ALIGNING SACS PREPARATION AND PLANNING AT UT AUSTIN

1
ALIGNING SACS PREPARATION AND PLANNING AT UT
AUSTIN

• Neal E Armstrong
• Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs and SACS
  Accreditation Liaison
• The University of Texas at Austin
• Presented at the UT System Workshop
• Aligning Institutional Planning and Preparation
  for SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation
• October 25, 2005

2
SACS CRITERIA KEY ELEMENTS

• Mission - accreditation provides an assessment
  of an institutions effectiveness in the
  fulfillment of its mission
• Quality Enhancement the concept of quality
  enhancement is at the heart of the Commissions
  philosophy of accreditation

3
CRITERION 2.5

• Planning and Evaluation must be
• Ongoing (not just once each accreditation period)
• Integrated (academic, support services,
  facilities, finances)
• Institution-wide (academic units, administrative
  units)
• Research-based
• Incorporates systematic review of programs and
  services
• Results in demonstrable continuous improvement
• Demonstrates that institution is effectively
  accomplishing its mission

Elements of SACS/COC CR 2.5
4
ASPECTS OF CR 2.5

• Purpose is to assure that institution has
  appropriate approach to effectiveness that
  supports its mission
• Commitment to continuous improvement at the heart
  of ongoing planning and evaluation process
• Includes review of mission and effectiveness,
  commitment of leadership to integrate planning
  and continuous improvement, and its approach to
  documenting the evidence of its process

From SACS/COC Resource Manual (2005)
5
PLANNING LITERATURE
SACS/COC Resource Manual (1996)
Develop Institutional Purpose Statement
Develop Procedures to Determine Goal Achievement
Use of Evaluation Results to Improve Educational
Programs, Services and Operations
Formulate Educational Goals
Penn State (Planning Institutional Assessment
Office)
How Will We Know When We Get There? (performance
indicators that align mission, vision, and goals
to measure outcomes)
Where are we now? (current state, future trends,
stakeholder needs)
Where Should We Be in the Future? (mission,
vision, goals)
How Do We Get There? (process improvement, action
plans to close gaps)
How Far Do We Have To Go? (gap analysis)
6
ACADEMIC UNIT PLANNING
External Inputs
Internal Inputs
System
University Compact
THECB Accountability System Metrics
Closing the Gaps Metrics Core
Curriculum Commission of 125 Capital Campaign
Mission, Strategic Plan, Presidential Strategic
Themes, Task Forces Administrative Unit
Outcomes-Based Assessment
University
School/College Compacts
Mission Strategic Plan Past Ongoing
Initiatives Academic Unit Administrative Unit
Outcomes-Based Assessment
Compact Metrics Translation of University-level
goals to school/college level
College
Internal Planning Process
Translation of college-level goals to
departmental level PBIS Metrics External Program
Accreditations Reviews
Mission Strategic Plans Academic Unit
Outcomes-Based Assessment
Department
Means not now required
7
COLLEGE COMPACTS
Compact Contents
Analysis Contribution to University goals
Goals Aspirations Compact Metric
Performance Progress toward SACS Institutional
Effectiveness Ongoing Initiatives
Mission and Vision
Initiatives Objectives Schedule Resource
Needs Outcome measures
Summary Priority listing of Initiatives by
Schedule Outcomes Deliverables
Provosts Response Resource Allocation to Support
Programmatic Initiatives
8
DEPARTMENTAL PLANNING

• Being used in some departments
• Example approach
• What are trends and emerging areas in field?
• How well can we participate? Who are our
  competitors? Who are the challengers?
• What are departmental goals in view of trends?
• What actions to take now and in future?
• How can faculty hiring help achieve goals?
• What areas are thrust areas, which need
  enhancement, which are declining, and how does
  this affect faculty recruiting priorities?

9
SACS PREPARATIONS AT UT AUSTIN

• SACS/COC Criteria allocated to administrative
  staff for initial response
• Institutional Effectiveness
• Academic Unit and Administrative Unit workshops
  held October 18-21 to initiate development of
  outcomes-based assessment framework and progress
  on assessment results

10
ACADEMIC PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
Institutional Mission
Educational Objectives
Measurable Performance Criteria
Feedback for Continuous Improvement
After Gloria Rogers, ABET, Inc., Assessment for
Quality Assurance
11
ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT ASSESSMENT
Mission
Planning and Continuous Improvement
Goals
Objectives
Performance Outcomes (Metrics)
After Gloria Rogers, ABET, Inc.
12
CONCLUSIONS

• Mission and Institutional Effectiveness are at
  the heart of SACS/COC Criteria
• Institutional Effectiveness to be achieved at UT
  Austin through
• Compact process
• Academic unit and administrative unit
  outcome-based assessment programs
• Other planning/assessment initiatives

13
REFERENCES

• References
• Commission on Colleges. 1996. Resource Manual on
  Institutional Effectiveness. Southern
  Association of Colleges and Schools, Third
  Edition.
• Commission on Colleges. 2005. Resource Manual
  for the Principles of Accreditation Foundations
  for Quality Enhancement. Southern Association of
  Colleges and Schools.
• Massey, William F. 2003. Honoring the Trust
  Quality and Cost Containment in Higher Education.
  Anker Publishing Company, Inc., Boston, MA.
• Rowley, Daniel J., Herman D. Lujan, and Michael
  G. Dolence. 1997. Strategic Change in Colleges
  and Universities. Josey-Bass Publishers, New
  York, NY.
• The Pennsylvania State University. 2003.
  Integrating Planning, Assessment, and
  Improvement A Model. Office of Planning and
  Institutional Assessment, http//www.psu.edu/presi
  dent/pia/center/index.htm