Austin Peay State University SACS Accreditation Review Project September 2004 Dr. Houston D. Davis...

Austin Peay State University

SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004

Dr. Houston D. Davis

Understanding and Adapting to the New SACS/COC Process:

The APSU Accreditation Review Project

SACS/COC 2004 Reaffirmation of APSU

Presentation to Western Carolina University

September 23, 2004


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


Facts About APSU

• Member of the 2004 Cohort– Compliance Audit, August 2003– Quality Enhancement Plan, January 2004– On-site Review, April 2004

• Public, Comprehensive University• Headcount = 8,000• Located in Northern Middle

Tennessee (40 miles NW of Nashville)

• Governed by the Tennessee Board of Regents (nation’s 6th largest system)


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


President’s Perspective

• President’s past experience with SACS/COC– Commission member and

Executive Council member– Visiting Team Committee Chair– President of institution that

successfully completed an alternate self-study

– HIGH expectations


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


Process - Initial Concerns• Senior executive team and academic

leadership’s limited direct experience with SACS process

• Institutional effectiveness– Lack of centralized documentation

• Credentials of selected faculty– Decentralized adjunct file locations– Lack of standardized process for

exceptions• Library resources

• Documentation, Documentation, Documentation


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


SHOCK

At the December 2001 SACS/COC Annual Meeting…


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


ANGER


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


DISMAY


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


Academic VP

I’ve been on the job for less than a year. . .


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


Faculty Co-chair

What have I gotten myself into?


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


SACS Liaison

I’d better think of a way to get this done right!


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


ProcessRethinking Our Strategy

• Scrapping of old process and team structure

• New team leadership• Attend orientation and training

sessions• Speed up the redesign of IE

program & documentation• Organizing for dual processes

– Compliance Audit• Web-based Reporting

– Pluses and minuses

– Quality Enhancement Plan


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


IETSDocumenting Existing Activities

• Over 20 yrs of Performance Funding in Tennessee

• Program accreditation or 5-yr program reviews

• General education testing• Major field testing• Student, Alumni, and Employer

surveys at institutional level and some disciplines

• Strategic planning process up-to-date

• Department annual reports


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


IETSDocumenting Existing Activities

• APSU was failing to document assessment and results

• APSU was failing to meet the spirit and intent of institutional effectiveness– “Closing the loop” at all

levels of the institution


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


IETSDetailed Information for Each Unit

Objective• Objective• Implementation Strategy• Assessment Criteria• Actual results• Action taken• Barriers to Achievement• Need for further action• Further resources needed

Access to sample IETS pages through http://www.apsu.edu/sacs/iets.htm


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


IETSObservations After Three Cycles

• System can be and is very flexible and constantly “tweaked”

• University has managed to take the potentially abstract concept of IE down to a process that incorporates day-to-day activities of units … rather than the opposite


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


Organizing and Completing the

Compliance Audit


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


Compliance AuditHuman Side

• “Streamlined” Internal Review– 1993 APSU Self-Study

• 48 members in 8 committees

– 2003 APSU Comp. Audit• 19 members in 9

subcommittees


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004



• Subcommittees– Core Req.; CS on Mission,

Governance, and Admin– Institutional Effectiveness– Educational Programs

• Advising– Faculty– Library & Learning Resources– Student Affairs and Services– Financial and Physical

Resources– Federal Mandates


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


Compliance AuditThe Essentials

• Each Core Requirement and Comprehensive Standard– Statement of requirement/standard– Judgment of compliance (Yes,

Partial, No)– Proof/Explanation– Plans for compliance– Documentation

Done Twice: “Dry-run” and “Official”


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004



• Timeline and Process– Inst. Orientation w SACS (Spring ’02)– Organizational Mtg. (Aug. ’02)– Progress Report Meetings (Nov. ’02)– Draft Deadline (Dec. ’02)– Proofing and Editing (Spring ’03)– Dry-run of CA (May ’03)– Final Edits (Summer ’03)– Submission of CA (Aug. ’03)– Off Site Review (Sept. ’03)– Conference Call (Oct. ’03)– Follow-up Reports on 16 Items (Feb. ’04)– On Site Visit (Apr. ’04)


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


Compliance AuditTechnical Details

• Web-based Reporting

• Standardized Template for Compliance Audit

• Faculty Credentials System

• Institutional Effectiveness Tracking System

Access to all info through http://www.apsu.edu/sacs


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


Responding to the Off Site Review of the Compliance Audit

The “Optional” Focused Report


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


Focused ReportThe Essentials

• For Each Core Requirement and Comprehensive Standard Judged as “Not Compliant” or “Unable to Determine Compliance” by the Off Site Review Team– Statement of

Requirement/Standard– Institutional understanding of oral

report from SACS/COC staff– Institutional response– Supporting documents referenced

in response


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


The Quality Enhancement Plan


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


Quality Enhancement PlanHuman Side

• Leadership Team

• QEP Planning Committees– Freshman Course– Advising– Student Life & Support Services– Data Analysis– Early Alert

• Network of Support


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004



• “Broad-based” Planning Committee– 46 members in 5

subcommittees

– Administration, Faculty, Staff, and Student Representation


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


Quality Enhancement PlanThe Essentials

• Required of the entire plan and reflected in all action items– Widespread participation in development– Increase the effectiveness of some

aspect of educational programming relating to student learning

– Grounded in assessment and use of empirical data and analysis

– Sufficiently broad in scope to be viewed as significant to the institution

– Proof of resources to deliver on promise– Detailed plan for assessment of the QEP


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004



• Timeline & Process– Discussion of QEP w Campus

Constituents (Aug.-Sept. ’02)– Organizational Meeting (Oct. ’02)– Committee Work (Nov.-May ’03)– Reports & Recommendations (May

’03)– Drafting & Editing (June-Nov. ’03)– Final Edits (Dec. ’03)– Submission of QEP (Jan. ’04)– Onsite Review and Approval (Apr. ’04)– QEP Follow-up Report (2009)


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


Reflecting upon the Experience


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


Major Changes to Day-to-Day Campus Activities

• Centralization of Academic Personnel Files

• Integration of Faculty Teaching Credentials System

• Emphasis on Academic Audit• Integration of the Institutional

Effectiveness Tracking System• Documentation system to continue

through 2014• Quality Enhancement Plan: 2006,

2009, 2014 (possibly)


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


In Reflection

• Started too late to prepare (only 2 years in advance of visit)– As an institution, we had not consistently

monitored SACS compliance since the last 10-year reaffirmation

• Failed to recognize that off-site review team would not access all electronic documents or could not ask for hard copies


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


In Reflection

• Did not adequately monitor the progress of the QEP and CA committees to ensure that all were on the right track

• QEP– Made some assumptions in

advance of data analysis, thus not achieving the full benefit of the process and restricting the outcome


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


In Reflection• Take advantage of two key

publications– Handbook for Reaffirmation of

Accreditation• Matrix in the back serves as a

“cheat sheet” for reviewers on CA• QEP “must statements” all are

found in the booklet as well

– Handbook for Review Committees

Sadly…neither of these publications were available during CA or QEP development for APSU


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


What We Did Right• Selection of team leaders

– Commitment to quality report– Writing ability– Technological expertise

• Development of user-friendly IETS• Selection of QEP topic that

addressed a major institutional weakness

• Broad-based involvement in QEP• Attention to Details


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


What We Did Right

• APSU completed SACS Reaffirmation on April 6-8

–Received ZERO recommendations in Compliance Audit and Quality Enhancement Plan


SACS Accreditation

Review Project

September 2004


The Leadership Team AFTER the SACS Visit

Austin Peay State University SACS Accreditation Review Project September 2004 Dr. Houston D. Davis...

Documents

Transcript of Austin Peay State University SACS Accreditation Review Project September 2004 Dr. Houston D. Davis...