1 / 18

NEW PROCEDURES FOR SACS REAFFIRMATION

NEW PROCEDURES FOR SACS REAFFIRMATION. Presented to UT System Faculty Advisory Council Neal E. Armstrong Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs, UT Austin March 4, 2005. New SACS Criteria. Development 1998 - SACS began revising accreditation requirements, processes, policies, and procedures

darice
Download Presentation

NEW PROCEDURES FOR SACS REAFFIRMATION

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. NEW PROCEDURES FOR SACS REAFFIRMATION Presented to UT System Faculty Advisory Council Neal E. Armstrong Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs, UT Austin March 4, 2005

  2. New SACS Criteria • Development • 1998 - SACS began revising accreditation requirements, processes, policies, and procedures • 2001 – New criteria adopted in December to replace previous 462 “must” statements • 2004 - Series of pilot visits (Texas A&M) • 2005 – First visits under new criteria (NC State, Univ So FL, U Alabama, …) Faculty Advisory Council

  3. New SACS Criteria • Reaffirmation decisions based on institution’s compliance with: • Principles of Reaffirmation – defined as integrity and commitment to quality enhancement • Core Requirements (12) • Expectation is compliance • Explanation needed if not • 12th Requirement is Quality Enhancement Plan Faculty Advisory Council

  4. New SACS Criteria • Comprehensive Standards (53) • Expectation is compliance • Partial compliance – develop plan for achieving compliance • Non-compliance – explanation and plan • Key Standards • 3.3 Institutional Effectiveness • 3.4 Educational Programs: All • 3.5 Educational Programs: Undergraduate • 3.7 Faculty Credentials Faculty Advisory Council

  5. New SACS Criteria • Federal Requirements (8) • Establishes eligibility for participation under Title IV of the 1998 Higher Education Amendments and other federal programs • Compliance expected Faculty Advisory Council

  6. Peer Review Process • Two documents submitted • Compliance Certification • Submitted in September • Reviewed by Off-Site Team in November • Results conveyed to institution for comment • On-Site Team visits during the following March – April • Advice regarding QEP • Follow-up on remaining questions • Quality Enhancement Plan • Submitted soon after Compliance Certification Faculty Advisory Council

  7. Quality Enhancement Plan • Focus • Should address one or more issues that contribute to institutional improvement • Demonstrates that plan is part of ongoing planning and evaluation process • Format • Be focused, succinct, and limited in length (≤75 pages text, ≤25 pages support doc) Faculty Advisory Council

  8. Schedule Commission on Colleges Review On-site Peer Review Response to Off-site Review Quality Enhancement Plan Off-site Peer Review Compliance Certification 5-yr Rpt Leadership Teams 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Stage 1: Preliminary Planning Stage 2: Implement Leadership Teams Stage 3: Conduct the Pre-Audit Stage 4: Prepare the Certification of Compliance Stage 5: Develop the Quality Enhancement Plan Stage 6: Planning for and Receiving the On-Site Team Stage 7: Preparing for Review and Action by the COC Stage 8: Follow-up Reports if Needed Faculty Advisory Council

  9. Key Comprehensive Standards • 3.3 Institutional Effectiveness • 3.3.1 “The institution identifies expected outcomes for its educational programs and its administrative support services; assesses whether it achieves these outcomes; and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of those results.” • This is outcomes-based assessment • Intensity of activity to show compliance not clear at this point Faculty Advisory Council

  10. Key Comprehensive Standards • 3.4 Educational Programs: All Educational Programs (included all on-campus, off-campus, and distance learning programs and coursework) • 3.4.1 “The Institution demonstrates that each educational program for which credit is awarded (a) is approved by the faculty and the administration, and (b) establishes and evaluates program and learning outcomes.” Faculty Advisory Council

  11. Key Comprehensive Standards • 3.5 Educational Programs: Undergraduate Programs • 3.5.1 “The institution identifies college-level competencies within the general education core and provides evidence that graduates have attained those competencies.” • Example of competencies on pp. 12-13 of UT Austin 2004-06 Undergraduate Catalog Faculty Advisory Council

  12. Degree Program Development Program Outcomes? Curriculum Program Educational Objectives or Learning Objectives (SACS Outcomes?) Courses in Major (w/ Learning Outcomes?) Core Curriculum General Education Outcomes: College-level competencies? Faculty Advisory Council

  13. Key Comprehensive Standards • 3.7 Faculty • 3.7.1 “The institution employs competent faculty members qualified to accomplish the mission and goals of the institution. When determining acceptable qualifications … the institution is responsible for justifying and documenting the qualifications of its faculty.” • What documentation is required is not spelled out, but likely to be scrutinized • Decide on acceptable risk and document accordingly Faculty Advisory Council

  14. Resources • SACS COC. 2001. The Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement • SACS COC. 2004. Handbook for Reaffirmation of Accreditation • SACS COC. 2003. Handbook for Review Committees • SACS COC. 1996. Resource Manual on Institutional Effectiveness Faculty Advisory Council

  15. Resources • SACS COC Annual Conferences – December • Workshops, conferences, etc. on outcomes-based assessment • SACS Evaluators • Know and consult with one • Be one Faculty Advisory Council

  16. Recommendations • Start early – don’t wait until the official start of your reaffirmation • Outcomes-based assessment takes time to learn, implement, and develop longitudinal data • Significant work involved by • Leadership to prepare documentation • Faculty at program level to establish outcomes and carryout program assessment • Staff to provide technical and logistical support • Consider doing a Pre-Audit Faculty Advisory Council

  17. Recommendations • Take advantage of resources • SACS Handbooks and web-based resources • SACS annual conference and others where program assessment is covered • SACS Staff Contact (Associate Executive Director) • Other institutions going through reaffirmation • Remember that: • Criteria are evolving – stay on top of changes • SACS Staff and Review Teams are becoming more familiar with criteria – take advantage of resources and watch the web-site (www.sacscoc.org) • Understanding terminology is important Faculty Advisory Council

  18. Contact Neal E. Armstrong Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost MAI 201 1 University Station G1000 Austin, TX 78712-0538 (512) 232-3305 Email: neal_armstrong@mail.utexas.edu Web URL: www.utexas.edu/provost/ Faculty Advisory Council

More Related