Both Sides Now SACS’ New Accreditation Process

1. Both Sides NowSACS’ New Accreditation Process Karen Helm Accreditation Liaison Director, University Planning and Analysis North Carolina State University http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/ April 15, 2005

2. Multiple Vantage Points • Old process • Criteria review • New process • Directed reaffirmation for 2004 • Off-site committee • On-site committees

3. Acknowledgments • Ephraim Schechter • Jeff Scroggs • Will Kimler • Carol Smith • Fellow travelers

4. New Process • Adopted in 2002 • First class “graduated” in 2004 • Continuing to evolve • Revised standards (Principles) • Two documents • Compliance Certification • Quality Enhancement Plan • Two committee reviews • Off-site • On-Site

5. After the Campus Review • On-Site report reviewed by Criteria and Reports (C&R) Committee of COC • C&R recommends accreditation and follow-ups as appropriate • COC Executive Committee reviews recommendations for consistency • COC makes final decisions

6. Organizing for Reaffirmation

7. Leadership Team • Members: Chancellor, Provost (chair), Accreditation Liaison, faculty leader, administrative leader • Charges • Organize teams • Communication to campus • Review and approve compliance report • Review and approve QEP • Organize site visit

8. QEP Team • Co-chaired by faculty member and administrative staff • Started same time as Compliance Team • Some overlap with Compliance Certification

9. Compliance Team • Co-chaired by faculty member and administrator (Accreditation Liaison) • Members: administrators responsible for areas covered by SACS requirements (AVP level), and limited faculty • Charge: draft and integrate reports, recommend compliance judgment, recommend changes where needed for compliance, draft response to off-site team as needed

10. Institutional Effectiveness Compliance Team • Co-chaired by faculty and administrator (University Assessment Director) • Members: assessment professionals in major academic and administrative divisions • Charge: draft compliance reports related to planning and assessment; recommend compliance judgment, recommend changes where needed for compliance, draft response to off-site team as needed

11. Staff Functions • Coordinating all activities (Accreditation Liaison) • Administrative and web development (AL’s administrative assistant) • Editors • Analysis (Institutional Research staff) • Temporary help as needed

12. Schedule April 2002 Selected QEP topic, appointed Leadership Team May 2002 Attended SACS training session June 2002 Appointed other teams Aug 2002 Trained Compliance Team, developed report guidelines Feb 2003 SACS staff visit (optional but worth it) Apr-May 2003 Distributed draft compliance reports to campus June 2003 Leadership Team reviewed compliance drafts July 2003 Final editing of compliance reports Aug 2003 Submitted Compliance Certification to SACS Sept 2003 Circulated QEP draft to campus Oct 2003 Off-Site review of Compliance Certification Executive approval of QEP implementation budget Jan 2004 Completed QEP Feb 2004 Mailed QEP and follow-up reports to SACS March 2004 On-Site SACS visit Dec 2004 Accreditation reaffirmed

13. Compliance Certification • Sort the standards according to responsibility • Subteams for overlapping standards, e.g., institutional effectiveness, library and learning resources, academic policies implemented by multiple units • Provide standard format early: level of detail, references • Motivate members

14. Compliance Certification (cont) • Interpreting and applying standards • Best practices vs. sufficient • SACS’ invitation to apply standards according to mission • Our first drafts: aspirational, puffy • Our final reports: sufficient • Fix problems as soon as you find them

15. Compliance Certification (cont) • Writer/editor • Review of standards took 3 months • Each “chunk” moved through multiple stages at different times, speeds • Suggest VP level review before Compliance Team review

16. Assessment Compliance • Diversity across campus • Different programs and services • Different approaches and values • Different levels of achievement • Non-uniform documentation • Borrowed North Central’s rubric to summarize progress

17. Development of a culture • Continuous process • big stick with a big milestone • Challenge: balance SACS reporting with the nurturing needed to foster this style of assessment Leads To Lack of sustainability

18. Strategies for Efficiency • Assign each standard to the responsible office; don’t overload a single person • Use subgroups to coordinate overlapping reports • Establish uniform reporting guidelines • Appoint an editor to save authors’ and committee’s time • Use the web to allow multiple levels of evidence for readers with different interests and styles • Use the web to distribute and finalize drafts • Parallel reviews of drafts, not sequential

19. Strategies to Enhance Value • Set explicit goals for the compliance review in advance • Develop explicit strategy for what performance level constitutes compliance • Involve faculty for institutional perspective and conscience • Visit with Commission staff in mid process • Keep the campus informed • Use it as a snapshot of institutional health • Use it to learn about other units

20. Strategies to Enhance Value (contd) • Set explicit goals for the compliance review in advance • Develop explicit strategy for what performance level constitutes compliance • Involve faculty for institutional perspective and conscience • Visit with Commission staff in mid process • Keep the campus informed • Use it as a snapshot of institutional health • Use it to learn about other units

21. Strategies to Facilitate Compliance Review • Remember this is a written exchange • Take advantage of the web’s richness to address multiple levels for a variety of readers • Get straight to the point: What is the basis for your compliance? • Prepare focused reports • Keep links alive between submission and Off-Site Committee meeting, and from On-Site mailing through visit

22. Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) • Plan for institutional improvement in an area of strategic importance to the institution • SACS’ criteria for QEPs • Focus: significant issue, related to student learning • Capability: commitment, resources • Assessment plan • Broad-based involvement in its development

23. Criteria for selecting a topic (SACS) • Related to student learning • Addresses a strategic issue, related to ongoing planning and evaluation • Comprehensive, institutional in scope • Capability to implement • Commitment to implement

24. Criteria for selecting a topic (NC State) • Productive for the university • Sponsoring unit needs to have capacity and commitment for 5-7 years • Addresses graduate education as well as undergraduate • One topic is better than two • Can be evaluated clearly • Does not drop compliance red flags

25. Process for selecting a topic • General conversations with deans, faculty, and others • General themes fleshed out by small groups • Focus • Value • Possible strategies • Lead unit • Disadvantage • More focused conversations with deans, faculty • Formally approved by Deans Council, University Council

26. Our Choice: Learning in a Technology-Rich Environment (LITRE) • Builds on a strength • Potential for leadership • Relevant to both undergraduate and graduate education • Widespread, grassroots faculty involvement and success • Strong interest among deans • Links student learning and new building program

27. LITREhttp://litre.ncsu.edu/ • Ongoing, empirical inquiry • First initiatives include course-based projects and out-of-classroom learning projects • Faculty grants for new projects • Each project assessed for impact on student learning • Results disseminated and used to direct future investments

28. Assessment of LITRE • LITRE Assessment Committee • Project specific • Periodic overview of results across projects • Results used to stimulate innovation, improve programs and services, policy analysis, planning, and budgeting • Scholarship of teaching and learning

29. QEP Challenges • Planning from concept to budget allocation takes time and multiple approval cycles • What communicates well inside might not outside • Project versus process

30. Using the Web • http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/accreditation/index.htm • Allowed for multiple levels of detail for a variety of users • Excellent vehicle for campus communication • Morphed into site for SACS review • Freezing the site

40. Expenses (from 5 Institutions) • Direct costs from a special SACS budget (excluding in-house contributions) ranged from $10k to $315k • Personnel costs (e.g., release time, temporary support or editor) account for the difference • In-house contributions were significant and largely personnel • Liaison spends 3 years, full or part-time • Core of 4 or 5 do most of the work • Assessment and IR staff engaged for a year • Deans, associate deans, AVPs involved for several months

41. Expenses (contd) • Project costs other than personnel • Compliance review $3 to 5k (including $2400 fee for off-site review) • QEP preparation $1.5 to 5k • On-site visit $9 to 14k • QEP implementation costs can be significant • range from $100 to 560k/yr • 3 years to permanently

42. Lessons Learned • The new process continues to evolve • Stay in touch with others in your class, SACS staff, and colleagues • Help SACS understand that a 100% participation standard does not lead to sustainability in assessment • Communication in the new process is different: more written, web • Assessment documentation • QEP is a big opportunity • Greatest expense is in QEP implementation, not reaffirmation karen_helm@ncsu.edu