SACS 101

1
SACS 101

• An overview of the
• SACS reaffirmation process
• ROLLINS COLLEGE
• August 2003

2
Goals of SACS 101

• YOU WILL LEARN ABOUT
• SACS new reaffirmation process
• Rollins plans to comply
• Specific roles and responsibilities
• The Reaffirmation Connection (RC) Online
  Submission Form

3
Goals of SACS 201

• YOU WILL LEARN ABOUT
• Determining compliance
• Developing supporting narrative and evidence
• Using the RC Online Form (practice)

4
Important SACS Concepts

• Institutional integrity
• Institutions commitment to ongoing quality
  enhancement
• Documented pattern of supporting evidence
• Institutions focus on student learning
• Professional judgment of peers

5
Accreditation Leadership Team (ALT)
President Rita Bornstein Provost Jim Malek

• Sharon Carrier (Accreditation Liaison/Provosts
  Office)
• David Carson (Finance)
• Donna Cohen (Library)
• Jim Eck (Institutional Research and Assessment)
• Lorrie Kyle (Presidents Office)
• Carol Lauer (Arts Sciences)
• Udeth Lugo (Hamilton Holt School)
• Steve Neilson (Student Affairs)
• Keith Whittingham (Crummer Graduate School)

6
ALTs Progress Report

• Sent representatives to SACS regional meeting,
  national conference, and orientation
• Established timeline and communication plan
• Developed and posted Web site and created an
  Access program as the infrastructure for our
  reaffirmation work
• Decided and communicated division, department,
  and staff assignments for the various SACS
  requirements
• Scheduled and communicated about SACS 101 and 201
  sessions for respondents and contributors

7
SACS Major Expectations

• 1. Compliance Certification
• The Compliance Certification should be cogent and
  focused on requirements.
• Institutional philosophy and mission should
  suggest compliance threshold levels benchmarking
  and pattern of evidence will be expected.
• 2. Quality Enhancement Plan
• The QEP is a stated course of action for
  institutional quality improvement, with special
  attention to student learning.

8
Compliance Certification

• Directions For each of the Core Requirements
  and Comprehensive Standards, check one and then
  add narrative in accord with directions in the
  category descriptions.

Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance
9
Compliance Category Description

• Compliance
• The institution concludes that it complies with
  all aspects of the requirement or standard and
  supports this judgment in a narrative response
  supported by documentation.

10
Partial Compliance Category Description

• Partial Compliance
• The institution judges that it complies with
  some but not all aspects of the requirement or
  standard and supports this judgment in a
  narrative response supported by documentation
  justifying its claim of partial compliance, an
  explanation for its partial non-compliance, and a
  detailed action plan for bringing the institution
  into compliance that includes a list of documents
  to be presented to support compliance and a date
  for completing the plan.

11
Non-Compliance Category Description

• Non-Compliance
• The institution determines that it does not
  comply with any aspect of the requirement or
  standard and provides a thorough explanation for
  its non-compliance and a detailed action plan for
  bringing the institution into compliance that
  includes a list of documents to be presented to
  support compliance and a date for completion of
  the plan.

12
Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)

• a significant component of the reaffirmation
  process
• a course of action for institutional improvement
  that addresses one or more issues that contribute
  to institutional quality, with special attention
  to student learning
• expected to engage the wider academic community
• complements the institutions ongoing
  integrated, institution-wide planning and
  evaluation processes

13
Guiding SACS Document

• Principles of Accreditation
• Foundations for Quality Enhancement

Section I Principles and Philosophy of
Accreditation Section II Core
Requirements Section III Comprehensive
Standards Section IV Federal Mandates
14
(No Transcript)
15
Assumptions Principles of Accreditation
16
(No Transcript)
17
Assignmentsfor Compliance Certification

• Primary Has ultimate responsibility for the
  SACS requirement.
• Secondary Is responsible for the represented
  unit/division's role in complying with the SACS
  requirement.
• Respondent Under the direction of the
  secondary, is responsible for the represented
  unit/division's response for the SACS
  requirement.
• Contributor Contributes accurate, thorough, and
  timely information to the primaries, secondaries,
  or respondents.

18
Respondents

• YOUR ROLE AS A RESPONDENT
• Seek instruction from secondary regarding
  response and any compliance gaps.
• With secondarys guidance, incorporate compliance
  strategies and supporting evidence into response.
• Communicate with contributor(s) regarding
  information to include in the response.
• Attend the "SACS 101" and "SACS 201" training
  sessions (total of 3 hours).

19
Respondents

• YOUR ROLE AS A RESPONDENT (continued)
• Compose response, to include
• determination of compliance or partial
  compliance
• narrative explaining the rationale for
  determination
• narrative listing evidence and describing how it
  supports determination also, if in partial
  compliance, an action plan for compliance by
  January 2005 and
• Document Web location (URL links) or, in rare
  cases, physical location (with reason for
  exception).
• Submit online response for review and approval
  well before the response due date.
• Respond to additional requests from ALT.

20
Contributors

• YOUR ROLE AS A CONTRIBUTOR
• Seek instruction and guidance from the
  respondent, as needed.
• Provide information to respondent well before the
  response due date.
• Attend the "SACS 101" and "SACS 201" training
  sessions (total of 3 hours).
• Respond to additional requests from ALT.

21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
Steps in the Review Process

• 1. Compliance Certification
• Rollins submits Compliance Certification (CC).
• SACS Off-Site Committee reviews Rollins CC.
• This Committee forwards its preliminary
  findings
• to the SACS Committee that makes a site
  visit.
• 2. Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)
• Rollins submits Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP).
• SACS On-Site Committee visits Rollins.
• SACS Commission on Colleges reviews findings
  and
• Rollins response and makes decisions.

28
Rollins Reaffirmation Timeline

• Spring-Summer 2003 ALT communicates assignments
  of SACS compliance requirements.
• Spring-Fall 2003 Rollins addresses compliance
  gaps ALT hosts SACS 101 and 201 information
  sessions.
• Fall 2003-Spring 2004 Respondents submit online
  compliance determination, narrative, and
  evidence secondaries and primaries review and
  approve by designated dates ALT
  reviews/integrates responses.

29
Rollins Reaffirmation Timeline

• Fall 2003-Fall 2004 Rollins discusses/develops
  QEP.
• Fall (Aug.) 2004 Rollins submits Compliance
  Certification, which includes QEP proposal.
• Fall (Nov.) 2004 SACS Off-Site Committee
  reviews Rollins Compliance Certification.
• Spring (Jan.) 2005 Rollins submits QEP to SACS.
• Spring (March/April) 2005 On-Site Committee
  visits Rollins, focuses on any compliance gaps
  and QEP.

30
SACS 101
Questions Answers

• ROLLINS COLLEGE