1 / 48

Road to SACS Reaffirmation S outhern A ssociation of C olleges and S chools

Road to SACS Reaffirmation S outhern A ssociation of C olleges and S chools. 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 ?.

colby
Download Presentation

Road to SACS Reaffirmation S outhern A ssociation of C olleges and S chools

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Road to SACS ReaffirmationSouthern Association of Colleges and Schools Target: 2012 University of North Alabama Florence, Alabama April 27, 2009

  2. In Your Opinion… If UNA could focus on doing just one thing to improve student learning, what should it be?

  3. SACSReaffirmation Where have we been? Where are we going? …And HOW?

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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.”

  7. 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

  8. 2000-02 Reaffirmation Process • Massive Campus-wide Survey(s) • Large Supporting Documents (Hard Copy) Collection • Large on-Campus Review Team • Follow-up Report

  9. Times they are a-changin’… SACS is where Students Are Central to Success ~Dr. Belle S. Wheelan President, SACS Commission on Colleges

  10. 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)

  11. Principles of Accreditation(2008 interim ed.)

  12. Overarching principle of Integrity Policies/Procedures Written Approved Published Accessible Implemented Enforced Two-pronged process, two committee structures

  13. 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

  14. Compliance Audit Snap-shot of past/present Submitted September 2011 Reviewed by Off-Site Committee Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Proposed Plan for Future Submitted 6 weeks prior to On-Site Visit Reviewed by On-Site Committee Two Primary Reports Required

  15. 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

  16. 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)

  17. Compliance Audit Coordinated by: Compliance Certification Team • Documents compliance with Principles • 15Core Requirements • 64Comprehensive Standards • 7 Federal Requirements • SACS/COC Policies (Substantive Change, etc.) • Electronic report with links to specific supporting documentation (manuals, minutes, policies, examples)

  18. 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 servicewithin its educational mission

  19. Areas of Concern1992 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

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 2002 Recommendations (continued) • Availability of Job Descriptions for Administrators • Regular Evaluation of Budgeting Procedure • Internal Auditing • Comprehensive Safety Plan • Guidelines for Externally Funded Grants

  24. Areas of Most Common SACS Non-Compliance • Faculty Qualifications • Institutional Effectiveness • Quality Enhancement Plan

  25. How are we addressing the Problems? University Groups • Advising • Faculty Evaluation/Promotion & Tenure • Faculty Credentials • General Education Competencies • Institutional Effectiveness

  26. Addressing Principles? Readiness Assessment Team • Examining Requirements & Standards • Determining/Assigning Responsibility • Meeting with Groups/Individuals • Assessing Existing Documentation • Requesting Information Compliance Certification Team

  27. Compliance Assist!

  28. Documenting Compliance

  29. 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?

  30. 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? • DoDLstudents have access to appropriate resources—advising, library, technology, etc.

  31. What else? • Do the faculty in your department have appropriate credentials for teaching assigned courses? • Are criteria for faculty evaluation clear? • Are faculty being evaluatedconsistently? Is there documentation? • Are administrators being evaluated consistently?

  32. What else? • Ongoing ASSESSMENT • Check out SACS website • Document, Document, Document! Ask Questions…Get Help

  33. 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)

  34. QEP • Focuses on learning outcomes • Demonstrates capacity to initiate, implement, and complete QEP (sufficient budget, personnel, etc.) • Identifies goals and plan to assess achievement

  35. 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

  36. 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

  37. 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

  38. Recent QEP Topics • Writing/Communication Skills • Mathematical Skills • Critical Thinking • Information Literacy • Student Engagement • Service Learning/Experiential Learning • Global Competence

  39. 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 Due Dates

  40. For More Information www.sacscoc.org Coming soon: • UNA SACS/QEP website • Compliance Assist! • Periodic electronic newsletters • Opportunities for input

  41. ???QEP???? If UNA could focus on just one thing to improve student learning and/or the learning environment, what should it be?

  42. Questions? SACS? QEP? Celia Reynolds Phil Bridgmon SACS@una.eduQEP@una.edu Ext. 4625 Ext. 4192 Compliance? Institutional Effectiveness? Jerri Bullard Andrew Luna jhbullard@una.edualluna@una.edu Ext. 4531 Ext. 4221

  43. Remember… We are all in this together!

  44. Spring 2012 is sooner than we (may) think! And…

  45. Thanks! Celia Reynolds SACS Reaffirmation Director SACS@una.edu

More Related