Road to SACS Reaffirmation Southern Association of Colleges and Schools

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. SACS Reaffirmation 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. Two Primary Reports Required 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

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)

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

19. 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 service within its educational mission

20. Areas of Concern 1992 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 2002 Recommendations (continued) Availability of Job Descriptions for Administrators Regular Evaluation of Budgeting Procedure Internal Auditing Comprehensive Safety Plan Guidelines for Externally Funded Grants

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

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

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

28. Compliance Assist!

29. Documenting Compliance

30. 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?

31. 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? Do DL students have access to appropriate resources�advising, library, technology, etc.

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

33. What else? Ongoing ASSESSMENT Check out SACS website Document, Document, Document! Ask Questions�Get Help

34. 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)

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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

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

41. Due Dates 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

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

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

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

46. Remember� We are all in this together!

47. And� Spring 2012 is sooner than we (may) think!