Both Sides NowSACS’ New Accreditation Process

Karen Helm

Accreditation Liaison

Director, University Planning and Analysis

North Carolina State University

http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/ April 15, 2005

Multiple Vantage Points

• Old process

• Criteria review

• New process– Directed reaffirmation for 2004– Off-site committee– On-site committees

Acknowledgments

• Ephraim Schechter

• Jeff Scroggs

• Will Kimler

• Carol Smith

• Fellow travelers

New Process• Adopted in 2002

– First class “graduated” in 2004 – Continuing to evolve

• Revised standards (Principles)• Two documents

– Compliance Certification– Quality Enhancement Plan

• Two committee reviews– Off-site– On-Site

After the Campus Review

• On-Site report reviewed by Criteria and Reports (C&R) Committee of COC

• C&R recommends accreditation and follow-ups as appropriate

• COC Executive Committee reviews recommendations for consistency

• COC makes final decisions

Organizing for Reaffirmation

Institutional EffectivenessCom pliance Team

Com pliance Team Q EP Team

LeadershipTeam

Chancellor

Leadership Team

• Members: Chancellor, Provost (chair), Accreditation Liaison, faculty leader, administrative leader

• Charges– Organize teams– Communication to campus– Review and approve compliance report– Review and approve QEP– Organize site visit

QEP Team

• Co-chaired by faculty member and administrative staff

• Started same time as Compliance Team

• Some overlap with Compliance Certification

Compliance Team

• Co-chaired by faculty member and administrator (Accreditation Liaison)

• Members: administrators responsible for areas covered by SACS requirements (AVP level), and limited faculty

• Charge: draft and integrate reports, recommend compliance judgment, recommend changes where needed for compliance, draft response to off-site team as needed

Institutional Effectiveness Compliance Team

• Co-chaired by faculty and administrator (University Assessment Director)

• Members: assessment professionals in major academic and administrative divisions

• Charge: draft compliance reports related to planning and assessment; recommend compliance judgment, recommend changes where needed for compliance, draft response to off-site team as needed

Staff Functions

• Coordinating all activities (Accreditation Liaison)

• Administrative and web development (AL’s administrative assistant)

• Editors

• Analysis (Institutional Research staff)

• Temporary help as needed

ScheduleApril 2002 Selected QEP topic, appointed Leadership TeamMay 2002 Attended SACS training sessionJune 2002 Appointed other teamsAug 2002 Trained Compliance Team, developed report guidelinesFeb 2003 SACS staff visit (optional but worth it)Apr-May 2003 Distributed draft compliance reports to campusJune 2003 Leadership Team reviewed compliance draftsJuly 2003 Final editing of compliance reportsAug 2003 Submitted Compliance Certification to SACSSept 2003 Circulated QEP draft to campusOct 2003 Off-Site review of Compliance Certification

Executive approval of QEP implementation budgetJan 2004 Completed QEPFeb 2004 Mailed QEP and follow-up reports to SACSMarch 2004 On-Site SACS visitDec 2004 Accreditation reaffirmed

Compliance Certification

• Sort the standards according to responsibility• Subteams for overlapping standards, e.g.,

institutional effectiveness, library and learning resources, academic policies implemented by multiple units

• Provide standard format early: level of detail, references

• Motivate members

Compliance Certification (cont)

• Interpreting and applying standards– Best practices vs. sufficient– SACS’ invitation to apply standards

according to mission– Our first drafts: aspirational, puffy– Our final reports: sufficient

• Fix problems as soon as you find them

Compliance Certification (cont)

• Writer/editor

• Review of standards took 3 months– Each “chunk” moved through multiple

stages at different times, speeds– Suggest VP level review before

Compliance Team review

Assessment Compliance

• Diversity across campus– Different programs and services– Different approaches and values– Different levels of achievement– Non-uniform documentation

• Borrowed North Central’s rubric to summarize progress

Development of a culture

• Continuous process– big stick with a big milestone

• Challenge: balance SACS reporting with the nurturing needed to foster this style of assessment

Leads To Lack of sustainability

Strategies for Efficiency

• Assign each standard to the responsible office; don’t overload a single person

• Use subgroups to coordinate overlapping reports• Establish uniform reporting guidelines• Appoint an editor to save authors’ and committee’s

time• Use the web to allow multiple levels of evidence for

readers with different interests and styles• Use the web to distribute and finalize drafts• Parallel reviews of drafts, not sequential

Strategies to Enhance Value

• Set explicit goals for the compliance review in advance

• Develop explicit strategy for what performance level constitutes compliance

• Involve faculty for institutional perspective and conscience

• Visit with Commission staff in mid process• Keep the campus informed• Use it as a snapshot of institutional health• Use it to learn about other units

Strategies to Enhance Value (contd)

• Set explicit goals for the compliance review in advance

• Develop explicit strategy for what performance level constitutes compliance

• Involve faculty for institutional perspective and conscience

• Visit with Commission staff in mid process• Keep the campus informed• Use it as a snapshot of institutional health• Use it to learn about other units

Strategies to Facilitate Compliance Review

• Remember this is a written exchange• Take advantage of the web’s richness to

address multiple levels for a variety of readers

• Get straight to the point: What is the basis for your compliance?

• Prepare focused reports• Keep links alive between submission and Off-

Site Committee meeting, and from On-Site mailing through visit

Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)

• Plan for institutional improvement in an area of strategic importance to the institution

• SACS’ criteria for QEPs– Focus: significant issue, related to student

learning– Capability: commitment, resources– Assessment plan– Broad-based involvement in its development

Criteria for selecting a topic (SACS)

• Related to student learning• Addresses a strategic issue, related to

ongoing planning and evaluation• Comprehensive, institutional in scope• Capability to implement• Commitment to implement

Criteria for selecting a topic (NC State)

• Productive for the university• Sponsoring unit needs to have capacity and

commitment for 5-7 years• Addresses graduate education as well as

undergraduate• One topic is better than two• Can be evaluated clearly• Does not drop compliance red flags

Process for selecting a topic

• General conversations with deans, faculty, and others• General themes fleshed out by small groups

– Focus– Value– Possible strategies– Lead unit– Disadvantage

• More focused conversations with deans, faculty• Formally approved by Deans Council, University

Council

Our Choice: Learning in a Technology-Rich Environment (LITRE)

• Builds on a strength• Potential for leadership • Relevant to both undergraduate and graduate

education• Widespread, grassroots faculty involvement

and success• Strong interest among deans• Links student learning and new building

program

LITREhttp://litre.ncsu.edu/

• Ongoing, empirical inquiry• First initiatives include course-based projects

and out-of-classroom learning projects• Faculty grants for new projects• Each project assessed for impact on student

learning• Results disseminated and used to direct

future investments

Assessment of LITRE

• LITRE Assessment Committee• Project specific• Periodic overview of results across

projects• Results used to stimulate innovation,

improve programs and services, policy analysis, planning, and budgeting

• Scholarship of teaching and learning

QEP Challenges

• Planning from concept to budget allocation takes time and multiple approval cycles

• What communicates well inside might not outside

• Project versus process

Using the Web

• http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/accreditation/index.htm

• Allowed for multiple levels of detail for a variety of users

• Excellent vehicle for campus communication• Morphed into site for SACS review• Freezing the site

Expenses (from 5 Institutions)

• Direct costs from a special SACS budget (excluding in-house contributions) ranged from $10k to $315k– Personnel costs (e.g., release time, temporary support or

editor) account for the difference

• In-house contributions were significant and largely personnel– Liaison spends 3 years, full or part-time– Core of 4 or 5 do most of the work– Assessment and IR staff engaged for a year– Deans, associate deans, AVPs involved for several months

Expenses (contd)

• Project costs other than personnel– Compliance review $3 to 5k (including $2400 fee

for off-site review)– QEP preparation $1.5 to 5k– On-site visit $9 to 14k

• QEP implementation costs can be significant – range from $100 to 560k/yr– 3 years to permanently

Lessons Learned• The new process continues to evolve• Stay in touch with others in your class, SACS staff, and

colleagues• Help SACS understand that a 100% participation standard does

not lead to sustainability in assessment• Communication in the new process is different: more written,

web– Assessment documentation

• QEP is a big opportunity• Greatest expense is in QEP implementation, not reaffirmation

karen_helm@ncsu.edu