Transcript An Overview of TJC’S SACS Reaffirmation

This is not your grandfather’s
re-accreditation process.
January 7, 2009




A new term to reflect both a philosophical
re-orientation and new procedures.
Emphasizes renewal and reinvigoration of an
existing commitment.
Reaffirmation is an ongoing initiative, not an
episodic project.
Suggests that concerns with quality and standards
spring from the institution itself rather than being
imposed from outside.




The process is judged by peers.
The process is based on institutional
integrity.
The process is a demonstration of the
institution’s commitment to quality
enhancement.
The process focuses on student learning.


Accreditation was once based solely on strict
compliance with a set of standards that
uniformly applied to all institutions.
Now accrediting organizations recognize
institutional differences and ask whether the
institution is consistent in its mission, its
action, and its student outcomes.


Institutional assessment plans must be
regularly applied and measure progress in
meeting program goals.
Special emphasis is given to tracking and
enhancing student learning outcomes.

Compliance in measuring up to minimum
expectations is still part of reaffirmation.

But, expectations are no longer precisely
quantified. They’re interpreted in light of
each institution’s unique mission.

And, institutions must now demonstrate
commitment to regular self-assessment
and continuous planned improvement with
a five-year report required of all institutions.

Create and sustain an environment that
enhances student learning.

Compliance Certification

Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)


An off-Site Review Committee considers the
institution’s Compliance Certification.
A separate On-Site Review Committee (7+
members) visits the campus primarily to
address the institution’s QEP.
Self-study and external review focused on past
and present actions as well as mission &
policies
 How well have we implemented the
ideals of the Principles of
Accreditation?
12 Core Requirements
58 Comprehensive Standards
7 Federal Requirements
 Narrative responses explain our
degree of compliance and site
evidence to support these claims



Very few standards are defined in specific
numerical or percentage terms.
They reflect more concern with quality than
with quantity.
Underlying reasons and desired outcomes are
as important as policies and practices.
The number of full-time faculty members is
adequate to support the mission of the
institution. The institution has adequate
faculty recourses to ensure the quality and
integrity of its academic programs.
…It meets the comprehensive standard for
faculty qualifications.


Old expectation: faculty credentials should
be appropriate for the department in which
the person has an appointment.
New expectation: faculty credentials must be
appropriate and adequate for each course the
person teaches.
1. Leadership Team
2. Compliance Certification Committee
Subcommittees:
A. Core Requirements
B. Institutional Mission & Governance
and Administration
C. Institutional Effectiveness
D. Educational Programs/
Undergraduate Programs and Faculty
E. Student Affairs and Services
F. Resources and Federal Requirements
Note: Subcommittees B – F are focusing
on Comprehensive Standards

Collection of Master course syllabi

Faculty rosters & transcripts

Academic program assessment reports

Strategic planning reports focused on

focused on student learning outcomes
institutional & unit missions & goals
Revised College Catalog
TRACDAT
- Used to develop plans and report outcomes
at all administrative levels.
- Academic program assessment of student
learning outcomes.
- Will help integrate and align strategic
planning down to the unit level.






1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Assessment of Effectiveness
Evidence of Planning
Continuous Improvement
Adequacy of Resources
Quality of Educational Programs
Qualifications of Faculty and Staff






Now – committee work is beginning.
May 15, 2009 committee work concludes; all
analyses submitted to the report writer.
November, 2009 final review/editing of the
draft.
March 15, 2010 – Compliance Certification is
submitted
May 12, 2010 – Off-Site Review of
Compliance Certification
July 30, 2010 – follow-up Focused Report is
submitted, if needed.
“To accomplish great things,
we must dream as well as act.”
Anatole Francis
In SACS’s terms:




a carefully designed and focused course of
action
addresses a well-defined topic or issue(s)
related to enhancing student learning or
the learning environment
a simple plan narrow in scope



desired changes in knowledge, skills,
behavior, or values that result from a college
experience
not limited to classes & curricula
achieved from interactions with staff and
peers as well as faculty



A proposed QEP may extend, modify,
redirect, or strengthen initiatives already
underway.
A QEP should “complement the institution’s
ongoing, integrated, planning and evaluation
process.”
A QEP should be based on best practices
identified through a complete literature
search.
Special thanks…
Beverly Bugay
 Jack Caddell
 Lindsey Gainer
 Lynn Gray

Desha Hill
 Iris Hobson
 Kay Lynn Moran
 Deborah Welch

SACS warned us!


“The first, and most difficult, step is topic
identification.”
Select a narrow do-able project reflecting
TJC’s special interests, strategic priorities,
and available resources.

Externally:
◦ QEP projects nationwide
◦ CCSSE results

Internally:
◦
◦
◦
◦
TJC mission statement & strategic plan
TJC student graduation survey results
TJC student evaluation results
TJC focus group reports (faculty, administrative
staff, professional staff, retirees, students)


Narrowed potential topics to a short list and
conducted a survey.
Survey results
◦ 336 respondents,
 333 were faculty and staff + 3 board members
 61.7% response rate from the 540 college employees.
Highest ranked potential topic areas

enhancing the advising process

improvement of critical thinking and logic
SACS warned us!

The topic selection process may take many
twists and turns…shifting focus over time.
◦
◦
◦
◦
Campus interviews
Survey comments
Anecdotal evidence
Data that demonstrates evidence to support the
QEP topic
This is not a committee project…
it is a campus project.


reflect a consensus of key campus constituencies.
involve “significant commitment from the entire
institutional community.”

Get involved

Faculty & staff involvement
 Discussion Forums
 Solicitation of current research data on related topics
 Solicitation of student learning outcomes

Student involvement
 Survey
 Student Senate

Fall 2009 – SACS Staff Advisory Visit
◦ First deadline…proposal

July 30, 2010 – QEP is submitted to SACS.
◦ Full report



Fall 2010 – SACS Review Team on campus.
Spring 2011 – Prepare final follow-up
response.
2016 – 5 year QEP Evaluation Report
You have spoken…
we are still listening!
SACS announces reaffirmation decisions:
June 2011
SACS Annual Meeting
Atlanta, Georgia
SACS web sites
www.sacs.org
www.sacscoc.org