PREPARING FOR SACS

1. PREPARING FOR SACS Neal E. Armstrong Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs July 13, 2004

2. New Criteria Development • In 1998 SACS (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools) began revising all aspects of its accreditation requirements, processes, policies, and procedures • Culminated in December 2001 with new Principles of Accreditation Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

3. Old SACS Criteria • Lengthy and detailed internal self-study • Self-study included university’s response to 462 “must” statements or requirements that had to be met • Eight to 10 university committees worked for about one year • Visit by 15-20 member committee to verify findings and resolve questions Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

4. New Criteria • Reaffirmation instead of reaccreditation • Ongoing instead of periodic • Accredited institution engages in continual self-assessment and improvement • Self-assessment is goal oriented and outcome based Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

5. New Criteria • The self-study and the 462 “must” statements have been replaced by … • Core requirements (12) • Comprehensive Standards (53) • Federal Mandates (8) • These are • More broadly stated than before and more flexibility for demonstrating compliance • Institutions have more responsibility for demonstrating compliance Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

6. New Criteria • Reaffirmation requires two documents: • Certification of Compliance • Documents compliance with • Core Requirements • Comprehensive Standards • Federal Mandates • If there is partial or non-compliance, plan for achieving compliance must be submitted • Compulsory compliance with Core Requirements • Compliance with Federal Mandates prerequisite to qualify for federal programs such as the Guaranteed Student Loan Program Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

7. New Criteria • Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) • Required in Core Requirement 12 • Focused on improving some aspect of the educational component of the institution that enhances the quality of student learning • Represents commitment to • Identify an area of improvement • Develop a plan to meet specific, measurable goals • Engage in ongoing assessment of progress toward completion of plan • Impact report submitted 5 years after initiation of the QEP to demonstrate impact on learning Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

8. Criteria Pertaining to Planning • Institutional Effectiveness • 2.5 The institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that incorporate a systematic review of programs and services that • (a) Results in continuing improvement, and • (b) Demonstrates that the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission. Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

9. Criteria Pertaining to Outcomes Assessment • 3.3.1 The institution • Identifies expected outcomes for its educational programs and its administrative and educational support services; • Assesses whether it achieves these outcomes; and • Provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of those results. Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

10. Criteria Pertaining to IT • 3.4.14 The institution’s use of technology • Enhances student learning, • Is appropriate for meeting the objectives of its programs, and • Ensures that students have access to and training in the use of technology. Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

11. Determine educational objectives Determine Outcomes Required to Achieve Objectives Determine How Outcomes will be Achieved Determine How Outcomes will be Assessed Input from Constituencies Formal Instruction Student Activities Establish Indicators for Outcomes to lead to Achievement of Objectives The Two-Loop Process Assess Outcomes Evaluate Objectives Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

12. P-D-C-A IN ABET • PLAN (individual faculty and Curriculum Comm.) • DO (review courses & program & make changes as needed) • CHECK (determine effects & document) • ACT (Close the Loop w/ CI) Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

13. Plan Act Do Check DEMING’S P-D-C-A CYCLE Plan – study process and decide what changes are needed Do – gather data to decide what to change and make changes Check – observe the effects Act – Lessons learned and Closing The Loop Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

14. Continuous Improvement: False Starts Plan Plan Do Do Plan Check ? ? Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

15. ACHIEVING SUCCESS 5 Lack of faculty buy-in Lack of perceived benefits of SACS Accred Leadership 4 Difficult and time-consuming Min Matrix Implementation Scale 3 Now 2 Help available Leadership 1 Benefits of SACS Accred Re-accreditation with no problems Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

16. Schedule Commission Review On-site Peer Review Quality Enhancement Plan Off-site Peer Review Comprehensive Certificate (Self-Study) 5-yr Rpt Leadership Teams 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Stage 1: Preliminary Planning Stage 2: Initiating the Self-Study Stage 3: Conducting the Self-Study Stage 4: Planning for and Receiving the Visiting Committee Stage 5: Preparing for Review and Action by the COC Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

17. Schedule of Next Reaffirmation • 2004-05 • Develop program objectives, establish outcomes, develop and implement assessment programs, and show program improvement • Leverage existing program accreditation activities • Develop capability to support planning and assessment activities • 2006 • Orientation of Leadership Teams (June 11) • 2007 • Report addressing Core Requirements, Comprehensive Mandates, and Federal Mandates due September 10 • Review by off-site team November 5-9 • 2008 • Quality Enhancement Plan Due (6 wks before visit) • Visit by on-site team in spring (March 9 – April 25) • Decision by CoC and SACS at annual meeting (December 5-7) Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs