NEW PROCEDURES FOR SACS REAFFIRMATION

1
NEW PROCEDURES FOR SACS REAFFIRMATION

• Presented to UT System Faculty Advisory Council
• Neal E. Armstrong
• Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs, UT Austin
• March 4, 2005

2
New SACS Criteria

• Development
• 1998 - SACS began revising accreditation
  requirements, processes, policies, and procedures
  
• 2001 New criteria adopted in December to
  replace previous 462 must statements
• 2004 - Series of pilot visits (Texas AM)
• 2005 First visits under new criteria (NC State,
  Univ So FL, U Alabama, )

3
New SACS Criteria

• Reaffirmation decisions based on institutions
  compliance with
• Principles of Reaffirmation defined as
  integrity and commitment to quality enhancement
• Core Requirements (12)
• Expectation is compliance
• Explanation needed if not
• 12th Requirement is Quality Enhancement Plan

4
New SACS Criteria

• Comprehensive Standards (53)
• Expectation is compliance
• Partial compliance develop plan for achieving
  compliance
• Non-compliance explanation and plan
• Key Standards
• 3.3 Institutional Effectiveness
• 3.4 Educational Programs All
• 3.5 Educational Programs Undergraduate
• 3.7 Faculty Credentials

5
New SACS Criteria

• Federal Requirements (8)
• Establishes eligibility for participation under
  Title IV of the 1998 Higher Education Amendments
  and other federal programs
• Compliance expected

6
Peer Review Process

• Two documents submitted
• Compliance Certification
• Submitted in September
• Reviewed by Off-Site Team in November
• Results conveyed to institution for comment
• On-Site Team visits during the following March
  April
• Advice regarding QEP
• Follow-up on remaining questions
• Quality Enhancement Plan
• Submitted soon after Compliance Certification

7
Quality Enhancement Plan

• Focus
• Should address one or more issues that contribute
  to institutional improvement
• Demonstrates that plan is part of ongoing
  planning and evaluation process
• Format
• Be focused, succinct, and limited in length (75
  pages text, 25 pages support doc)

8
Schedule
Commission on Colleges Review
On-site Peer Review
Response to Off-site Review
Quality Enhancement Plan
Off-site Peer Review
Compliance Certification
Leadership Teams
5-yr Rpt
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2003
Stage 1 Preliminary Planning
Stage 2 Implement Leadership Teams
Stage 3 Conduct the Pre-Audit
Stage 4 Prepare the Certification of Compliance
Stage 5 Develop the Quality Enhancement Plan
Stage 6 Planning for and Receiving the On-Site
Team
Stage 7 Preparing for Review and Action by the
COC
Stage 8 Follow-up Reports if Needed
9
Key Comprehensive Standards

• 3.3 Institutional Effectiveness
• 3.3.1 The institution identifies expected
  outcomes for its educational programs and its
  administrative support services assesses whether
  it achieves these outcomes and provides evidence
  of improvement based on analysis of those
  results.
• This is outcomes-based assessment
• Intensity of activity to show compliance not
  clear at this point

10
Key Comprehensive Standards

• 3.4 Educational Programs All Educational
  Programs (included all on-campus, off-campus, and
  distance learning programs and coursework)
• 3.4.1 The Institution demonstrates that each
  educational program for which credit is awarded
  (a) is approved by the faculty and the
  administration, and (b) establishes and evaluates
  program and learning outcomes.

11
Key Comprehensive Standards

• 3.5 Educational Programs Undergraduate Programs
• 3.5.1 The institution identifies college-level
  competencies within the general education core
  and provides evidence that graduates have
  attained those competencies.
• Example of competencies on pp. 12-13 of UT Austin
  2004-06 Undergraduate Catalog

12
Degree Program Development
Program Outcomes?
Curriculum
Program Educational Objectives or Learning
Objectives (SACS Outcomes?)
Courses in Major (w/ Learning Outcomes?)
Core Curriculum
General Education Outcomes College-level
competencies?
13
Key Comprehensive Standards

• 3.7 Faculty
• 3.7.1 The institution employs competent faculty
  members qualified to accomplish the mission and
  goals of the institution. When determining
  acceptable qualifications the institution is
  responsible for justifying and documenting the
  qualifications of its faculty.
• What documentation is required is not spelled
  out, but likely to be scrutinized
• Decide on acceptable risk and document accordingly

14
Resources

• SACS COC. 2001. The Principles of Accreditation
  Foundations for Quality Enhancement
• SACS COC. 2004. Handbook for Reaffirmation of
  Accreditation
• SACS COC. 2003. Handbook for Review Committees
• SACS COC. 1996. Resource Manual on Institutional
  Effectiveness

15
Resources

• SACS COC Annual Conferences December
• Workshops, conferences, etc. on outcomes-based
  assessment
• SACS Evaluators
• Know and consult with one
• Be one

16
Recommendations

• Start early dont wait until the official start
  of your reaffirmation
• Outcomes-based assessment takes time to learn,
  implement, and develop longitudinal data
• Significant work involved by
• Leadership to prepare documentation
• Faculty at program level to establish outcomes
  and carryout program assessment
• Staff to provide technical and logistical support
• Consider doing a Pre-Audit

17
Recommendations

• Take advantage of resources
• SACS Handbooks and web-based resources
• SACS annual conference and others where program
  assessment is covered
• SACS Staff Contact (Associate Executive Director)
• Other institutions going through reaffirmation
• Remember that
• Criteria are evolving stay on top of changes
• SACS Staff and Review Teams are becoming more
  familiar with criteria take advantage of
  resources and watch the web-site
  (www.sacscoc.org)
• Understanding terminology is important

18
Contact
Neal E. Armstrong Vice Provost for Faculty
Affairs Office of the Executive Vice President
and Provost MAI 201 1 University Station
G1000 Austin, TX 78712-0538 [phone] Email
neal_armstrong_at_mail.utexas.edu Web URL
www.utexas.edu/provost/