Preparing for the New Standards: A SACS Pre-Audit for Compliance Ronald Head Lisa Kleiman Tidewater Community College No

1. Preparing for the New Standards:A SACS Pre-Audit for ComplianceRonald HeadLisa KleimanTidewater Community CollegeNorfolk, Virginia

2. PURPOSE To prepare for its compliance certification in 2007 by the Commission on Colleges (COC) of the Southern Association for Colleges and Schools (SACS), Tidewater Community College (TCC) decided to conduct a pre-audit in 2003-04

3. KEY PLAYERS • Lisa Kleiman, Director of Institutional Effectiveness, was charged with administrative responsibility for the pre-audit. • Ronald Head, former SACCR president, was contracted in November 2003 to conduct the pre-audit and to serve as the college’s Accreditation Project Officer.

4. BACKGROUND

5. The new Principles of Accreditation, which went into effect in early 2003, replaces the Criteria for Accreditation. Instead of roughly 450 “must” statements, there are now 15 Core Requirements 53Comprehensive Standards 8 Federal Requirements Instead of a Self-Study there is now a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)

6. “Core Requirements are basic qualifications that an institution must meet to be accredited with the Commission on Colleges” (Principles, p. 13).“The Comprehensive Standards represent good practices in higher education and establish a level of accomplishment expected of all member institutions” (Principles, p. 8).Title IV of the 1998 Higher Education Amendments contains criteria that SACS is mandated to consider when it reviews an institution for accreditation. These Federal Requirementsare part of the compliance certification.

7. The Core Requirements, Comprehensive Standards, and Federal Requirements constitute an institution’s Compliance Certification. The Compliance Certification “is a document completed by the institution that demonstrates its judgment of the extent of its compliance with each of the Core Requirements and Comprehensive Standards” (Principles, p. 9).

8. The Compliance Certification is submitted 15 months in advance of an institution’s scheduled reaffirmation. Scheduled reaffirmation: June 2008 Off-Site Review by SACS: May 2007 Compliance Certification due: March 2007

9. SACS has developed a Compliance Certification form to be used to show compliance with all requirements and standards. Commission on Colleges Southern Association of Colleges and Schools COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION Name of Institution Date of Submission In order to be accredited by the Commission on Colleges, an institution is required to conduct a compliance audit prior to the filing of the Compliance Certification. The Compliance Certification, signed by the institutions chief executive officer and accreditation liaison, attests to compliance with the accreditation requirements of the Commission on Colleges (Core Requirements and Comprehensive Standards). Signatures Attesting to Compliance By signing below, we attest to the honest assessment of compliance and the complete and accurate disclosure of information regarding the compliance of (name of institution) with the Core Requirements and Comprehensive Standards of the Commission on Colleges.

10. Unlike the Self-Study, which involved a large number of people from all constituencies of an institution, the Compliance Certification is conducted by a small Leadership Team.  The Leadership Team typically consists of the President, the SACS liaison, the academic Vice President, one faculty member, and others as designated by the President.  Many institutions find it helpful to add a technical advisor or web master to the Leadership Team.

11. In addition to the Compliance Certification, an institution must also submit to the Commission on Colleges a Quality Enhancement Plan, or QEP as it is more commonly known.  The QEP “describes a carefully designed and focused course of action that addresses a well-defined issue or issues directly related to improving student learning” (Principles, p. 9).  “The development of the QEP involves significant participation by the institution’s academic community” (Principles, pp. 9-10).

12. The QEP is submitted six weeks in advance of the on-site review by the commission. Scheduled reaffirmation: June 2008 On-Site Review by SACS: September-October 2007 QEP due: July-September 2007

13. TCC Pre-Audit

14. A compliance certification instrument was prepared in November-December 2003. • The instrument combined the new core requirements and comprehensive standards with the old compliance criteria. • The instrument was designed to determine compliance or non-compliance for each requirement, standard, and criterion. • The table of contents is shown on the next slide.

16. For each core requirement or comprehensive standard: • A determination of compliance, partial compliance, or non-compliance is made. • Support documentation is listed (to include live links to the actual documents). • All applicable criteria are listed and determination of compliance is made for each.

17. Calendar

18. Compliance Definitions Compliance:The institution meets the requirement and provides a convincing argument in support of its determination, and a list of documents (or electronic access to the documents) demonstrating compliance.  Partial Compliance: The institution meets some, but not all, aspects of the requirement. For those aspects meeting the requirement, the institution provides a convincing argument in support of its determination, and a list of documents (or electronic access to the documents) demonstrating compliance. For those aspects not meeting the requirement, the institution provides the reason for checking partial compliance, a description of plans to comply, and a list of documents that will be used to demonstrate future compliance. Non-Compliance: The institution does not meet the requirement and provides the reason for checking non-compliance, a description of plans to comply, and a list of documents that will be used to demonstrate future compliance.

19. Pre-Audit Sample Form

20. Pre-Audit Actual Form

21. Sample Core Requirement: 1. The institution has degree-granting authority from the appropriate government agency or agencies.  Compliance  Partial Compliance  Non-Compliance

22. Sample Core Requirement (contd.): Narrative/Justification for Judgment of Compliance: As authorized by Virginia statute, the State Board of Community Colleges (SBCC), the governing board of the Virginia Community College System (VCCS), has granted formal authority to award degrees, certificates, and diplomas to all 23 community colleges, including Tidewater Community College (TCC).

23. Sample Core Requirement (contd.):

24. Sample Core Requirement (contd.):

25. Faculty Credentials

26. Faculty Credentials • A major area of concern for TCC was faculty credentials. The college needed to determine how many faculty met the guidelines of both the old criteria and the new standards. With this in mind, the project consultant manually reviewed the personnel files of all full- and part-time faculty who taught classes during Fall Semester 2003. • Between February and June 2004, nearly 1,400 faculty files were reviewed.

27. Faculty Credentials (contd) • A Microsoft Access database was developed to audit faculty files. • A number of forms and reports were developed to collect and report data. • Full-time faculty credentials were completed in early March and a report issued. • Part-time faculty credentials were completed in late May and a report issued in early June.

28. Faculty Credentials (contd.)

29. Faculty Credentials Findings • A large number of faculty—especially adjuncts—did not have documentation of relevant work experience. • In a number of cases, official transcripts were missing (in many instances, unofficial transcripts were on file). • In only a few cases were faculty demonstrably unqualified to teach a class. In the majority of cases, documentation was the issue. • “Problem” areas included Speech and interdisciplinary Humanities classes. • Because faculty may teach different courses in 2005-06 than they did in Fall 2003, their credentials for any new courses must be checked.

30. Faculty Credentials Findings(Contd.) • Because the old criteria are “stricter” than Comprehensive Standard 3.7.1, some faculty who did not meet the criteria in the pre-audit do meet the new standard and are qualified to teach. • Many problems can be addressed by memos from Provosts or other appropriate administrators listing and justifying a faculty member’s qualifications to teach in a specific discipline or disciplines.

31. Faculty Credentials - Actions • In April, 2004, the Vice-President for Instruction and Student Services developed an “Action Plan” to address faculty credential issues relating to full-time faculty • Issues were divided into eight categories • For each category, a plan was implemented and responsibility assigned to the appropriate administrator(s) • A timetable to complete corrective actions was established. A deadline of June 15th was established for all full-time faculty to be in compliance • Essentially the same “Action Plan” was developed for part-time faculty with a completion date of early fall 2004

32. Faculty Credentials - Actions(Contd.) • Because many faculty still did not meet qualifications in Fall 2004, renewed emphasis was placed on ensuring that all faculty meet the requirements of Comprehensive Standard 3.7.1. • Some faculty members are not being allowed to teach certain courses. • Any faculty member who does not have sufficient documentation in his/her personnel file will not be allowed to teach in Fall 2005 or Spring 2006. • Because the new standard provides some flexibility, TCC is “justifying” the qualifications of certain faculty members who do not technically meet the guidelines listed under Comprehensive Standard 3.7.1. • Documentation to “justify” faculty members will be provided electronically with the official faculty roster provided to the off-site SACS team.

33. Institutional Effectiveness

34. Institutional Effectiveness • Tidewater Community College has an outstanding institutional effectiveness program, and in the last SACS accreditation in 1997 no recommendations or suggestions were offered. • Nevertheless, the pre-audit revealed that while the college had a strong, central IE program, certain areas of the college lacked effective planning documentation. • To remedy this, the college has developed and is implementing an IE template that covers every academic program and every administrative and support service area.

35. Sample IE Template

36. Other Areas

37. Findings in Other Areas • Partial or non-compliance were reported in other areas besides faculty credentials and institutional effectiveness. • In all cases, specific recommendations and suggestions were made by the consultant. • In many instances, issues can easily be addressed. For example, the mission statement is published in all major institutional documents with the exception of the Student Handbook. A new edition of the Student Handbook, published in 2005, contains the mission statement.

38. Pre-Audit Status Today

39. Pre-Audit Status as of July 2005 • Audit findings were completed for all core requirements and comprehensive standards in late fall, 2004, a draft report was issued in December, and a final report was issued in January. • An action plan to address all issues was developed by TCC administrators in the spring of 2005. • Additional audits of faculty files continue to reveal issues with credentials.

40. Timeline

41. Questions ?????????