2011 SACS Annual Meeting Attendees Key Issues Relating to the Fifth-Year Interim Report

 Updated 2012 Principles of Accreditation now available: www.sacscoc.org/principles.asp

 Explore the SACSCOC website for updated policies. The updates should be on the website by 2/12.

 **Report substantive changes.

 **Institutions are required to have a substantive change policy and procedures document. Substantive Change—our SACS rep noted we will need to show that the Board has a process on substantive change requests for SACS, to show that a single campus cannot add a site or program without consideration by the president and Board and then a message to SACS—the policy on this was what they were saying is needed

 **Provide evidence to support your narrative. Consider: Will the evaluators understand your proof by what you are providing. Key points from “Compliance Certification” and “Fifth Year  Assure that the institution is in line with college mission Interim Report” sessions (see presentation handout)  Do not send data not required or answer questions not asked—if they raise questions they can lead to referrals as not compliant when a college is actually sending in more than is necessary at the 5 year point when not all standards are being looked at

Common Pitfalls

 Narrative with no evidence.

 Incomplete responses…connect the dots – failure to make the institution’s case.

 Policy expectations – be sure to provide policy and experiential evidence, i.e. how have you used the policy. If you have not had to invoke a policy, be sure to state that in the report.

 In a nut shell – show the policy and provide artifacts that show that you apply that policy.

General Recommended  Need to review/revise College Mission Statement Actions  Need to review College Goals (current working under 2009-12 goals). We need to create goals in 2012-13 for the 2013-15 goals (need to add additional student focus and include workforce)  Need to create College Vision statement and College Values  Based on the SACS discussion, we need to ensure consistency across modalities in terms of policy (e.g., student services, etc.), and assessment/evaluation  Need a faculty credentialing tool (web-based) and defined process  Need a comprehensive planning process that includes measurable goals and assessment measures as well as ‘unit’ level planning

Need to prioritize goals: Now - 6 months - Longer term -

Standard Issues/Concerns/Observation Recommended Actions Faculty (2.8) Revised – The number of full-time Analyze ratios for current Anne Cooper, Kay Burniston, faculty members is adequate to faculty/programs. Develop rationale. Frank Appunn, Shirley Johnson, support the mission of the institution Cynthia Grey, Tom Philippe and to ensure the quality and integrity of each of its academic programs.

Comment: The proposed change makes it clear that there is an expectation to disaggregate the information by academic program and modality rather than providing summative information. The revised Resource Manual will ask institutions to define academic programs and to take into consideration off-campus sites/branch campuses when documenting compliance with this standard.

One of the most frequently cited. What is expected of faculty? Student survey results/access to faculty

One of the key points in this area is the need for a rationale. Low full-time faculty counts by program or modality is not necessarily an issue if there is a well define rationale for why that is so along with a discussion of how things like faculty professional development and support are maintained.

***One outstanding concern is the need for a faculty credentialing tool (web-based) and defined process Key points from CS-48 Faculty qualifications.

Faculty is comprised of individuals whose objective is to accomplish the mission and goals of SPC.

In credentialing faculty, all faculty, full and part time from all locations/programs, are to be included.

Included in this section it would be appropriate to include SPC’s mission statement, documentation pertaining to hiring/employment practices/BOT approval of qualifications, policy and procedures for credentialing and exceptions, policy and procedures for faculty evaluations (remove the variation among faculty evaluators- have observable standards that allow for differences in teaching style- increase sensitivity to different teaching modalities while maintaining academic standards) , make sure all documents are user friendly and that any hyperlinks work.

The speaker emphasized the importance of the following points:

 It is up to the institution to make its case for credentialing (I read this as we have flex if we document properly). In 2002 the guidelines were changed to allow for flexibility - to accept alternative criteria for credentialing.

 It is the institution’s responsibility to make the case for faculty qualifications.

 Be sure that the you take a critical look at the information so that the reviewer is able to understand what is presented…i.e. no codes

Identified as lessons learned by the presenter for this segment:

1. Start early 2. Input multiple sources for artifacts 3. The use of administrative assistants from all departments were very instrumental in compiling artifacts. 4. Although transcripts are not required, including transcripts in the institution’s process would be helpful in supporting alternative qualifications. 5. Institutionalize the process.

**Key take away from the conference regarding credentialing – purchase existing software to house/manage SPC’s credentialing. Example: Xitracs, Campuslabs through Campus Assist, and TaskStream Move to electronic portfolios. Stronger commitment to qualifying faculty by experience rather than strictly academics. Tracking of faculty achievements and classroom activities. Awareness of classroom activities in ways different than student evaluations. Who sets standards for determining faculty performance? Wide range of variation in assessment among supervising personnel can raise flags.

 Number of full time faculty not provided at the disaggregate level by program.

 Distance Ed and off campus sites not addressed for comparability.

 Provide faculty expectations outside of the classroom – i.e. advising, committees

 Enough full time faculty to keep a healthy program

AA degree and majors or programs— we will need to be clear that our AA sub-units have individually met faculty credential requirements and faculty full time percentage goals..will no longer take overall faculty percentages..so,in AS this is easy as each area like dental hyg need percentages;for the AA,if we had majors it would be each major like History..we do not have majors like this now so we will need to be careful as we evolve and any sub-units will need to track faculty credentials etc;

Faculty Credentials—SACS staff reiterated that all faculty credential data should be submitted digitally—the committee will want to look at this and if it is not available then they will refer it for an onsite committee to look at it hands on—we need to show how we collect data to assure each full and part time faculty member meets the credential requirements even if we do sampling with the various teams

Student Support Services Revised – The institution provides (2.10) student support programs, services, Tonjua Williams, Cynthia Jolliff- and activities consistent with its Johnson mission that are intended to promote student learning and enhance the development of its students.

Comment: This proposed change clarifies that there is no expectation to evaluate the effectiveness of the student services area as part of this requirement. That evaluation is part of CS 3.3.1. The expectation is to ensure that the student support services, programs, and activities are in line with the mission of the institution.

Add mission – why appropriate to mission Address distance education Online services—we will need to show student services are equal for face to face and online students—said it would be easy in some areas but in some like financial aid planning and support it is difficult to be equal at a distance—we need to show how we overcome this Qualified Revised – The institution has qualified Build and online interactive organization Administrative/Academic administrative and academic officers chart, where when clicking on title/name, Officers (3.2.8) with the experience and competence anchor-linked to table with name, job title, Patty Jones, Cynthia Grey to lead the institution. job description, credentials: vita/resume, degree and major, other qualifications, Comment: The use of the word etc. “qualified” seemed to be redundant with the other descriptors in the standard; however, the Committee retained “experience and competence” and eliminated “capacity” since it is more difficult to evaluate.

Major decision-makers – how far down the hierarchy?

Again the idea of a strong rationale is important…why are they considered qualified?…especially when it may not be directly apparent based solely on their degree qualifications Sufficient numbers of deans, etc. for programs, rationalize.

 Do not just provide a listing, include of narrative

 Include an organizational chart with narrative

 Include VITA and job descriptions

Look to Sacs website for templates for faculty and administration credentials.

A recurring theme that kept coming up was administration evaluation process —the key was having one and having it well documented—the question was not whether the evaluations were good or bad but that the process was in place (includes the president)

Credentials for academic administrators like Deans..they would prefer each major have someone like a Dean..but we can cluster some together as we did with Orthotics/Dental Hyg/and HAS but then the lead dean needs to show he/she has worked closely with each area under them and each area needs a program chair or lead faculty member..the approach used needs narrative to show it has overcome the lack of a dean in each area where there is an academic specialty like Orthotics —I think our Dean approach will be ok as long as we are consistent and really spell out how we are doing this in each case..the 5 year team is off campus and if there is any non-clarity they will refer such cases to the C and R Committee Institutional Effectiveness Revised – The institution identifies (3.3.1.1) expected outcomes, assesses the Jesse Coraggio, Leigh Hopf, extent to which it achieves these Wendy Rib, Carol Weideman outcomes, and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of the results in each of the following areas: 3.3.1.1 educational programs, to include student learning outcomes 3.3.1.2 administrative support services 3.3.1.3 academic and student support services 3.3.1.4 research within its mission, if appropriate 3.3.1.5 community/public service within its mission, if appropriate

Comment: CS 3.3.1 generated the most suggested changes from responders. (1) The proposed changes are meant to address the definition of “educational support services” by clarifying them to mean “academic and student” support services. (2) There was some confusion about the use of the word “educational” as descriptors in 3.3.1.4 – 3.3.1.5, so the Board of Trustees eliminated it to ensure that the standard meant that an institution was to evaluate its outcomes based upon how it defined its mission. (3) There were a few comments about eliminating CS 3.5.1 (College-level competencies) and incorporating the standard into CS 3.3.1.1 above, but the Board of Trustees felt that doing so would de- emphasize the importance of general education competencies. The Board also suggested that the Resource Manual address the population referred to in 3.3.1.4 and 3.3.1.5.

One of the most frequently cited. Evidence of improvement Provide a story of how data are used to make changes and bring about improvements Explain how samples are determined Samples should be representative (e.g., 14 of 65 programs)

Current only responsible for 3.3.1.1., however, this could change by the time we are up for the fifth year interim report. We are not as strong in assessment of areas outside of academics

***Another outstanding concern is the need for a comprehensive planning process that includes measurable goals and assessment measures as well as ‘unit’ level planning We need to have a good process and need to show it is used in doing budget development and understood by all the various units on campus who propose budget needs. This is beyond the section on Institutional Effectiveness  Lack of defined outcomes

 Lack of documentation

 Define learning objectives and outcomes

 Include how you are evaluating the objectives/outcomes

 Include how you are planning on using that data to make improvements.

 Do not use a non-representative sample (on-sight team could ass for all data)

Admissions Policies (3.4.3) Transparent, comprehensive, Conduct an internal audit of this area. Anne Cooper, Kay Burniston, consistent, and clear Suzanne Preston Academic Program One of the most frequently cited. Provide a table with program name, Coordination (3.4.11) Reference faculty handbook name(s) of responsible individual(s), job Anne Cooper, Kim Molinaro, Explain how they are evaluated title, job description, credentials: Laurie King Can be a group, rather than an vita/resume, degree and major, other individual qualifications, etc. Physical Facilities (3.11.3) One of the most frequently cited. Stronger faculty interaction with facilities Doug Duncan, Jim Wallis Describe staff to provide input. Not just faculty to Provide survey results physical facilities, but also input on the Provide documentation capabilities of facilities in relation to the educational goals. Student Achievement (4.1) Revised – The institution evaluates Jesse Coraggio, Leigh Hopf, Gail success with respect to student Lancaster, Carol Weideman achievement consistent with its mission. Criteria may include: enrollment data; retention, graduation, course completion, and job placement rates; state licensing examinations; student portfolios; or other means of demonstrating achievement of goals.

Comment: The proposed changes more closely reflect the revised 2009 Federal requirements regarding the types of criteria that might be used and it also ties the standard to the institution’s mission. The Resource Manual will address the Commission’s obligation that visiting committees review the criteria used to evaluate student achievement.

For all federal requirements: Explain our process for meeting their requirements, not just at SACS reporting time, but to assure we’re always in compliance

We have a number of defined processes in this area. We need to define how we use this information more comprehensively as an institution as opposed to just program-level reports and action items. Also need to continue integrating the four-year programs into the assessment and program review processes.  Be sure to make your case

 Include variety of measures

 Include job placement rates

Program Curriculum (4.2) Revised – The institution’s curriculum is Evaluate gen ed courses to assure they Stan Vittetoe, Anne Cooper, directly related and appropriate to the are, in deed, general and not program- Kay Burniston, Jim Olliver, mission and goals of the specific Darlene Westberg institution and the diplomas, certificates, or degrees awarded.

Comment: This proposed change is editorial and provides consistency in the use of the term “mission” in lieu of “purpose” throughout the Principles.

Aligned to mission ***Yet another outstanding concern is the need to eliminate program specific Gen Ed requirements. It was stated at the conference that Gen Ed requirements cannot be program specific (see Ethics for Dental Hygiene)  Who made these decision

 Was the decision in-line with the college mission?

Examples were used of special programs like our plan to have a Global Certificate to show our students are graduating with global awareness..the key here is to well define the intent,the criteria and have numeric data on the numbers getting the certificate etc Again, the goal is for the offsite group to have enough data and narrative to not send it to the C and R committee which gets the process back into areas which can lead to sanctions..Some will be sent but the fewer the better..

Publication of Policies (4.3) Don’t say, “see catalog” either link or Tonjua Williams, Richard Flora, provide excerpt Jennifer Fernandes Transparent, comprehensive, consistent, and clear  Avoid inconsistencies within all documentation.

 Be sure catalogue is in a user friendly format

Program Length (4.4) Transparent, comprehensive, Anne Cooper, Kay Burniston, consistent, and clear Wendy Rib Student Complaints (4.5) Transparent, comprehensive, Tonjua Williams, George consistent, and clear Greenlee, Michael Hughes Show a case and how it was resolved, beginning to conclusion, process and documentation  No evidence of implementation

 Inappropriate examples

 Include evidence of a log of student complaints

 Distance Ed and off campus sites not addressed for comparability. Recruitment Materials (4.6) Transparent, comprehensive, Patty Jones, Cynthia Grey consistent, and clear Title IV Program Revised: The institution is in Responsibilities (4.7) and compliance with its program Financial Aid Audits (3.10.3) responsibilities under Title IV of the Michael Bennett, Tonjua most recent Higher Education Act as Williams, Eric Tucker amended. (In reviewing the institution’s compliance with these program responsibilities, the Commission relies on documentation forwarded to it by the U.S. Secretary of Education.)

Comment: Elimination of reference to the 1998 Higher Education Act and the insertion to “Act as amended” prevents the standard from being dated.

One of the most frequently cited. Most citations were the results of the timing associated with a complete audit.  Try to assure that the most current information is available from the auditors

 Work with auditors to have document when needed.

Distance Education (4.8) Added to Fifth-Year – An institution Assign Vicki Westergard to take lead. that offers distance or correspondence Look into student services for online education students. 4.8.1 demonstrates that the student who registers in a distance or correspondence education course or program is the same student who participates in and completes the course or program and receives the credit by verifying the identity of a student who participates in class or coursework by using, at the option of the institution, methods such as (a) a secure login and pass code, (b) proctored examinations, or (c) new or other technologies and practices that are effective in verifying student identification. 4.8.2 has a written procedure for protecting the privacy of students enrolled in distance and correspondence education courses or programs. 4.8.3 has a written procedure distributed at the time of registration or enrollment that notifies students of any projected additional student charges associated with verification of student identity.

Comment: The addition of the new standard addresses the U.S. Department of Education’s expectation that recognized accrediting commissions need to require its accredited institutions to authenticate that students registering in distance or correspondence education are the same students participating in class or coursework and receiving credit. In accord with DOE policy, the standards also require a procedure protecting the privacy of students enrolled in such programs and also expect an institution to have procedures for notifying students of any additional student charges associated with the verification of student identity.

We need a very ‘strong’ rationale for the way we verify student identity (secure password, proctoring, etc.) Substantial number of ways to do this but need consistency. Online student identification process— there is everything from simple Pin’s to retinal imaging but the key is we need to show our consistent approach to assure we know the student taking a test is really our student..eg,UF requires students to have a mentor identified in advance who is nearby when a test is taken in their master’s programs; we need a policy and proof we use it Definition of credit Added to Fifth-Year – The institution Broaden to include all modalities hours (4.9) has policies and procedures for (curriculum handbook); should be in determining the credit hours awarded student handbook. for courses and programs Lead? Curriculum Office/Deans that conform to commonly accepted practice in higher education and Commission policy. (See Commission policy “ Credit Hours.”)

Comment: The addition of the new standard addresses the U.S. Department of Education’s expectation that recognized accrediting commissions require an institution to have a policy that outlines how an institution defines and awards credit hours for courses and programs.

Will need to include the Credit Hour Commitment model as part of this discussion, so that we can define credit hour across the various modalities. QEP Impact Report See resources for QEP evaluators Janice Thiel, Ashley 10-pages Hendrickson, Gail Lancaster Think high level Summation table(s) Narrative Reflective Be clean and clear Use headings – see instructions What we started off to do What we ended up doing Why, based upon assessment What did we learn Did it make a difference – if not, OK Direct impact on student learning

QEP cannot exceed 10 pages—it should tie back to the QEP summary approved during the 10 year reaffirmation process Key points from Roundtable discussion for the QEP.

Give rational for any changes.

The Goals should have stayed the same throughout the QEP although the actions taken could change.

Clear connection between the QEP and the SPC’s mission.

Demonstrate Impact on QEP on student learning.

Review the following blog. “Assessing the Elephant” highered.blogspot.com