SACS Reaffirmation

1. SACS Reaffirmation Robert B. Bradley Ruth Feiock: SACS Liaison March 2014 Chairs and Deans Meeting THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

2. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges Reaffirmation:Reminder • Accreditation reaffirmed by SACSCOC every ten years (our regional accrediting ) • Why is it important? • Federal funding • Student Financial Aid • Federal Contracts and Grants • Reputation • State Requirements • Commitment to higher education • Desire to continuously improve quality

3. What is Involved in Compliance Certification Report? • Core Requirements • 12 requirements, all of which must be met • Comprehensive Standards - 66 components • Federal Requirements - 12 components • 94 Specific Components plus applicable policies and guidelines

4. Accreditation Review • Involves three reviews 1. Off-site peer review – November 2013 2. On-site peer review – March 2014 • Tallahassee; • FSU Panama City, Florida; • FSU Panama, Republic of Panama; • Sarasota, Asolo Conservatory 3. Review by Commission’s Board of Trustees - December 2014

5. Where Are We In the Process?

6. SACS Compliance Documents Were Submitted – September 2013 • Digital Submission • Text of more than 500 pages of narrative • Approximately 3,500 associated files of documentation (each hyperlinked to narrative on the relevant standard) • Drew upon university data files and systems covering topics such as effectiveness, student courses, faculty member vitae

7. Off-Site Peer Review Conducted November 2013 Twelve Member Committee lead by: Provost Bert Bach, East Tennessee State University SACS Staff Leader – Dr. Cheryl D. Cardell, Vice President, SACSCOC Other members include, but not limited to: Provost, Dean of Libraries, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Student Life, Vice Presidents for Finance (two), Chancellor of Medical School, Faculty Member, and Dean

8. Off-Site Committee Identified Six Deficiencies • Information on state financial audit was not available (This is always late) • Statement on non-dismissal of BOT members was not explicit (This requires a short note) • Sample size was too small for Institutional effectiveness of Academic and Student Support Services • Sampling method for Institutional Effectiveness of General Education was not specific enough • The qualifications of 11 faculty members was questioned • The use of evaluation of faculty was not documented adequately, especially with regard to student learning

9. By Way of Comparison • In 2004, 13 deficiencies were identified by the off-site committee for FSU • It is not uncommon to receive 20 or more deficiencies

10. Conducted On-Campus Visits & Consultations • December: Dr. Charles A. Taylor Vice President, SACSCOC (assigned FSU) • January Dr. David R. Hager Sr., Chair, Emeritus Professor of Higher Education and International Studies Old Dominion University Chair of FSU On-Site team

11. Subsequent Submittals • A Focused Report addressing each of the six deficiencies identified by the Off-Site Committee • Updated Institutional Summary • Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) – “Think FSU” • Summaries of major elements of • FSU Panama City, • FSU Panama and • FSU at Asolo Conservatory (Sarasota)

12. What is Next?

13. Coming!

14. SACSCOC On-Site Team

15. The Committee Will Examine All Aspects of the University

16. What Will Be the Focus of the On-Site Team? • Detailed Consideration of the QEP • Examination of the Focused Report • Follow up to 21 Standards and Requirements of Specific Interest to Federal Officials • Investigation of Any Elements of the Compliance Report About Which they have questions • Reports on Each Off-Campus Site

17. What Will They Do During Their Visits? • Work out of the Turnbull Center and Hotel Duval • Conduct a series of meetings with groups and individuals on campus, as needed • Examine files and information about which they have questions • Participate in no socializing or receptions • Write Their Report and Make Recommendations for Consideration by the SACSCOC

18. What Will They Consider During Their Meetings? • Governance and Administration • Compliance with SACSCOC policies • Personnel Issues • Physical Facilities • Library Resources • Technology • Finances • Access to Student Support Programs • Institutional Effectiveness • Detailed Inquiry into Distance Learning • Extensive Review of the QEP

19. Common Problem Areas • Orderly processes and governance practices • Each course is taught by faculty with acceptable qualifications with the appropriate evidence • Number of full-time faculty is adequate to support mission and ensure quality • Complete set of student learning and program outcomes and their use for education, administration, support, research and service (Institutional Effectiveness) • Evidence of on-going, integrated and institution wide research based planning and evaluation • College level general education competencies • General education component meets criteria • Distance Education meets all criteria • Off campus Instructional Programs meet all criteria • Acceptable Quality Enhancement Plan with funding

20. When Will We Find Out Results? • Exit conference: report recommendations with institution’s leadership • Possible: Response to the Visiting Committee Report if one or more recommendations made with due date in transmittal letter • Vote of Commission in December 2014

21. What Should You Do Before the Visit?

22. Be Flexible In the Face of Changing Circumstances

23. General Information • Know the status of your faculty files • Original transcripts are located in the Office of Faculty Development and Advancement and scanned into NOLIJ • CVs are located in FEAS • Evaluations are maintained in the department or college. • Know university policies • Some may be found at policies.fsu.edu. • Be Available for visits With Onsite Team March 25 – 26 • In general, be positive and respond directly to the question asked. • Institutional Effectiveness – under scrutiny

24. QEP Evaluator Lunch with Deans and Department Chairs • Working Lunch scheduled with deans and separately department chairs is still under consideration by on-site team • March 26, 2014 • Turnbull Center

25. Areas of Special Interest to Chairs and Deans • Institutional Effectiveness • Academic Program Coordination • Faculty • Credentials • Evaluation • Development • Governance • General Education • Faculty Adequacy • Student Support Services • Substantive Change Policy • Quality Enhancement Plan • Other FSU policies http://policies.fsu.edu/

26. Areas of Special Interest to Chairs and Deans • Institutional Effectiveness • Located in the university’s institutional effectiveness portal • Student learning outcomes identified by faculty • Student learning outcomes reviewed by faculty, dean’s office, and Planning and Programs • Results used to make continuous improvement – be able to cite specific examples • Academic Program Coordination • Coordinators are qualified to provide curricular oversight (typically based on highest degree) • Often, the department chair or program director is the academic program coordinator

27. Areas of Special Interest to Chairs and Deans • Faculty Competence • Primary consideration to highest degree earned and justify document qualifications • Faculty Evaluation • regularly performed, uses student feedback • Faculty Development • Ongoing professional development • Faculty Role in Governance • Faculty responsible for student learning and program outcomes • Curriculum

28. Areas of Special Interest to Chairs and Deans • General Education • General Education defined by the Florida Legislature • General Education Competencies identified by the UPC • Courses in which students master these competencies are identified by the UPC • Assessments and results are entered into the Institutional Effectiveness Portal • Improvements are reflected in curriculum modifications • Faculty Adequacy • All programs have adequate faculty based on national norms • Standard relates to academic programs, not majors

29. Areas of Special Interest to Chairs and Deans • Academic and Student Support Services • Advising • Financial Aid • Registration • Library • Technology • Career Counseling • Health • Tutoring

30. Areas of Special Interest to Chairs and Deans • Off-Campus Sites • Controlled by the main campus following campus policies • Academic degree programs are identical • Faculty meet same credentialing requirement • Faculty evaluation uses same standards

31. Areas of Special Interest to Chairs and Deans • Substantive Change Policy • SACSCOC requires notification and approval of certain changes • Offering program at off-campus location • Closing program at off-campus location • Terminating an academic degree program • Teach out of students • Moving a branch campus • Reinstating a terminated program

32. On-Site Committee will want to see more of the Institutional Effectiveness portal than the sample we submitted and know how we use it

33. Many of the Evaluators Specialize in IE

34. On-Site Committee may want to review files (transcripts, CVs, evaluations, letters) of a sample of 4,000 faculty and Graduate Students

35. The Committee May Make Recommendations

36. Where Can I Find Information? • FSU Website: www.sacs.fsu.edu • SACSCOC Principles of Accreditation • Compliance Certification Report • Focused Report • Branch Campus Summaries • Quality Enhancement Plan • Substantive Change Policy • Institutional Effectiveness

37. One More Matter:The University QEP • Chair: Professor Helen Burke will provide overview