP Report
Two Primary Reports Required
Compliance
Audit
Quality
Enhancement
Plan (QEP)
• Snap-shot of
past/present
• Proposed Plan for
Future
• Submitted
September 2011
• Submitted 6 weeks
prior to On-Site Visit
• Reviewed by OffSite Committee
• Reviewed by On-Site
Committee
Organizational Structure
SACS Leadership Team
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
President
Vice President for Academic Affairs/Provost
Vice President for Business & Financial Affairs
SACS Reaffirmation Director
Compliance Certification Team Co-Chairs
Quality Enhancement Plan Team Chair
Faculty Representatives
Orientation for “Class of 2012” Leadership Teams,
Atlanta, June 2010
UNA’s SACS Leadership Team
• Dr. Phil Bridgmon (QEP)
• Dr. Jerri Bullard (Compliance Certification)
• President Cale (Co-Chair)
• Dr. Greg Carnes (Faculty Representative)
• Dr. Sandra Loew (Faculty Representative)
• Dr. Andrew Luna (Compliance Certification)
• Ms. Celia Reynolds (Reaffirmation Director, Co-Chair)
• Dr. Steve Smith
(VPBFA)
• Dr. John Thornell
(VPAA/Provost)
Compliance Audit
Coordinated by:
Compliance Certification Team
• Documents compliance with Principles
– 15 Core Requirements
– 64 Comprehensive Standards
– 7 Federal Requirements
– SACS/COC Policies (Substantive Change,
etc.)
• Electronic report with links to specific supporting
documentation (manuals, minutes, policies, examples)
Example of Principle
(Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1)
“The institution identifies expected outcomes,
assesses the extent to which it achieves
these outcomes, and provides evidence of
improvement based on analysis of the
results in each of the following areas:
– Educational programs, to include student learning
outcomes
– Administrative Support Services
– Educational Support Services
– Research with its educational mission
– Community/Public service within its educational mission
Areas of Concern
1992 Reaffirmation
Institutional Effectiveness
• Adequacy of Planning/Evaluation Process
• Inclusion of Student Outcomes in Goals of Academic
Departments
• Procedures for Evaluating Achievement of Student
Outcomes
• Demonstrated Use of Evaluation Results to Improve
Programs, Services, Operations
• Procedures to Assess Student Performance, Including
Feedback and Follow-up
1992 (continued)
• Link Budgeting Process to Planning and
Assessment
Faculty Issues
•
•
•
•
Faculty Role in Curriculum
Faculty Credentials, including terminal degrees
Official Transcripts on File
Faculty Compensation- Based on Stated
Criteria/Annual Reviews Based on Criteria
• Clear, published Promotion/Tenure Policies
1992 (continued)
• Adequate Faculty; policies for assignments
• System of Faculty Evaluation; Use Results for
Improvement
Advising
• Structure/Resources for Effective Student
Advisement
Physical Facilities
• Comprehensive Safety Plan; Evaluation of Plan
• Current Master Plan
2002 Recommendation Areas
- Institutional Effectiveness
– Advising
– Needs Assessments prior to Graduate
Program Development
– Credentials of Undergraduate Faculty in
specific areas (% of faculty with terminal
degree)
– Criteria and Procedures for Faculty
Evaluation
2002 Recommendations
(continued)
– Availability of Job Descriptions for
Administrators
– Regular Evaluation of Budgeting
Procedure
– Internal Auditing
– Comprehensive Safety Plan
– Guidelines for Externally Funded Grants
Areas of Most Common
SACS Non-Compliance
• Faculty Qualifications
• Institutional Effectiveness
• Quality Enhancement Plan
How are we addressing
the Problems?
University Groups
– Advising
– Faculty Evaluation/Promotion & Tenure
– Faculty Credentials
– General Education Competencies
– Institutional Effectiveness
Addressing Principles?
Readiness Assessment Team
– Examining Requirements & Standards
– Determining/Assigning Responsibility
– Meeting with Groups/Individuals
– Assessing Existing Documentation
– Requesting Information
Compliance Certification Team
Compliance Assist!
Documenting Compliance
What can YOU do?
• Review departmental/unit/college mission
statement, policies, procedures—Are they
current, approved, published, implemented,
enforced? (If not, create, get approved, publish,
implement.)
• Is your area following UNA’s I.E. Guidelines?
–
–
–
–
Annual report?
Assessment report?
Documentation of results used for decision making?
Budget tied to assessment results?
• Is your academic or educational support unit
program preparing for its program review?
Have you defined student learning outcomes?
Seek help from the Office of Institutional Research, Planning, &
Assessment.
• If you offer Distance Education—are learning
outcomes being assessed for those students?
• Do DL students have access to appropriate
resources—advising, library, technology, etc.
What else?
• Do the faculty in your department have
appropriate credentials for teaching
assigned courses?
• Are criteria for faculty evaluation clear?
• Are faculty being evaluated
consistently? Is there documentation?
• Are administrators being evaluated
consistently?
What else?
• Ongoing ASSESSMENT
• Check out SACS website
• Document, Document, Document!
Ask Questions…Get Help
Plan for Future - QEP
Quality Enhancement Plan
– Reflects broad-based process to identify key
issues based on institutional assessment
• Must be focused on an area of student learning
likely to have significant institutional impact
– Reflects continued broad-based
involvement in development/implementation
of plan (faculty, staff, students, administrators,
alumni)
QEP
– Focuses on learning outcomes
– Demonstrates capacity to initiate,
implement, and complete QEP
(sufficient budget, personnel, etc.)
– Identifies goals and plan to assess
achievement
QEP – How do we get there?
QEP Planning Team
– Solicit input, study documents, review
other QEPs, etc.
– Assess topics in relation to UNA
– Narrow field; solicit proposals
– Recommend final list topics to
Leadership Team
UNA’s QEP Planning Team
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dr. Lynn Aquadro
Mr. Bart Black
Dr. Phil Bridgmon
Dr. Vagn Hansen
Dr. Linda Lewis
Dr. Chris Maynard
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dr. Lisa Minor
Dr. Joan Parris
Ms. Celia Reynolds
Ms. Jennifer Holt Smith
Ms. Leigh Thompson
Student Representative
QEP – Second Phase
QEP Development Team
• Fully develop five-year QEP to submit to
SACS, including
– Research on Best Practices
– Timelines (2012-2017)
– Personnel/responsibility assignments
– Resource allocation
– Comprehensive evaluation plan
– Assessment schedule
Recent QEP Topics
•
•
•
•
•
•
Writing/Communication Skills
Mathematical Skills
Critical Thinking
Information Literacy
Student Engagement
Service Learning/Experiential
Learning
• Global Competence
Anticipated Reaffirmation Timeline
General
Preparation
Compliance
Preparation
QEP
Preparation
Conduct
Planning
Activities
Plan
Strategy/
Form
Readiness
Assessment
Team
Plan
Strategy
Fall 2008 –
Spring 2009
2008-09
Form
Leadership
Team;
Develop
Editorial
Guidelines
Begin
Readiness
Audit
Process/
Begin
Gathering
Evidence
Form QEP
Planning
Team/Begin
Topic ID
Process
Spring 2009
Leadership Team
Meets Regularly;
Approves QEP Topic
Form
Compliance
Certification
Team/ Fix
Problems,
Gather
Evidence
Identify
QEP Topic
Summer Fall 2009
2009
Orientation
of
Leadership
Team –
Atlanta
(June
2010)
Leadership
Team
Meets
Regularly
Leadership Team
Approves Compliance
Report, Reviews QEP
Draft Narratives
Continue Work on Compliance
Certification
Final Edit/
Approval of
Compliance
Report
Compliance
Report Due
to SACS
Continue to fix problems
Fully Develop QEP
Proposal
Spring
2010
Summer
2010
2010
Solicit
Feedback/
Refine
QEP
Fall 2010Spring
2011
Edit and finalize QEP
Summer
2011
Sept. 2011
2011
Leadership Team
Approves QEP
Prepare for
On-Site Visit
Off-Site
Peer
Review
Conducted
Prepare
Focused
Report
Focused
Report
Due to
SACS
Final
Review/
Approval of
QEP
QEP
Due to
SACS;
Begin
QEP
Project
Fall 2011
Six
weeks
prior to
on-site
visit
OnSite
Peer
Review
Review by
SACS
Commission
On
Colleges
Respond
to On-Site
Committee
Report
Fully
Implement
st
1 Phase
of
QEP
Spring
2012
2012
December
2012
Due Dates
• Compliance Report
due – Sept. 10, 2011
• Off-Site Review Nov. 2011
• Focused Report (six
weeks before visit)
• On-Site Visit -
Spring 2012
• QEP due to SACS Dec. 2011 (six weeks
before visit)
• On-Site Visit Spring 2012
• Response Report Fall 2012
• SACS Decision-
December 2012
For More Information
www.sacscoc.org
Coming soon:
• UNA SACS/QEP website
• Compliance Assist!
• Periodic electronic newsletters
• Opportunities for input
???QEP????
If UNA could focus on just
one thing to improve
student learning and/or the
learning environment,
what should it be?
Questions?
SACS?
Celia Reynolds
[email protected]
Ext. 4625
Compliance?
Jerri Bullard
[email protected]
Ext. 4531
QEP?
Phil Bridgmon
[email protected]
Ext. 4192
Institutional Effectiveness?
Andrew Luna
[email protected]
Ext. 4221
Remember…
We are all in this
together!
And…
Spring
2012
is sooner than
we (may)
think!
Thanks!
Celia Reynolds
SACS Reaffirmation Director
[email protected]