SACS-COC Reaffirmation of Accreditation

Overview Plus

Q & A

CCPRO Conference, Greensboro, NC September 2011

Kimberly B. Lawing, Vice President of Institutional Effectiveness

Cape Fear Community College

My perspective…

The Foundation of Accreditation

Integrity and Quality Enhancement

“The first task of the Commission on Colleges when considering accreditation status is to determine the institution’s integrity and its commitment to quality enhancement. These two principles serve as the foundation of the relationship between the Commission and its member and candidate institutions.”

Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement,

SACS-COC, Dec. 2001,

1st Ed.

The Relationship

“Self-regulation through accreditation embodies a traditional U.S. philosophy that a free people

can and ought to govern themselves through a representative, flexible,

and responsive system.”Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement,

SACS-COC, Dec. 2001, 1st Ed.

Fundamental Characteristics of Accreditation Listed by COC

Participation in the accreditation process is voluntary and is an earned and renewable status.

Member institutions develop, amend, and approve accreditation requirements.

The process of accreditation is representative, responsive and appropriate to the types of institutions accredited

Accreditation is self regulation

Accreditation requires institutional commitment and engagement

Accreditation is based upon a peer review process

Accreditation requires an institutional commitment to student learning and achievement

Accreditation acknowledges an institution’s prerogative to articulate its mission within the recognized context of higher education and its responsibility to show that it is accomplishing its mission

Communication

The SACS-COC and member institutions share responsibility for keeping each other fully informed.

Communication via liaisons

SACS has assigned a staff member to serve as a liaison to each member institution.

Colleges assign a staff member to serve as a liaison to COC.

The liaison at SACSCOC has the responsibility to inform the College liaison & CEO of current accreditation issues and requirements, and how those requirements are applied. Also, they keep a file on Colleges, will consult with us during our review and during any substantive changes, and are available to answer questions and to receive comments/input from the Colleges.

College Liaison

College liaison responsibilities:

Ensure that accreditation requirements are considered not only during the decennial review process, but incorporated, among other institutional goals and objectives, into the planning and evaluation process

Notify the COC in advance of substantive changes and program developments in accord with the substantive change policies of COC

College Liaison (cont’d)

Familiarize faculty/staff & students with the Commission’s accrediting policies and procedures, and with particular sections of the accrediting standards and COC policies that have application to certain aspects of the campus

Serve as a contact person for COC staff

Coordinate the preparation of the annual profiles and any other reports requested by COC

College Liaison (cont’d)

Serve as a resource person during the decennial review process and help prepare for and coordinate reaffirmation and other accrediting visitsEnsure that electronic institutional data collected by COC is accurate and timelyTo be effective, the Liaison will receive a suitable degree of visibility on campus in order to enhance the participation of institution in accreditation activities.

(Taken from www.sacscoc.org)

The Principles do CHANGE…stay

informed by visiting www.sacscoc.org

Reaffirmation of Accreditation(decennial review)

Off-Site Review &

On-Site Review

Class of 2011Sample Timeline (estimated)

Late 2008 or early 2009 provide Leadership Team Roster to SACSCOC

January 2009 Leadership Team Orientation

Summer 2009 Summary Report for Compliance Certification Due

Staff Consultation (as needed)

March 2010 Compliance Cert. Due

Sample Timeline (cont’d)

May/June 2010 Off-Site Committee ReviewJuly 2010 Discussion with COC on Off-Site Report & Report of Off-Site FindingsSep 2010 Focused Report & QEP DueOct/Nov 2010 On-Site Committee Review. On-site Review Committee has dual role for QEP: compliance and consultation.

Sample Timeline (cont’d)Five months after On-Site Review colleges submit Institutional Response to Recommendations and QEP Evaluation

June 2011 SACSCOC C & R Committee and Board of Trustees reviews QEP and institutional response to Review Committee’s recommendations

Dec 2011 Commission’s Announcement at Annual Meeting

How Do Reviewers Evaluate Compliance?

SACSCOC Manuals

Guidance from Chair

Committee discussions & consensus

SACSCOC Staff serves on Committee as resource

Individual experiences

See Mini-Handbook

Off-Site Committee Discussion Notes

Reviewers’ response narrative reflects consensus of the committee, not individual

Response narrative should include: Statement about institution’s perception of compliance

committee’s professional judgment regarding institution’s compliance

what kinds/types of documentation and explanations would demonstrate compliance

Committee Focus: 4 Components

Establish the context for the institutions analysis in their Compliance Certification

Is it coherent; align with mission, etc.?

Present the evidence on which review committee’s analysis is based

Arrive at a judgment based on the institutions case for compliance

Form a recommendation based on consensus

Off-Site Committee Discussion Notes for IE

• Representative sample okay for 3.3.1.1Look for persuasive narrative that provides rationale as to why these programs are sample

• SLO’s, measure, analyze, effectiveness• Look for process and pattern of I.E. cycle• Is okay to take them at their word on some

as long as their case is adequate and there are no gaps

Off-Site

See Compliance Certification FormNote * items as Fifth-Year Interim Report requirements

See Sample Off-Site Review Comments

See Faculty Credential Guidelines

On-Site Review

Evaluate QEP is primary focus of On-Site Committee

Follow up on concerns of Off-SiteFocus report

On-site interviews and documentation review

QEP On-Site Review—Part I

(CR 2.12) Has the institution developed an acceptable QEP that includes:

Institutional process for identifying key issues emerging from institutional assessment

A focus on learning outcomes and/or the environment supporting student learning?

QEP On-Site Review—Part II

(3.3.2) Has the institution demonstrated that it has:

Institutional capability to initiate, implement, and complete the QEP

Evidence of broad-based involvement of constituency

Goals for the QEP

A plan for assessing the achievement of the goals?

Fifth-Year Interim Report

* items on Compliance Certification document viewed earlier

QEP Impact ReportSee Fifth-Year Interim Evaluator Form

QEP Tips for Colleges

Track progress regularly

Use assessment to guide and adjust implementation

Consult w/ SACSCOC VP when needed

Creatively address challenges and keep moving forward

Embrace the opportunity– Quotes of Crystal Baird at July 17, 2011 SACSCOC Mtg

Questions?